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.
Indeed it was the latter meaning of the word Dogma, which I meant. That is to say, A doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative, though I do agree that the AGW advocates have come to rely upon faith based, rather than empirical, so called “evidence”.
However I must take issue with the term “postulation”, because logically, a postulation is a declaration of something self-evident; whereas a “conjecture” is a reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
There is a nuance between the two. The AGW alarmist may believe that his “postulation” is in fact self-evident, but that does not make it true. In fact whatever the AGW alarmists sides may think, the evidence for AGW is incomplete, and so this is indeed a conjecture.
Axel Morris
Difference between “postulation” and “conjecture” noted (and accepted).
How about (more neutral) “suggestion” (to keep PeterM happy)?
Max
Max,
You surprise me by essentially agreeing with Axel Smith’s use of the term dogma. Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion or ideology, it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from. Religious examples are obvious enough. Examples of non-religious dogmas would be extreme Marxism, Trotskyism, or Maoism whose, again, more extreme followers will not accept any divergence from the ‘true’ path.
If science were based on dogma then Einstein’s work would never have been accepted. The Newtonian zealots would have complained that he was infallible and his equations shouldn’t be tampered with. There probably were a few people, scientists even, like that, a hundred years ago, but their opinions didn’t prevail in the long term.
Science is, essentially, humanities best effort to understand the world and the universe around us, and it does change as new evidence becomes available and with the application of reasoned thought. However, to some, the whole process just another pseudo-religion which is no more valid than any other.
There is really no point in discussing science with such people whether its on the topic of global warming or anything else. It’s a difficult lesson for scientists to learn. Their natural response when questioned, is to explain why scientists have come to the conclusion they have. For instance, many modern parents are totally convinced that any form of vaccinations are bad for their children, but there is no point in presenting evidence to the contrary. They won’t listen. I know – I have tried! They are totally impervious to any form of reasoned argument. To them, science is just another dogma. The term denialist is quite appropriate in these circumstances.
Now that’s not to say that every critic of modern medicine, or, indeed, every critic of modern day climate science is to be dismissed as a denialist. Most can be though, and it’s not difficult to spot the difference those who are genuine and those who aren’t.
Brute and Max, Re Dolphin brutality:
My recollection was that the Japanese do it because they believe it helps improve fish stocks, but I thought I’d Google on ‘Danish dolphin cull’, and found a long and interesting article in the Huffington Post. Apparently it is a very old indigenous custom for food and for “right of passage” for their youth. It is well worth a read, and it seems that things are greatly improving in terms of magnitude of the slaughter, together with reduced toxic brain damage etc
http://www.tonic.com/article/help-stop-the-faroe-island-dolphin-drive/
Max, (2399/p16) the second link within your cited Tokyo Times article gives some astonishing numbers of kills that make the Danish stuff seem relatively trivial.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20061101a3.html
PeterM
Thanks for your treatise on your personal thoughts on the meaning of the word “dogma”.
As I understand it (and I believe this is in agreement with Axel Morris), “dogma” can apply to either religious or political ideology, i.e. it can be in either case (as Axel wrote):
Axel points out that he used the word in the “political” sense.
I can accept that.
Can you?
Max
PeterM
We can get into a philosophical discussion of what “science” really is and what it is not (your 2403).
I do not believe such abstract discussions will get us any closer to establishing whether or not the current AGW craze is based on “true science” (as you apparently believe) or on politically (and economically) motivated “pseudo-science” and hype (as I have concluded).
More pertinent would be to discuss the specific scientific (or pseudo-scientific) claims being made in support of the “dangerous AGW” premise.
Have the hypotheses underlying these claims been corroborated based on empirical evidence following the scientific method or not?
Have they been subjected to and stood up to falsification attempts or not?
These are the scientific discussions I would like to enter with you here, but you have evaded them from the start.
Since you state that you are a scientist, this surprises me (also as an applied scientist, myself).
Are you avoiding this discussion because you fear that the scientific bases for your premise are not robust?
This is the only explanation I can imagine for your reluctance to discuss the specifics of the science supporting your belief on “dangerous AGW”.
Max
Max,
Yes Axel was using the word “dogma” in a political sense.
You’ve explained it well enough with your:
“The postulation that AGW is a serious potential threat, which requires immediate political action (i.e. global carbon taxes), is clearly a ‘political dogma’ being promoted by those politicians who want to get these taxes enforced.”
This is what I’ve been harping on about for several posts now. This idea is your motivation. Its a political motivation and not scientific. If you think that, what’s the point of talking, in detail, about the reasons which have led every scientific body, worldwide, to suggest that AGW is indeed a real problem?
Max, Reur 2391/p16, from your Cerberus quote:
I hesitated about saying this before, but here goes:
Well yes, it is difficult to draw a pie-chart of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere because it is so teeny-weeny, it being measured in PPM. However, in quantum theory, (as I understand it), that is a red herring. In the case of CO2 molecules, they gain energy by absorbing photons of light. However, it is not just the CO2 molecules that “get hotter”, it is all of the gas mixture, with different molecules within it whizzing around at different speeds or kinetic energy levels, under a bell curve distribution. The area under the curve is related to the gas temperature. How this happens is that there are constant collisions between the molecules of all species at an extremely fast rate, and thus kinetic energy is transferred from one to another in both directions.
In reverse, only the GHG’s are able to shed energy by emitting photons, (EMR), and this is done partly via them gaining energy from collisions with non emitting stuff like nitrogen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, the 7:00 am radio news mentioned that it had been the wettest October (so far) for 35 years. It may have finally stopped raining here at 1:30 pm, October 31, with flood warnings north east of me in the water catchment areas
Max,
You actually quote Cerberus as saying:
“I do not deny that, out of 35,800 molecules of air, mankind contributes just one of CO2.
I do not deny that for every 35,800 molecules of air there are only 33 molecules of CO2.”
But maybe he should deny it. Avogadro’s law states that equal volumes of a gas contains equal numbers of molecules. In other words, the number of molecules or atoms in a specific volume of gas is independent of their size or the molar mass of the gas.
So 390ppmv of CO2 means that 0.039% of the molecules in the atmosphere are CO2. Which works out at 14 molecules in 35800.
100ppmv out of 390ppmv is the increase attributed to human causes. Which is 25.6% of the total or about 3.5 molecules out of the 35800 mentioned. Though I’m not sure of the significance of this last number.
Yes we know all that and yes we still say that CO2 is an important GHG.
Max, further my 2408,
I forgot to mention that Quantum Theory describes that a tiny weenie trace gas such as CO2, can absorb long-wave EMR (photons of infrared light), but then effectively translate this energy via countless collisions into ALL the surrounding non IR absorbing molecules. From that consideration, it seems to me that a modest increase in concentration of CO2, should not result in a proportionate increase in heating of the total gas mixture, because it is driven substantially by translation into KE of molecular collisions, not the initial absorption of IR. This speculation is further supported by the admission by alarmists that there is a broad-span approximately reducing log relationship with increasing CO2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I notice that your friend Tempterrain (aka Peter Martin), has queried the numbers quoted in your citation of Cerberus. I had a quick Google sniff around, and so far, the closest I’ve found to the Cerberus stuff is this:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=666&Itemid=1
BTW Avogadro’s hypothesis has a number of limitations, including AOTBE.
However, in the process, I stumbled upon this much more interesting study:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
From which, here are two snippets:
Consequently, the IPCC’s and Solomon et al.’s (2009) non-realistic carbon cycle modelling and misconception of the way the geochemistry of CO2 works simply defy reality, and would make it impossible for breweries to make the carbonated beer or soda “pop” that many of us enjoy (Segalstad, 1998).
AND:
Knowledge of the correct timing of the whereabouts of CO2 in the air is essential to a correct understanding of the way nature works and the extent of anthropogenic modulation of, or impact upon, natural processes. Concerning the Earth’s carbon cycle, the anthropogenic contribution and its influence are so small and negligible that our resources would be much better spent on other real challenges that are facing mankind.
Erh, BTW, wasn’t it the IPCC’s co-chair Solomon that invented the cause of the ozone hole as being human CFC’s?
I notice in the NZ “climate science link” they claim 33 molecules of CO2 to 85,800 air molecules not 35,800. That’s a factor of 2.4 difference. It looks like someone can’t copy! What’s 50,000 air molecules anyway?
Divide 33 by 2.4 and we get 13.75. And what did I say? 14 !! Which was just rounding it up. So who said I wasn’t science educated :-) ??
Grovelling apologies are in order there I think!
But whereas that bit is now sorted, it still doesn’t explain how only 1 of those 33 molecules can be regarded to come from human sources.
Aren’t we all at least in agreement, except TonyB who doesn’t and probably can’t count :-), that CO2 levels have risen from 280ppmv in pre-industrial times, to about 390ppmv by now? That must mean that over a quarter of those molecules or at least 8 of them are caused by human action. Musn’t it? That’s not too hard to understand, is it?
I’m sure even Bob_FJ can manage that.
PeterM
Thanks for correction to Cerberus’ numbers on CO2 molecules.
As for groveling apology, take it up with Cerberus, not me.
His point is that CO2
a) is not a pollutant, but
b) a natural trace gas in our atmosphere,
c) which is essential to all life;
d) significantly higher concentrations than those of today would not be harmful to humans and
e) would be beneficial to crop and plant growth;
f) its concentration has been much higher in the past than today and
g) doubling its concentration would cause warming of a bit less than 1°C
These all seem like valid points to me. The first six points are incontrovertible. The seventh is based on an IPCC estimate (Myhre et al.).
Do you have a problem with any of them?
Now to the “numbers”
Annual human CO2 emissions (fossil fuels, deforestation, cement, etc.) have averaged around 30 GtCO2 over the past decade
The atmosphere has a total mass of 5,140,000 Gt
So these total annual human CO2 emissions represent a theoretical annual increase of atmospheric concentration of
1,000.000 * 30 / 5,140,000 = 5.84 ppm(mass) * 29 / 44 = 3.8 ppmv/year
Over the same period the measured atmospheric concentration has increased by 2.1 ppmv/year
This means that 2.1 / 3.8 = 55% of human emissions “stay” in atmosphere (with the rest either absorbed by the oceans or biosphere or disappearing into space)
Since 1850 humans have added about 100 ppmv to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, as you say.
This equals 3.6 molecules total in 35,800 (not 1 molecule) over these 160 years.
Over the past decade humans have added <0.1 molecules per 35,800 per year.
Since 1997 atmospheric CO2 has increased by 27 ppmv.
This would equal 1 molecule in 35,800 (over 13 years).
So it would take 13 years to reach Cerberus’ “1 molecule in 35,800”.
The “33 molecules in 35,800” represents 920 ppmv, or slightly less than the level we would expect to reach when all of our planet’s fossil fuel reserves have been used up (1,000 ppmv) some day in the distant future.
All “funny numbers” (as you say) – all they show is that the human CO2 contribution is small overall and that we should not worry about any GH warming it will cause.
Max
PeterM
Leaving the flawed science supporting the “dangerous AG” premise aside for now, you seem to question the validity of the statement below, which I made to Axel
With which part of this sentence do you disagree and on what basis?
Please try to be specific, Peter.
Max
PS BTW, I came to this conclusion after checking out the “scientific claims” of IPCC and finding several very specific errors and exaggerations, all of which go in the direction of making a fairly minor theoretical GH warming from human CO2 appear to be a postulated major future problem for our climate (these have been listed here in previous posts). So, a) since the political push to immediately impose a global tax on CO2 was not based on sound science backed by empirical data and b)since such a tax would obviously have no impact on our atmosphere (no tax ever did), I came to the conclusion that the motivation for this push was “dogmatic” rather than “scientific”.
In other words, as I have always said: “the scientific evidence must come first” – if not, it’s simply “dogma”.
Peter
85,800 x 0.00038 = 32.6, so the original estimate looks right to me. Or am I missing something..?
Bob_FJ
Thanks for link to Tom Segalstad paper on CO2 residence time in our atmosphere. All the studies he cites average somewhere around 7.5 years.
IPCC assumes a figure of 100+ years (~forever, for all practical purposes).
As far as the ability of added CO2 molecules to contribute to GH warming, I have seen studies showing that the absorption band of CO2 is limited, and that added molecules will have a decreasing GH effect, with the band eventually becoming saturated. I always assumed that the logarithmic GHG/temperature relationship takes care of this fact, but maybe there’s more to it, which I have not understood.
This paper refers to a study on the absorption of UV, visible and IR radiation by CO2 versus H2O.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
This shows that CO2 has three absorption bands at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, while H2O has several bands in the visible and IR range from 1 to 8 microns and then again above 20 microns. In other words, H2O is a much more effective absorber than CO2 (per molecule) and there are obviously many, many more H2O molecules in our atmosphere than CO2 molecules (between 2 and 4% versus 0.039%).
The observed fact that the atmospheric CO2 increase is only around half of the amount emitted by humans (which, itself, is only a tiny fraction of the entire planetary carbon cycle), leads me to believe that “conventional wisdom” on the CO2 cycle is still very limited and there is still an awful lot of guesswork out there on what is actually happening.
Max
James P,
Yes Cerberus managed to change 85,800 into 35,800 for some reason. So 33 molecules of CO2 is right for that number. See my 2411
But why one just one molecule from human sources? I’m saying it should be 8.
These numbers may seem insignificantly small, either way, at first glance, but small changes of a minor substance can create a huge change in the properties of the whole thing. Not just with atmospheric gases. For example, in semiconductors the addition of 0.001% of an impurity can change the electrical conductivity of the semiconductor by 10,000 times.
Max, You say “I came to this conclusion [its all a scam and a hoax -PM] after checking out the ‘scientific claims’ of IPCC and finding several very specific errors and exaggerations”
Yes you’ve said this before. The thing is that the evidence doesn’t support your claim. Your first blogs on the net say “its all a hoax”. Attempts at a scientific justification come later. You may be fooling yourself but no-one else.
PeterM
You wrote:
You added in the words [its all a scam and a hoax -PM]
The conclusion to which I came after checking out the science behind the claims was (as I wrote)
And it is fully correct, as I wrote, that I came to this conclusion
And you will have to admit that only I truly know how I came to this conclusion – you can only guess, but I KNOW.
It’s all very simple.
Max
PS I’m getting that “deja vu all over again” feeling, Peter. You continue to use the same silly waffle to avoid discussing the “science”. It’s getting boring, Peter, and your apparent real motive (i.e. fear that you can’t provide the empirical evidence to support your premise) is showing through to one and all. Admit it, Peter, and let’s end this discussion.
PeterM
Here comes another one of your silly and totally irrelevant “analogies” (to support your notion that a few molecules of CO2 are going to fry us all)”
Duh!
Adding 100 mg of sodium cyanide to a wonderful five-course gourmet meal turns it from a delight into a deadly experience
And if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn’t bump his a— every time he jumped.
But what’s that all got to do with it?
Nothing.
Bring empirical evidence based on actual physical observations to support your premise that AGW is a serious potential threat, not irrelevant analogies.
Max
PeterM
We seem to have gotten off on a side-track of teeny weeny differences between itsy bitsy numbers on CO2 concentrations in Ceberus’ post, but let’s get back to the main thrust, which I will repeat again:
I think that is the question here, Peter. Not whether or not his “molecules per 35,800” should have read “molecules per 85,800” (which has all already been addressed by James P, Bob_FJ and myself).
Do you disagree with any of the 7 points?
If so, on what basis?
Please try to be specific, and try to avoid the use of irrelevant analogies – just address the specific points, if you can.
Max
Max,
Well if you want to discuss some science – maybe you can tell me how the figure of just molecule of CO2 of 85,800 molecules of air was arrived at?
I’ve shown you why it should be 8. Who’s right?
Max,
Well you say you only you can know and I can only guess. Well thank to the internet and Google I can do a bit better than that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444340/Climate-change-envoys-carbon-footprint-30-times-British-average.html
Take a look at your comment posted on 29/3/2007. Now I hope I haven’t misrepresented your line of argument with the very brief precis of ‘its all a scam and a hoax’.
But I do notice that you didn’t say that you’d been looking through the latest IPCC assessment report and had found “very specific errors and exaggerations”? Or, maybe that bit was snipped by the Daily Mail moderator? That could be a plausible explanation, why don’t you stick to that? :-)
PeterM
Your question (2421) is whether there have been 1 or 8 molecules of “human CO2” per 35,800 molecules of air, I believe (Cerberus’ estimate versus yours).
My calculation shows that there were 3.6 molecules of added atmospheric CO2 per 35,800 molecules of air since 1850 (if we accept the IPCC estimates prior to 1958, which are based on notoriously inaccurate ice core data).
This is based on 100 ppm increase over this period (assuming, of coure, that this increase wascaused by humans).
So neither 1 molecule per 35,800 or 8 molecules per 35,800 are correct, according to my calculation (but Cerberus is a bit closer to the mark at 3.6 with 1 than you are with 8).
But, Peter, this is not a real discussion of the “science” behind the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
It is only discussion of (as I wrote earlier)
A more pertinent “scientific discussion” would concern what this “teeny weeny” increase seen to date (0.01%) of the “itsy bitsy” atmospheric CO2 concentration (0.029%) has done to our climate, as confirmed by empirical data, based on physical observations.
A second “scientific discussion” would involve the estimated climate impact a further “tiny little” increase (0.017%) of the present “itsy bitsy” atmospheric CO2 concentration (0.039%), as expected by year 2100, would have, again supported by empirical data, based on physical observations.
Are you ready to enter these “scientific discussions” with me, Peter?
Or are you afraid that these discussions might reveal that your “dangerous AGW” hypothesis is not supported by empirical data, and is therefore an “uncorroborated hypothesis”, in the scientific sense?
As they say, “put your money where your mouth is, Peter”.
Let’s discuss the “science”.
Max
manacker cited:
As I had stated peviously, I thought that this was rather better described as the dogma behind the Dangerous AGW conjecture. It is a conjecture, rather than an ordinary hypothesis.
A conjecture is a special type of hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or formating conclusions from incomplete evidence.
I might even revise my own revision of the word “science”, and indeed the word “Dangerous”,because now I am persuaded by contrary arguments in here, and the other thread, that in fact the phrase ought now to be amended to:
“The Hokum Dogma behind the Bogus AGW Conjecture”, or in other words….
The meaningless message of the authoritative doctrine, behind the fraudulent AGW speculation (which is based on incomplete evidence).
So then Peter, what is the answer ?
Max,
Wonders never cease. In my 2409 I calculated 3.5 molecules of human induced CO2 per 35800 air molecules. You actually got 3.6. So we’re pretty close.
We both agree, therefore, that its about 8 for 85,800 air molecules.
The confusion arises as Cerberus somehow managed to change 85,800 (see Bob_FJ’s link) to 35,800. My question still remains, how did anyone mange to calculate that just one molecule came from human sources? You say you want to get the science correct. Go to it. Tell them to get it right!
Axel Morris,
What is the answer? Well, it may seem all rather academic if the true answer, to the question above, is 8, 3.5 or 1. But CO2 in the atmosphere acts rather like a dye in water. You just to add a couple of drops of strong dye, a similar percentage to the CO2 in the atmosphere, into a bucket and you can see the colour of the water change. The presence of a colour shows that some parts of the spectrum are being absorbed as light passes through the water.
Its doesn’t happen in the visible region of the spectrum though. It happens in the infra red where we can’t see. If we could, the sky would appear to be “dyed” with all the different ‘colours’ caused by various GHG’s including water vapour. This would again show that radiation, the IR radiation from the ground, was being absorbed in the atmosphere. This is what causes the extra heating.
So I think once you’ve grasped the basic principles of how the GH effect works you might agree that it is more than just a “conjecture”.