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.
Brute (plus JamesP and TonyB)
I like your commercial solar power deal in the DC area.
In the SF Bay area the story is similar for a domestic residence (I have a friend who just installed a photovoltaic solar system there). The state and feds picked up 50% of the installation costs (half of the estimated $25,000 for a 2,700 sq. ft. house) in direct subsidy and first year tax breaks and the local power company is forced to purchase “excess” power at the same price that it charges for power (whether the grid needs it or not).
[Whether or not the power company (PG+E) can count this as “feel good” self-generated “renewable energy”, I do not know, but the cost of this “buy-back” is obviously passed on to all customers.]
With all of these (taxpayer-funded) subsidies, the owner of the solar panels gets his investment back in around 6 years, assuming a 5% discounted cash flow. (A good deal.)
Without the investment subsidy it would take over 15 years to reach breakeven. (A marginal deal.)
Without the subsidy plus the forced buy-back at sales price of excess power by the power company it would take over 30 years. (A bad deal, since the panels are not expected to last that long.)
So you are right: it’s only a “good deal” if it is subsidized by the taxpayer and other power consumers.
But, what the hell, it helps save the planet, right?
Max
PS In Switzerland the subsidies are significantly lower (and the amount of average annual sunshine is also lower), so photovoltaic solar is less attractive than in California. Pure thermal solar (hot water and heating) is a different story here, but even it depends on subsidies to break even.
Brute
I like that PR blurb about President Obama putting in solar panels on the White House. Whatta guy!
The quote below tells it all:
OK. Who’s footing the bill for this? (Would Brute and other US taxpayers please raise their hands?)
And who is benefiting (beside “the planet”)?
Looks like it might be “Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch” (and associates).
A truly heartwarming story of “doing well by doing good.”
Everyone wins! (Well, almost – sorry, Brute.)
Max
Brute (2074)
I assure you that I’m not considering it! :-)
James,
Whew!
Yes, coal/oil/gas is much better.
Don’t you guys have all of that peat over there to burn through?
TonyB,
The link in 2064 works Ok for me.
Max,
Yes, as you now ackowledge, the speculation in some quarters about a possible early return of glacial conditions in the 60’s and early 70’s, is in no way comparable to the strong position the scientific community is now taking on the dangers of global warming. The colours have been well and truly nailed to the mast. The consensus is very strong that the build up of CO2 and other GHG’s will have serious long term effects on the climate and should be controlled.
If, but which seems very unlikely, in another 40 years time the National Academy of Sciences are indeed urging everyone to prepare for glacial conditions you will have every justification in saying that their position has flipped!
But the position now is quite consistent with what was being said 40 years old. However, the uncertainties over the relative effects of particulate pollution, causing cooling, and GHG build up, causing a warming, have been reduced. Its simply a case of science being refined and improved continuously as new information becomes available.
Re: Comment # 2081
Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”). Another common usage is changing the meaning of a word, by deliberately mixing the word’s true meaning with its exact opposite, for example saying: “I have a right to walk down the street, without being ogled at”. In this example, the word “right” is true when it refers to walking down the street, but it is then distorted to include other people’s behavior. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.
PeterM
You wrote (2081):
“Scientific community”? Whodat? (You would not be referring to the IPCC here, would you?)
Roy Spencer does not take a “strong position on the dangers of global warming”. Nor do John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, Nils-Axel Mörner, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Douglas Hoyt, Chris de Freitas, Vincent Gray, Warwick Hughes, Horst Mahlberg, Chris Landsea, Craig Idso, William Gray, Hugh Elsaesser, Timothy Ball, David Legates, James Koermer, Patrick Michaels, Anthony Lupo, Jan Veizer, Willie Soon, Richard Willson, Joanne Simpson, Sallie Baliunas, Tom Segalstad, Denis Rancourt, Chris Loehle, James O’Brien, Tim Patterson, Nathan Paldor, Nir Shaviv, Garth Paltridge and many other climate scientists.
So maybe you should change your statement to
Both TonyB and I have pointed out that there were several climate scientists, who were warning us of a (partially human-caused) return to LIA conditions (which has not yet happened, of course).
Now there are a group of well-funded scientists warning us of a (partially human caused) warming exceeding MWP conditions (which has also not yet happened).
So far for the basic similarities.
I pointed out the major differences between the two (2065/2067) and these are political and economic.
The billions of dollars of taxpayer money being spent to obtain “scientific proof” for the “dangerous AGW” postulation in order to justify carbon taxes in the amount of trillions of dollars for politicians to shuffle around were not around back in the 1960s and 1970s, when other concerns had higher political priority (and IPCC did not yet exist). [Brute points out some minor money-making scams related to the global cooling scare in the USA, but these were peanuts compared to the billions involved today.]
It’s all about money, Peter, not “science” (as you will have to admit, if you are honest).
Max
PeterM
You were “spot on” when you wrote:
IPCC AR4 WG1 came out in 2007, based on data that was published in 2006 or earlier.
One of the acknowledged weak spots in AR4 was uncertainty about the impact of clouds with warming:
This “uncertainty” did not stop IPCC from citing model studies, which ALL assumed strongly POSITIVE feedback from clouds, strong enough to cause 1.3C out of the estimated 3.2C temperature impact of doubling CO2.
Since IPCC issued this report there have been new studies based on actual physical observations (rather than simply model simulations), which show that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative with warming (rather than strongly positive as was previously assumed by the models).
This results in a change of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from 3.2C to around 0.6C.
In other words (as you say) we have a direct case of “science being refined and improved continuously as new information becomes available”.
This “new information” tells us that a doubling of CO2 (as might be expected by year 2100 compared to pre-industrial values) would result in 0.6C warming, of which we have already experienced roughly 50% to date, leaving another 0.3C.
IOW (as you say) IPCC AR4 is out-of-date and its projections for the future have been made obsolete by “new information” that has “become available” since it was issued.
This is a clear “case of science being refined and improved continuously”, right?
Rejoice, Peter!
Max
PeterM
I have not stated that the NAS position on global cooling or global warming has “flipped” as you suggest (2081). Whether it will “flip” in the future, is anyone’s guess. I would expect that it should reflect the latest stand of science (as modulated by political and economic factors, of course).
This “position” is of mild interest to me, but that’s all, since I know how politics and economics get intertwined with “official positions” of such groups. This can be seen by the cautious backpedaling now being seen at the Royal Academy as the “politics” of supporting the IPCC stand are becoming shakier.
Max
Max,
I notice that you didn’t want to answer my question on whether the NAS was a scientific body after you’d confidently dismissed the IPCC as not being one!
Why was that I wonder?
You say the IPCC are out of date? OK. Maybe we should look look to organistations like the NAS to fill for them in the meantime while we are waiting for a new report.
What do they have to say? Things do change so quickly in the scientific world that no sooner has anyone said anything, that people like yourself are shouting “out of date!” Is July 2010 too long ago for you? Has new evidence since emerged to render this statement obsolete?
“Warming that occurs in response to a given increase in the CO2 concentration is only about half the total warming that will ultimately occur. For example, if the CO2 concentration stabilizes at 550 ppmv, the Earth would warm about 1.6 C on the way to that level; but even after the CO2 level stabilizes, the warming would continue to grow in the following decades and centuries, reaching a best-estimate global “equilibrium” warming of about 3 C (5.4 F).”
Oh dear. But, never mind, they are talking about at least the end of this century and that statement is bound to be out-of-date by then isn’t it?
PeterM
Do not expect answers to silly questions (2086).
The IPCC IS NOT a scientific body.
The CIA IS NOT a scientific body.
The NAS IS a scientific body.
The IPCC AR4 report contained references to many studies up to mid 2006.
Subsequent studies have made some of the findings and projections of IPCC obsolete.
Arguably one of the most important shortcomings of the AR4 report is the large uncertainty regarding cloud feedbacks. This large uncertainty was specifically conceded in the AR4 SPM report.
Despite this uncertainty, IPCC referred to model simulations, which ALL assumed a strongly positive cloud feedback, resulting in a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity averaging 3.2C.
Actual physical observations on cloud feedbacks by Spencer et al. went a long way toward clearing up this large uncertainty; they showed that the net cloud feedback is strongly negative (rather than positive), so that the 2xCO2 CS is below 1C and probably closer to 0.6C.
A later study by Lindzen and Choi confirms the net negative feedback, arriving at an even lower 2xCO2 CS between 0.4 and 0.5C. Spencer has since reviewed this study with the comment that 0.6C is probably a better estimate.
Whether the political leadership of NAS has gotten up-to-date on these later developments is unknown to me. If so, it should have also concluded that AGW is not a serious potential problem. But if they are having political difficulties with the latest post-AR4 findings, so be it.
I am not dependent on the political leadership of NAS (or RS) to tell me whether or not AGW represents a serious potential problem. I can read the latest studies out there and make up my own mind.
After all, had I believed the scientific organizations at the time Alfred Wegener developed his theory of continental drift, I would have erroneously concluded that he was wrong.
As Wiki tells us:
Check things out for yourself, Peter, by looking for “evidence from empirical data” (the “scientific process” of rational skepticism) rather than simply accepting “evidence from authority”.
Max
TonyB
Yes. Peter has backed off on his claim that no climate scientists warned of global cooling in the 1970s, and has now deflected the conversation to the current stand of the NAS on AGW (a rather typical Peter side-step to a fairly meaningless discussion, as far as I am concerned).
Then he cites a statement from NAS (allegedly from 2010) as if this was a “latest scientific finding” instead of simply a rehash by the NAS political leadership of what IPCC wrote back in early 2007 (based on 2006 data).
Duh!
Max
I’ve seen figures showing that a minority of scientists were suggesting a future cooling in the 60’s and 70’s. The majority were either suggesting a future warming or were non-committal.
The question, at the time, was whether the cooling effects of particulate pollution would be greater than the warming effects of CO2 and other GHG emissions in the longer term. The evidence was that it had been, slightly, in the previous two or three decades
That question has now been answered. Particulate pollution is shorter lived than CO2 emissions so will not be the greater effect. Additionally, the technology of particulate, or smoke, control has improved, whereas there has been virtually no progress in limiting GHG emissions.
Max,
Just repeating the phrase the IPCC is not a scientific body doesn’t make it correct. You may not agree with what they say and yes sometimes they, like other scientists (on the plate tectonics question for example) have got it wrong.
But, at least you agree that the National Academy of Sciences are true to their name. In 50 or 100 years time there may be something else that turns out to have been equally wrong. Climate change? You wish! Yes, its possible, but who knows what that will be? It could even be AIDs and HIV , or the theory of Evolution :-)
However, if you want to be scientific, you don’t have a better option than going with the consensus at the moment. Unless, of course, you happen to right in the thick of the research, like Wegener was in the 20’s, and then you might be in a position to know what you are talking about if you take a different line.
PeterM
You stated (to Brute) that the CIA is not a scientific body.
I agreed and pointed out to you that the IPCC is also not a scientific body.
Both are political bodies that gather scientific information to make reports.
Both may get it right some times and may get it wrong other times, as I pointed out.
Those are the facts, Peter, whether you happen to agree with them or not.
We have beaten the topic of NAS to death. This is a scientific body, unlike IPCC and CIA.
“Going with the consensus” is not the only option at all, Peter, regardless of what you write. The many climate scientists I cited are certainly not “going with the consensus”, and, besides (as the Wegener example showed) “consensus” per se is meaningless in science.
We have beaten this topic to death, as well.
Let’s move on to something else here. You are getting repetitive without really saying anything.
Max
PeterM
The 1960s and 1970s were a different time than today, and the primary difference between the “global cooling” scare of that time and the “global warming” scare of today is economic and political, as pointed out.
‘Nuff said.
Max
The difference between the 60 and 70s and now is that there has been 40 years extra climatic data and 40 years of scientific and technological progress.
So yes the effect of increased GHG’s in the atmosphere is now better understood than it was then. That’s it really. No conspiracy. No politics.
Around a year ago I posted a new study by Qing Bin Lui on the possible reasons as to why the ozone hole hadn’t reduced substantially in line with modelled predictions.
Qing Bin Lui believed there was a relationship to cosmic rays (and man made Cfc’s).
http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf
I’m not sure I saw his recent study from June 2010 given much publicity but it gives a very plausible explanation as to how CFC’s-rather than Co2-was the cause of warming from 1950 to 2000.
Personally I remain doubtful that we fully know the cause. When asking the Max Planck institute and Cambridge University whether the ozone hole could always have existed and just couldn’t be measured prior to the 1950?s I was told this was ‘possible.’
Our knowledge of the atmosphere, sun and climate in general is at a far lower level than we believe. Does anyone have any comments on the finger being pointed at cfc’s instead of Co2?
tonyb
PeterM
“No politics” behind the current “dangerous AGW” scare (2093)?
Get serious , Peter. You cannot be that naive!
It’s ALL about politics!
Max
PeterM
Yes. I’d agree with you that we know more about our atmosphere today than 40 years ago (even though I’ve concluded – which most scientists would agree – that there is far more that we do not yet know than we really know).
What we do know (since Spencer et al.) is that the net feedback from clouds is NOT strongly positive with warming (i.e. causing more warming) as assumed by the IPCC model simulations, but strongly negative imstead.
This is good news, Peter, since it means that 2xCO2 CS is below 1C (probably closer to 0.6C) and our climate system is basically stable, rather than 3.2C, with a basically unstable climate system, as was assumed by IPCC prior to the Spencer observations on clouds.
This, in turn, means that the expected theoretical GH warming from CO2 increase to year 2100 is around 0.3 to 0.4C, rather than 1.5 to 3C (as assumed previously by IPCC).
So you are right.
We do know a bit more about our climate each year.
But our knowledge is still very limited, particularly when it comes to natural climate forcings. As IPCC has conceded, its “level of scientific knolwledge” of “natural forcing factors” is “low”. And, as the past decade has shown, these can more than overpower record high levels of atmospheric CO2.
So, in summary:
I agree with you that we know more about our climate than we did 40 (or even 4) years ago.
Among other more recent knowledge, we now know that our climate system is not basically unstable as a result of strongly positive net cloud feedbacks, but basically stable as a result of strongly negative net cloud feedbacks.
However, we still have a very low understanding of the causes and impact of natural forcing factors on our climate. It is a pity that essentially all of the billions going into taxpayer-funded climate research are going toward research into anthropogenic causes of climate change (to feed IPCC’s myopic fixation on its “dangerous AGW” story).
But I am optimistic that many of today’s unknowns will some day be solved despite this, and the whole “dangerous AGW” hysteria will slowly disappear, making room for some new “doomsday scare”.
Max
Max,
I’m not so sure………”Climate Science” has been hijacked by guys like Hansen who have subverted and distorted climate science. Much of the “science” that has been produced is inaccurate…………fabricated.
More than advancing science over the last 40 years, guys like Hansen have retarded progress filling the journals/record with false information and inaccurate data.
Max,
Its true that many people on the political right have a problem accepting the scientific consensus but, intrinsically, the physics of the enhanced GHE, caused by human emissions of CO2, CH4 etc is absolutely non-political.
Not all those on the political right are quite so blinkered however. Ed West asks:
“But why must a conservative oppose the idea of man-made climate change? I’m Right-wing and I believe in it, and so do many others of my tribe.”
Ed West’s article
Peter
I followed your link to the rather tedious Ed West and came across this highly qualified climate scientist who was referenced in the ensuing discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stilbs
His home page is here
http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~peter/
Which led to this summary of articles by experts who believe climate change is natural
http://www.itsthesunstupid.com/
which in turn led to this item on Wiki in which William Connely seems to be alive and well and still very active in shaping Wikipedia in his own image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIntergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Tonyb
PeterM
You wrote (2098):
The “consensus” is (by definition) “political” (“science” does not work by “consensus” but “politics” does).
“Science” works by the “scientific process”, whereby scientific hypotheses are validated or falsified based on empirical evidence derived from actual physical observations.
The physics of the GHE, per se, is apolitical (as you wrote).
This tells us that 2xCO2 should result in a theoretical GH warming of bit less than 1C.
If we believe the IPCC info from ice core data, atmospheric CO2 was around 280 ppm in pre-industrial 1750. Today it measures 390 ppm at Mauna Loa. It is anticipated to rise to 560 ppm by year 2100 (or 2x the 1750 level).
So we should see a bit less than 1C temperature rise from the GHE from pre-industrial 1750 to year 2100. Around half of the GH warming from CO2 should already have occurred (around 0.5C), leaving the other half projected to occur from today to year 2100.
That’s the “physics of enhanced GHE” in a nutshell, Peter.
All the rest is a “net positive feedbacks assumed by model simulations”, from which a hypothetical “sensitive climate system” is postulated, plus “hype” (which is, indeed, “politically driven”, in order to arouse the public fear to support the “political” agenda of taxing carbon).
These net positive feedbacks (and the resulting sensitive climate system) have been hypothesized, but have not been validated by empirical evidence based on actual physical observations, and (as I have pointed out previously) actually tend to be falsified by this empirical evidence: (a) warming atmosphere and ocean despite increasing CO2 and (b) physically observed strongly negative net feedback from clouds with warming.
So far, you have been unable (or unwilling) to refute this apparent falsification of a “sensitive” climate system caused by strongly positive net feedbacks.
The “science” has absolutely nothing to do with the “political right” or, as a matter of fact, with politics at all, but has everything to do with empirical evidence.
And that, in turn, does not support the “sensitive” climate system upon which the “dangerous AGW” premise (and hypothesis) is based.
Max