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.
Max
Is DAGW one step worse than CAGW? Google thinks I’m looking for ‘dawg’.. :-)
JamesP
Its gone way past the time when it was merely “Dangerous” to the much higher level of ‘catastrophic’. The next level is ICAGW. ‘Irreversible catastrophic climate change.’ Mind you the way Peter speaks he seems to think we’re already there.
tonyb
JamesP
TonyB is right. Now that it has cooled for several years, the IPCC has blown its credibility in the eyes of the general public and the whole AGW story has begun to lose its luster, it is time to “raise the ante” to keep the gullible masses frightened (and eager to submit to a draconian carbon tax).
“Alarming” is passé.
“Dangerous” is not good enough. Nor is “disastrous”.
So let’s switch to “catastrophic” or maybe even “cataclysmic”
However, when I google “CAGW” I get:
And finally (way down on the list):
So the “brand name” is already taken. This is not good. The movement needs a more unique and frightening “brand name” – especially now that it is not warming.
“Catastrophic Climate Change” sounds good at first, but it calls attention to the fact that climate has always changed, as every school child knows.
How about “Self-imposed Climatic Annihilation of Mankind”, or “SCAM”?
Should do the trick.
Max
Its probably not worth trying to convince you that the IPCC are in fact a scientific organisation.
So what about the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences? They are scientific organisations, right?
So what are the differences between what these groups are saying?
If there are any differences, they aren’t that much. Or maybe you disagree?
Its curious that you still feel that the AGW issue is a political beat-up. I’d say nearly all politicians are inclined to put the whole issue into the “too hard” basket. They don’t want it. They don’t know how to cope.
If they need to raise taxes they do know how to do that. Add 5% to income tax, 3% to VAT etc. They’ve being doing it for years. They don’t want climate scientists to be involved in the process. Why would they?
Here is another video of questionable taste for your amusement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_wMhtuzQKE
I’m not sure about spitting in the coffee. I’d say that a long scratch along the bodywork with a screwdriver would be a more effective deterrent :-)
Max,
Coming back to Roy Spencer and feedbacks, here is an extract from his blog article:
The Importance of Convective Cooling Versus Greenhouse Warming
I sometimes get e-mails asking why I don’t mention convection as a cooling mechanism in the context of global warming. Folks, I used to be virtually the only one speaking out on the subject. For years I harped on this issue.
The reason why I have been recently defending the basic physics of the greenhouse effect is because I think the credibility of those who claim that the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere cannot be increased (or doesn’t even exist) is compromised when they object to something that – as far as I have seen – has no alternative explanation.
I get the impression from this, and a number of other snippets that he has a fascination for cloud feedbacks and water vapour, above all else, maybe because they are so challenging to analyse. I also have a feeling that he is walking a tightrope in expressing his views, in order not to get too offside with the consensus view. After all, even Andrew Dessler has referred to him as a credible climate scientist.
Returning to his paper hypothesising that the PDO is caused primarily by varying cloud cover; In order to get a better fit, he dextorously “adds” increasing CO2. However, it seems to me, that this is somewhat over simplified. For instance, increasing UHI could also be invoked in much the same way. (and without the difficult conversion and weighting between temperatures and forcing power). He also suspects negative feedbacks from clouds, but that is not included in his simple PDO model. There is also the negative “evapotranspiration feedback” issue, which he has agreed is important, but he doesn’t seem to want to go there per his last Email reply. I’ve Emailed him again asking why no one seems to want to discuss it despite that he agrees that it is important.
Incidentally, I’ve just found that Richard Lindzen gives Evapotranspiration as 52% of the three sources of heat loss from the surface. (Trenberth = 46%)
Do you mean the National Academy of Sciences that claimed that the world was headed for a global ice age a few years back?
That National Academy of Sciences?
Here’s another interesting bit of advertising created by the Warmists…………
Funny group……….
This one I like.
I envious that I didn’t come up with a scam like global warming to get girls naked……(I did, years ago……much before Mrs. Brute)……..but I digress……
Reminds me of the time in High School when I got into trouble for suggesting that the cheerleaders offer a wet tee shirt contest to raise money for the school football team…….the principal called me a pervert……what a prude…….
Planet Green Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1qAIK9pfTA
Brute,
“……the National Academy of Sciences that claimed that the world was headed for a global ice age a few years back?”
I don’t believe they did claim this.
Do you have a credible reference?
Peter #2061 said in reply to Brute;
“……the National Academy of Sciences that claimed that the world was headed for a global ice age a few years back?”
I don’t believe they did claim this.
Do you have a credible reference?”
As if anyone here on this blog needs any further proof that you don’t read the links you are given if they conflict with your deeply ingrained political and climatic views we have it with your statement
See my #2034 which I have referenced you twice in the last couple of days and at other times here in the past.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Read Page 28. To get to page 28 it would be useful if you would read the pages along the way as they give a great deal of information on the widespread belief in global cooling and the actions taken to deal with it. The climatic books at the time-here again I have referenced you-were again full of similar material.
This is a document produced by the National Academy of Sciences
http://www.agu.org/fl/ref.xsql?doi=10.1029/RG017i007p01799
It lists some of the organisations who wrote a variety of plans at the time that fed in to the first National Climatic Research plan (1979) which was itself the genesis for a variety of new agencies now involved in global warming
This is a document written by NOAA describing the process by which the National Climatic Research plan and the various agencies came into being, complete with graph showing
the cooling trend (ironically by Jones and Wigley) Jones-under the tutelage of Hubert Lamb seemed to believe in it at the time.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:pkVqIoB3kE4J:www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf+national+climatic+research+plan+1974&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgpn5twvxQxz9qiDZxmHzemG2XbFHSOf9X1Rz8NnI4dONhoQj4MiTTUbHO24wfVXOQijAYSWDMGlHdoi0OXht4-9yZvj4j91Ld4Nsx2W15q8nG3d2h7g4Xlqx7703duhGiFZKQa&sig=AHIEtbQA1Ly7TO_UdirY5VeyUT6DW88OFQ
Supposedly credible people from supposedly credible organisations were saying the opposite of what they are now saying back in the early seventies.
You can spin this how you want but those are the cold hard facts.
tonyb
TonyB,
This looks like more CIA stuff. There also is a graph in the Google documents link which shows a warmer climate in the mid 20th century than in the 19th century. Is this the best you’ve got?
There was some speculation that the world was due to return to an ice age in the mid 20th century and slightly later. The cycle is periodic so of course in the natural course of events that would be bound to happen – in 80,000 years time!
Furthermore the US NAS may well have published some papers, or articles, from individuals who may have erroneously thought that the next ice was imminent. That’s not the NAS taking an official position – anymore than when they published Monckton’s piece a couple of years ago.
On 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?” in the journal Science. It shows that, even at that time, scientists were aware of both the cooling effect of particulates and the warming effect of CO2 concentrations.
Wally Broecker’ paper
PeterM
Was there a “global cooling scare” in the 1970s?
Yes (although it had not been carried to the same level of hysteria as the current “global warming scare”).
Was an enormous amount of taxpayer-funded money involved, as there is today behind the “global warming scare”?
No. “Global cooling” never became a “big business”, as “global warming” has done.
Were scientists predicting “global cooling” back in the 1970s?
The record shows that some were.
John Holdren writes that new ice age caused by human activity is likely (1971)
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
Climatologist Stephen Schneider warns on video (1978) that one of the greatest problems of the future could be human survival in the next Ice Age.
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/the-global-cooling-scare-revisited/
In a long interview Reid Bryson, another climatologist, describes possibility of a next ice age starting within next 100 to 9,000 years:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-community/dr-reid-bryson.aspx
Bryson states that human emissions of particulate matter are partly to blame for radical cooling observed in Arctic since late 1940s (1C cooling over period). He quotes Paul Ehrlich on overpopulation. This combined with a major cooling of the planet could “spell life or death to millions upon millions of people”. Steps to prepare for major climate shift: “population control, start using less, use less energy, especially fossil fuels”.
[Sounds like the same solutions now being proposed to avert disaster from global warming.]
These are just a few examples.
But “global cooling” was obviously never developed to the same level of global hysteria as “global warming” has been.
Nor did it ever become a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded business, with the prospect of trillions in new taxes for politicians to shuffle around and climatologists, industrialists, energy companies, lobby groups, money shufflers, hedge fund operators, etc. all lined up at the trough to get a piece of the action.
That is the big difference, as far as I can see, and this has obviously influenced the political leadership of scientific groups, such as NAS, to react differently, as you have pointed out.
Max
Max, Tony
D = diabolical?
Although I suppose it really ought to be ‘deniable’… :-)
PeterM
BTW the “science” supporting a “global cooling scare” in the 1970s was as questionable as the “science” supporting the current “global warming scare”.
Both had a few decades of physical observations (1945-1976 cooling and 1976-2000 warming) plus a theoretical explanation for this change.
There just wasn’t a taxpayer-funded political body dedicated to demonstrating scientific proof for the premise of disastrous “global cooling”, as there is now (IPCC).
Max
There was commercial exploitation of the global cooling scam (I can only attest to the United States) in the mid/late 70’s; however, nowhere near the level of today.
It was in vogue then to purchase wood burning stoves, solar collectors/photo voltaic cells, windmills, etc. My father, being an engineer, was keen on all these products and fell for the ruse. We built solar collectors in the cellar of our home for rooftop installation.
Detroit and other manufacturers built crappy underpowered tin can cars that lasted about 60,000 miles before melting into a heap (see the Yugo). Diesel fueled cars were also the rage.
President Jimmy Carter addressed the nation advising Americans to wear coats/sweaters indoors and had solar panels installed on the White House roof (as I see President Barrack Obumbler announced today).
WHITE HOUSE TO GO SOLAR!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101005/D9ILGAR04.html
Regarding solar power…………
I was asked by my boss to review a proposal to have photovoltaic’s installed on the rooftop of a 300,000 square foot office building. The solar installation company claimed that there was no “out of pocket costs” for the client.
I calculated the rooftop could support an 88 Kw system. The installation cost would be +/- $500,000.
A portion of the cost would be offset by a 30% federal tax credit ($150,000). A $33,000 “subsidy” would be offered by the local government. The local utility would add an additional $91,000 “subsidy” (Solar Renewable Energy Credits) leaving roughly $250,000 that would have to be paid for (either financed by the client or paid directly by the client)…………hardly “free” power.
The interesting portion was the $91,000.00 utility credit (SREC). It seems that two years ago, the local utility began assessing Capacity and Transmission Surcharges over and above the cost of the actual purchased power on the electric bills. Coincidentally, the yearly figure was +/- $84,000.00. Contacting the local utility provided no reasonable explanation for the additional surcharges. (Imagine pumping 10 gallons of gasoline at $1.00 per gallon and being charged $15.00 dollars by the cashier………)
This portion of the scam works like this…………
The local/state government, pressured by environmentalists, passed laws mandating that 20% of all power sold in the jurisdiction by the utility be generated by “renewable” energy sources.
The utility complained that they:
A. Didn’t have the money to pay for the equipment.
B. Didn’t have the land required to support the equipment.
The environmentalist recommended implementing the Capacity and Transmission Surcharges (commercial customers only), then offering to partially subsidize installation of the solar panels on building rooftops. The rooftop solar generating “power plant” will be included in the local utility’s generation portfolio.
The customers (my client) have already paid for the equipment costs! And, now will bear the burden of providing the location and maintenance of the utility’s photovoltaic power generation “plant”!
EUROPE: ‘Coldest winter in 1,000 years’ on its way…
http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html
New Zealand: 6 days of blizzards cause hundreds of thousands of lamb to die…
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/051010/nz___snow_hits_farmers_big_time_.aspx
Peter 2063
And you call US deniers!
The links I gave you cited numerous organisations who were writing numerous papers to go forward to the National Climatic stragegy. Brute and Max have also cited a variety of studies and first hand information.
It was believed by a large body of scientists that the world was cooling, with all the subsequent consequences. This was taken up in the scientific material of that time in the form of papers and books and the establishment odf a number of bodies to study the concerns.
Hubert Lamb cited a variety of these studies in his book (already mentioned) in which it is quite clear that he (probably the foremost climate expert of his time) believes that at the time of writing (the 1970;s) the evidence pointed to global cooling.
As Max says in his #2065 eventually the warming hypothesis came to the fore, but that can’t detract from the FACT-that for a time- cooling was held to be a very likely scenario.
Why don’t you just sometimes accept that you are driven by your beliefs rather than the facts when trying to counter material you disagree with?
Tonyb
Peter
The link to the paper you mention in 2064 is broken (or was that a test to see if I read it? :)
tonyb
Brute (2069)
This will make you laugh – or cry…
http://www.ashadegreener.co.uk/
James,
Seriously……..all joking aside. Be very careful if you are even considering this.
The only reason that I offer unsolicited advice is that I’ve run the numbers and solar power is many times more expensive than fossil fuel supplied electricity.
The carrot of “subsidies” is attractive but the money comes from somewhere……..in the case of my experience @ 2069 the same customer that is being offered the subsidy is, in reality, paying for the (supposed) “gift” from the utility.
James and Brute
In effect the power company ‘owns’ your roof and the panels. Could be awkward when you want to sell the house as the next owners would be landed with something they may not want.
Tonyb