This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
Are you considering water vapor a greenhouse gas Pete?
I’m just considering your question regarding whether or not mankind’s contribution to the planet’s CO2 budget has any effect……..just thinking in terms of the total greenhouse gas content and mankind’s contribution………
Just checking things here Pete…….the small sliver in this graph is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (.04%)………I don’t have the figure handy, but if I remember correctly, a very large portion of that .04% is emitted through decaying vegetation and other naturally occurring processes (think geothermal vents)…………I think Max or Bob FJ had a good number for the percentage of this .04% that was contributed by human kind………are you speaking about this percentage of the atmosphere that will ultimately doom the planet to a fiery inferno of hellish apocalypse?
Max,
There is of course debate and discussion between scientists on all kinds of issues. On AGW there is naturally the same debate and discussion between those who would argue that the warming will be on the high side of the accepted range and those who favour a lower estimate.
That is all fair enough. But its just not scientific to assert that humans are either insignificant or arrogant. Whether or not they are having an significant effect on the climate cannot be assumed in advance – the answer comes as a result of scientific evidence. Otherwise is just circular logic. Human beings may well be arrogant as you suggest but that has absolutely zero effect on the climate!
Your continued blathering about lack of empirical evidence is just nonsense. You seem to think that you have hit upon a form of words to which there is no answer. Its not as if we have 100 white mice is the lab and controlled experiments are possible by testing 50 in one way and 50 in another.
There is just one white mouse, so to speak, and its not a good idea to put its life at risk. But you know that. You know that what you are asking for, if not proof then something that pretty darned close to it, is just impossible. You’ve no real interest in engaging positively with the scientific community.
You yourself have described them as ” so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar climate research scam “.
You’ve dismissed their work as “junk science”.
So why are you so keen now to pretend that you are genuinely interested in the scientific evidence?
Brute,
Your argument is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is just so small that it must have an insignificant effect on the climate.
To test this out: Why not consult the people on your own side like Roy Spencer and Ian Plimer. Ian Plimer claims that without the 0.04% of C02, which I agree does sound very small, the Earth would be 18degC (32degF) colder than it actually is.
Most scientists would not put it quite that high, and in fact hestitate to give any figure at all, because it is not possible to separate out the individual contributions to the natural Greenhouse effect that Roy Spencer will assure you is 33 deg C (58 deg F). Everything, in the atmosphere, does tend to depend on everything else. You can’t just change one component and expect everything else to stay the same.
However, if you bear these figures in mind, then 3 deg C may seem quite a conservative estimate for the likely warming if CO2 levels are allowed to double from pre-industrial levels.
Monbiot has just posted his “last word” on Climategate at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/apr/08/hacked-emails-freedom-of-information
I feel it should be pointed out to him, and to Guardian readers, in as much detail as possible, just why there is still much to be said.
PeterM
You avoid empirical data to support your dangerous AGW premise, and that is quite understandable, as there is none.
So (228) you ask me instead (although we have covered this topic ad nauseam):
As a rational skeptic, I want to see empirical data as scientific evidence, before I accept your premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause for recent warming, or that it represents a serious potential threat.
Simple model simulations based on theoretical deliberations do not constitute empirical evidence, just as a passage out of the Bible based on the word of some very sage ancient chroniclers or prophets in support of creationism would also not qualify as empirical evidence.
Multi-model averages and assessed ranges to the year 2100 for surface warming, i.e. exaggerated 100-year predictions of future climate based on these model simulations and a myopic fixation on anthropogenic factors (i.e. CO2) while essentially ignoring known plus unknown natural factors, is what I would refer to as “junk science”. If you have another word for it, so be it. At any rate it is not empirical data.
To assume that we know everything there is to know about what makes our climate behave as it does, and that we can therefore make such predictions 100 years into the future is not only ignorant, it is arrogant (as I pointed out earlier). [And we all know what Einstein said about ignorance and arrogance.]
Empirical evidence is what I am interested in, Peter, not such “junk science”.
Keep trying.
Max
PeterM
You write Brute:
Peter, you know full well that this is a red herring.
Your much-quoted and beloved “scientific consensus” puts the theoretical natural CO2 greenhouse impact at between 5degC and 7degC out of the total theoretical 33degC, with most of the natural GH impact caused by water.
Spencer puts it in this range (as you also know full well).
Why do you keep harping on this obvious error in Plimer’s book?
Do you think this makes you look more intelligent or knowledgeable? It really just makes you look silly, Peter.
Max
Brute
Of the very thin sliver in your pie chart that represents CO2 (0.04% or 390 ppmv), an even thinner, almost imperceptible sliver (0.01% or 110 ppmv) is believed to be caused by human CO2 emissions.
There are some caveats here, though.
The “pre-industrial” value of 280 ppmv is not based on actual measurements, but rather on ice core data (which are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, compared to actual measurements, which TonyB can tell you do not necessarily confirm the 280 ppmv number).
The natural CO2 cycle is many times the increase attributed to human activity, and the question of CO2 half life in the atmosphere is also not resolved.
Around half of the CO2 emitted by humans does not show up in the atmospheric increase, and it is uncertain where this is “disappearing” (into the ocean where a large portion is consumed by phytoplankton, into increased aboveground photosynthesis, etc.)
But the “scientific consensus” (which Peter likes to invoke) tells us that the estimated increase atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.
But it remains a tiny, imperceptible sliver on your pie chart.
Max
Max,
A thought just occurred to me that I previously hadn’t considered…..
We should be INCREASING our CO2 output……and pump more carbon into the atmosphere so that plants/phytoplankton can consume the stuff, die off and mingle with the sediments to be compressed and become sources of fuel for future generations!
Just think of how future fossil fuel consumers will look back on this period in time and THANK us for being so thoughtful to provide them with all of the rich natural sources of gas/oil/coal!
Sometimes I amaze myself with the genius that is Brute®.
Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide
Livestock could actually be good for the environment according to a new study that found grazing cows or sheep can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7564682/Cows-absolved-of-causing-global-warming-with-nitrous-oxide.html
Max,
When quizzed you on the use of the words ‘arrogant’ and ‘arrogance’ in connection with AGW your reply was couched in the following example.
“Humankind [is so important that it] is the principal cause for global warming”
I’m still puzzled. Yes, as a member of the species I’d like to consider than humanity is important and has a future, so if there is evidence that we may be fouling our own nest then it needs to be investigated. But arrogance is quite irrelevant to the investigation.
I can only conclude that you were thinking quite irrationally at the time. Were you suffering from some delusion that humanity is somehow protected by a guardian angel? Were you thinking that the angel might be displeased if he thought that we were doubting his ability to look after us? Maybe you were worried that the angel thought we were getting above ourselves?
If so, perhaps you could be described as ‘Mad Max’. You try to present a more scientific image these days. Has Mad Max gone away, been cured, or is he just hidden under a thin veneer? Just as worried as ever that we might offend the angel?
PeterM
Your latest ramble has not added anything constructive to our discussion. It is just another re-worded re-hash of the same old dialectic rubbish.
I can well understand why you are avoiding discussing the “science” supporting your dangerous AGW premise, because it is apparent that it is not based on empirical data derived from actual physical observations in the real world, but rather simply from model simulations based on theoretical deliberations in the virtual world of computers.
I have a hard time understanding why you are, as you have admitted, “still puzzled”. Does this reveal a lack of perceptive powers?
In response to your question, I have given you a straight answer, explaining in great detail why I have come to the conclusion that humankind cannot change our climate. It makes no sense to return to this topic unless you want to challenge my stated reasoning.
So I believe it is time to end this discussion unless you want to revert to the “science”.
The other “blah-blah” is repetitive and uninteresting.
Max
Brute,
You say “It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not”
How do you arrive at these figures? I don’t just mean what the graph says. That seems to have water vapour way too high.
Incidentally the total GHE is 33 degrees C so according the best estimate of the IPCC a doubling of CO2 will increase it by around 10%.
Max,
Your initial ‘Mad Max’ posts on the subject of AGW contained no scientific arguments whatever.
Its stretching credibility much too far for you to now claim you’ve reached a rational view based totally on your understanding of the scientific evidence.
Maybe you and I aren’t so different after all Pete………..We both pray on bended knee…..(although you pray faithfully to your eco-politicians)……….another difference is that my God doesn’t confiscate my property at the barrel of a gun.
By the way Pete, I managed to provide for myself and my family without government assistance again today……..you should try it sometime…..it’s quite liberating.
In that case Pete, we can add that to the growing number of “best estimates” that the IPCC has gotten wrong.
PeterM
You opined to Brute:
Please provide details of how you arrive at this. Most estimates, including those by IPCC (Myhre at al,) put it at 1C, rather than 3C.
Max
Max
This value is estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report who have the audacity, bluster, braggadocio, brass, cheek, chutzpah, conceit, conceitedness, contemptuousness, crust, disdain, disdainfulness, ego, egotism, gall, haughtiness, hauteur, high-handedness, hubris, imperiousness, insolence, loftiness, nerve, ostentation, overbearance, pomposity, pompousness, presumption, pretension, pretentiousness, pride, priggishness, scornfulness, self-importance, self-love, smugness, superciliousness, swagger, vanity to claim that this figure is
“likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.”
Goodness knows what that Angel thinks of their arrogance. He’s even probably not to happy with you for having the arrogance to suggest that it might be even just one degree.
Brute,
Thank you for your recent posts. They were, in fact, useful.
I’ve previously described climate change deniers as having beliefs which are driven by economic interests, politics, religious zealotry, ideology, or philosophy, not by science.
I now realise that I need to add stupidity and ignorance to the list.
Very insightful Pete……and I’d agree.
I also happen to think that anyone that denies that the Earth’s climate doesn’t change periodically must have a screw loose……If you come across anyone that believes that the climate hasn’t changed in the last 4.5 billion years or that believes that the planet’s climate won’t change sometime in the future, please be certain to let us all know.
It’s particularly ludicrous considering all the evidence concerning the Ice Ages, The Younger Dryas, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Optimum, the Little Ice Age, etc……
PeterM
Yeah. Call it what you want, but the IPCC figure you cite is not based on empirical data derived from actual physical observations from the real world.
Instead it is based on model simulations based on theoretical deliberations conjured up by the virtual world of computers.
What’s worse, it’s based on a myopic fixation on anthropogenic climate forcing factors while essentially ignoring known natural factors and – worst of all -assuming we know all there is to know about possible unknown factors (i.e. poor scientific logic).
To assume that we know all that there is to know about what drives our planet’s climate is both ignorant and arrogant.
To make 100-year predictions based on this limited knowledge is ludicrous (substitute any of your adjectives).
It boils down to this, Peter: If you can show me that the IPCC 2xCO2 GHE of “2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C” is based on empirical data, please do so.
Otherwise, we’ll have to put it into the same category of fiction as the rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers, the broken hockey stick, the “jimmied” temperature records, the soon-to-be destroyed African crops, the phony sea level charts, etc., etc.
Max
PS It appears that you “believe” in “angels”. Since I have seen no empirical evidence demonstrating their existence, I remain rationally skeptical that they do, in fact, exist. Can you show me any empirical evidence for their existence?
PeterM
Hey. Following your exchange with Brute, the light just came on.
YOU are the “climate change denier”.
Like the discredited Michael Mann (plus a few other MM-groupies and the IPCC writers) you deny that there has been any change to our planet’s climate before mankind started burning fossil fuels.
I would fully agree with you that climate change deniers have beliefs which are not driven by science.
Politics?
Anti-capitalistic or anti-industrial views?
Guilt?
A doomsday cult?
Some other crackpot belief?
Who knows?
(Who cares?)
Max
Brute,
I’m pleasantly surprised that you’ve suggested a figure of 4.5 billion years for the Earth’s age. For many Americans its more like 4.5 thousand years old.
But, anyway what are you suggesting? That because the earth was uninhabitable 2 billion years ago, and may well be uninhabitable again in another billion years, then its Ok to let it become uninhabitable in the next 200 years?
Or, because sea levels were 5 metres higher a million years ago, and may well be 5 mtres higher in another million then its OK to let them be 5 metres higher in the next 200 years?
If you applied that logic to the house you’ve just built, you’d say it didn’t exist 20 years ago or whatever. It almost certainly won’t exist in another 500 years, so why worry if it gets eaten by termites the next 20 years?
Max,
You might want to take a look at:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf
And also note that no-one is saying that “we know all that there is to know about what drives our planet’s climate” However, just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing.
If you ever need treatment for a serious illness, don’t despair even though the medics “won’t know all that there is to know” about it. They are quite likely to know enough.
No computers and yes, based on empirical results Rahmstorf shows how the figure of 3.0degC, and how it could also be much higher, is derived. See pages 39-41 of:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf
Sarah Palin is another one who has pushed the “arrogant to think humans can change the climate line”.
Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature’s ways.MUST b good stewards of God’s earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature [Palin Tweet, 12/19/09]
Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng [Palin Tweet, 12/19/09]
Were you thinking along the same lines as SP? Why does she think that mankind cannot “alter” nature? Which is not the same thing as ‘overpowering’ nature.
Is she saying that we can’t increase the natural GH effect by 10%?
If so, what would be her philosophical basis? Any takers for that question?
I guess you might suggest that I ask her, but as you’ve used the same argument I’m sure you know the answer, even if you are unwilling to tell us.
The Earth was habitable 200 years ago, 2000 years ago……even 20,000 years ago. Odds are it’ll be habitable 20,000 years from now…………
You’re a pessimist Pete, that’s (one of) your problems.
You gullibly fall for every yarn and ploy put forth by a bunch of taxpayer funded, second rate Hippie activists who’ve never held a real job and decided to hang around with adolescents their entire adult lives.
You put your trust in what these perpetual teenagers assert, and to make matters worse, believe that politicians and government bureaucrats, colluding with these parasitic “scientists” , will actually deliver on “solutions” to this problem by way of picking your pocket………
The best advice I can give to you Pete is to stay far away from used car lots……………hold on tightly to your money, you’re gonna need every bit of it.