THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Re: #2479, Robin
I too was very sorry to hear of Michael Crichton’s death.
So few people seem to be aware that, as well as being a very successful popular novelist, he had quite distinguished academic careers in two scientific disciplines: as a visiting lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge and in medical research at Harvard.
I particularly liked his speech to the Commonwealth Club ‘Environmentalism as Religeon’ and the bluntness with which he told the Barton committee, refering to GCMs: ‘predictions are not facts’. I seem to remember that he also suggested a very sensible template for overseeing climate research based on those applied in the pharmaceutical industry, which no one took any notice of at all.
A very sad loss.
Robin 2500
Just for the record I have voted exactly the same way as you and Max.
Also for the record I am a life long vegetarian, frequently cycle or walk to my engagements, shop locally for local produce in season and recycle sensibly. I have also ‘owned’ an acre of rain forest for some years in order to prevent its logging.
I do think there are lots of social problems that need our time attention and money and AGW just isn’t one of them. I think our (UK) energy policy is probably the most single important thing that needs our urgent consideration (other than the economy) and it seems impossible we will get through the next 20 years without a substantial investment in proven nuclear and coal power stations.
However renewables definitely have a place-(for energy security as well as supply) albeit their impact in the short to medium term is greatly overstated. Personally I am a great believer in wave/tidal power (because Britain is an island) solar, heat pumps and offshore wind also have a place.
I am frustrated that my government chose to ignore the looming energy crisis and there is little I can personally do about it.
I wish Greenpeace would sell home insulation and home energy solutions at cost price instead of embarking on their counter productive green campaigns, and so do us all a favour by cutting out the very expensive middle man which has meant that renewables are an unreallistically expensive option for most homeonwers/small communities in the UK.
I’m defintely not a hard right wing ‘denier’ although my sympathies definitely lie with the conservatives rather than Labour because experience has shown the latter have consistently failed to manage an economy. I am a perfectly rational person who looks at facts and history before discussing things.
TonyB
Note to TonyB and PeterM
A closer look at the historical CET data supplied by TonyB (2478) does show some interesting things.
First of all, just as with the “global” Hadley data, we see a series of multi-decadal warming periods followed by multi-decadal flat or slight cooling periods.
The underlying trend over the entire record (1659-2005) shows a linear warming rate of 0.024C per decade and an overall linear warming of 0.83C over the entire 346-year period.
The four notable periods of warming and one period of cooling since CO2 was measured (CO2 according to IPCC) were:
1.52C warming over the 62-year period, 1675-1737 (with no increase in CO2)
0.78C warming over the 32-year period, 1802-1834 (with no increase in CO2)
0.50C warming over the 40-year period, 1910-1950 (with 17 ppmv increase in CO2)
0.08C cooling over the 20-year period, 1950-1970 (with 14 ppmv increase in CO2)
1.08C warming over the 35-year period, 1970-2005 (with 55 ppmv increase in CO2)
The only conclusion one can draw from all of this is that there is no apparent correlation (let alone an indication of causation) between global atmospheric CO2 content and CET, at least not in the short-term (multi-decadal rather than multi-century) record.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from comparing the multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles in global temperatures (since these began at Hadley in 1850).
No matter how you twist and turn it, it is very difficult to read an AGW fingerprint into the data that exist. It is more like “reading” tea leaves to get an answer you are hoping for and truly believe in with all of your heart.
Max
Max 2503
Thanks for the excellent analysis.
You said;
“The only conclusion one can draw from all of this is that there is no apparent correlation (let alone an indication of causation) between global atmospheric CO2 content and CET, at least not in the short-term (multi-decadal rather than multi-century) record.”
Mans input into a trace gas, most of which comes from natural sources and is in itself a tiny part of overall green house gases, appears to be barely discernible.
I re-did the back of the envelope figures for UK carbon emissions that I posted a couple of weeks ago;
UK annual emissions are one hundred millionth of total air
That equates to 0.5 of a molecule in a milion of CHG
In more every day language;
Since 1750 Britain has contributed 0.5 man made molecules of co2 per 100,000 of atmosphere in total- much of which will have dropped out of the system, assuming a half life of 40/50 years.
Its not surprising that temperatures dont appear to respond much to rising co2 when looked at in a historic and statistical context.
Like Obama-the warmists have the better marketing men.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You wrote (2499): “In the language of mathematics you integrate emissions over a time span to obtain the accumulation of emissions. Climate change responds to the accumulation of emissions rather than rate of emissions.”
You are correct, of course, that the rate of human CO2 emissions alone is not an indicator of the potential theoretical anthropogenic greenhouse effect one could expect to result.
First of all, human CO2 emissions (even today, at record rates) are just a tiny part of our planet’s carbon cycle.
Secondly, the theoretical greenhouse warming over a time period is proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration at the end of the period divided by that at the beginning of the period (as you know).
And finally, as we have seen very clearly, there are many other factors at play, some of which are understood today and others, which cannot be explained as yet.
It takes a “leap of faith” to “find” the greenhouse footprint among the overwhelming “background noise” of all the natural forcing factors at play.
To arrive at a simple conclusion (as IPCC has done) that AGW is very likely the principal driver of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is highly speculative (and even staggeringly arrogant).
But I believe TonyB’s data are interesting and can tell us quite a bit if we analyze them
(see earlier post).
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Looks like you are still having trouble (2500) getting Peter to take the “AGW test” and clearly state his position.
Have you ever tried to nail Jello to the wall?
Regards,
Max
TonyN/Robin/TonyB,
Any comments or reaction to this?
BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
Re: #2479, Robin
I agree with you and TonyN that Michael Crichton’s death is very sad for the world.
It is always a loss for everyone when an extremely talented, intelligent and knowledgeable man, who is not afraid to speak out against foolishness and hype by the “politically correct” mainstream, passes.
Max
Hi Brute,
Re 2507.
Would Bellamy have had a better chance at CNN?
I think he would not have done any better with the national German (or Swiss) TV networks, either.
Now the French…Who knows? (They often seem to have a hard time spelling “politiquement correct”.)
Regards,
Max
Robin,
I think you shouldn’t presume to speak for Max in your comment “so we accept the principle of AGW – so no ‘denial’ there either”
This is Max speaking for himself “The arrogance of thinking that puny man is changing global climate is only exceeded by the stupidity of believing we can – and must – urgently do something to stop it.”
Look, I’m sure you can guess my answers a little better. Have a try and I’ll let you know if you are wrong.
Max’s comment indicates some ‘philophical’ objection than ‘puny’ human kind is somehow incapable of doing anything to foul things up in a big way. It is high time he came clean on what his underlying beliefs really are.
Max,
No, he wouldn’t see the light of day on the Communist News Network.
Given the “news” coverage of the last election I am deeply concerned about the effect the press has on public opinion. Chris Mathews said that it is his job to make the Obama presidency successful…………curious remark from a “news” man. The comments posted here regarding the attitudes of city dwellers and their commitment to the global warming “cause” I believe is related. People seem to believe what they are told to believe…….. I was watching a documentary regarding Mao and the “great leap forward”……….6 million people were “sacrificed” for the “common good” and the attitude from the (still living) people seemed to be “Oh Well”……….
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/06/odd-job-matthews-says-his-role-make-obama-presidency-success
Given Obama’s commitment to unleash the “green police” (the EPA) on the American people/economy I think that we’d all better get used to walking more and wearing heavy coats indoors during winter.
Sun Spot Number: Correlation to Warmth
{http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html}
TonyB,
Would it be possible to overlay solar activity on your graph?
Brute #2512
I will do that provided I can obtain the raw data in a suitable format.
tonyB
TonyB,
Capital idea.I’d be very interested in seeing the result.
Thanks for taking the time to create the graph.
Note to TonyB and PeterM
For an interesting paper on CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere by Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, read:
{http}://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html
Max
Hi Peter,
I believe you are trying to summarize my position on AGW by quoting a few sentences out of context and then expanding on this with a silly statement, ” Max’s comment indicates some ‘philophical’ objection” (blah, blah, blah) and ” It is high time he came clean on what his underlying beliefs really are.”
With which portion of the sentences you have quoted do you disagree and on what basis?
I have taken Robin’s test, which is a much better indicator of my current position on this that your ramble.
If I get new hard data, I’m always open to changing my mind, but for now I (a) do not categorically say that human CO2 emissions could not ever theoretically add to any natural warming trends that may exist, (b) do not believe that there is any hard evidence that human CO2 emissions will cause any major changes in our climate (c) believe that the IPCC climate model assumptions all go into the direction of making an AGW mountain out of a molehill and (d) do not believe that we can change our planet’s climate in any measurable way by simply reducing our CO2 emissions.
I think there is plenty of evidence out there in the real world, Peter, to support my position.
Why don’t you take the test, so we can see where you really stand on all this, rather than opining on what my personal stand may be?
Regards,
Max
For goodness sake, Peter, stop prevaricating and do the survey. It’ll take you less than a minute.
As for Max, his response to the survey shows that he agrees that mankind’s GHG emissions are likely to have made a small contribution to global warming – i.e. he accepts AGW. It’s an excellent example of how the precision of a survey can tell you more about someone’s opinion than their more general rhetoric.
Note to TonyB and PeterM
Peter mentioned that the amount of human CO2 emissions alone was not a good indicator for establishing the greenhouse warming to be expected from these emissions.
So let’s do some numbers crunching on the magnitude of the CO2 impact.
Over the period 1980 through 2005 humans emitted a total of 566 Gt CO2 into the atmosphere.
In 1980 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 340 ppmv.
In 2005 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 379 ppmv.
So these 566 Gt resulted in an increase of 39 ppmv.
Adjusting this for mass results in an increase of 59.3 ppm(mass)
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
The change in CO2 content (mass) was 59.3 * 5.14 = 305 Gt
So the percentage that stayed in the atmosphere was 305 / 566 = 53.8%
The rest was either absorbed by the oceans, used for increased photosynthesis (both on land and in the oceans), absorbed in some other way or dissipated into space, but let’s not worry about that for now.
How much CO2 can we generate if we use up all fossil fuels on this planet?
An optimistic estimate of world oil reserves from the O+GJ (including shale and potential new offshore fields is around 569 Gt.
At current consumption rates this will last around 160 years.
Assuming 75% of this is used for combustion (the rest for petrochemicals, etc.), and oil = 85% carbon, we have a total CO2 generation from oil of 1,330 Gt CO2
World coal reserves are estimated to be around 1,000 Gt.
At current consumption rates this will also last around 160 years.
Assuming this is all used for combustion, and coal = 91% carbon, we have a total CO2 generation from coal of around 3,337 GT CO2
World natural gas reserves (including optimistically estimated “new finds”) are estimated to be 376 trillion cubic meters.
At current consumption rates this will last around 135 years.
Assuming 80% of this is used for combustion, and 1 cubic meter of methane generates 2.0 kg CO2, we have a total CO2 generation from gas of 603 Gt CO2
For a total from all fossil fuels of
1,330 + 3,337 + 603 = 5,270 Gt CO2 (over the next ~150 years, say to year 2160)
If we assume that the same 53.8% stay in the atmosphere as we saw over the period 1980-2005, this will increase atmospheric concentration by:
0.538 * 1,000,000 * 5,270 / 5,140,000 = 552 ppm(mass)
Adjusting this to volume results in an increase of 363 ppmv.
Today’s CO2 level is 384 ppmv (= C1)
So the level (~ year 2160) will be 747 ppmv (= C2)
C2/C1 = 1.945
ln (C2/C1) = 0.6653
ln2 = 0.6931
Without entering the computerized “never-never-land” of assumed net positive “feedbacks” or “delayed equilibrium” hypotheses, IPCC states that 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is 0.8C.
This means that all the fossil fuels in the world will eventually result in a theoretical greenhouse warming (in 150 years or so) of
0.8 * 0.6653 / 0.6931 = 0.77C
Is this really something we want to be worrying that much about?
Regards,
Max
Max #2518
I can’t disagree with your calculations at all. As you say we have entered a computerised never never land where ever more fantastic hypotheses can be routinely computer modelled. The Victorians loved ‘novelty’ how they would have loved computers!
The bottom line is that our actual impact is tiny and dwarfed by nature (see my #2504) and even if we take a very unlikely worst case scenario that we burn all our carbon, it will always remain tiny.
That is not to say we want to go round recklessly using all our resources and we need to plan for the medium term future-but we really need to get a better sense of proportion on all this. Hence the title of the graph I posted.
TonyB
Just one more thing for PeterM and TonyB
Let’s look at the past 150 years or so to see whether this can give us a clue whether our rough estimate of AGW for the next 150 years was close.
The Hadley record from 1850 to 2007 shows an observed linear temperature increase over the entire period of 0.7C.
CO2 in 1850 = 285 ppmv (IPCC curve, rather than various Beck numbers) = C1
CO2 in 2007 = 384 ppmv (Mauna Loa) = C2
C2/C1 = 1.347
ln (C2/C1) = 0.2982
ln2 = 0.6931
2xCO2 sensitivity = 0.8C (IPCC excl. assumed “feedbacks”)
dT from CO2 (1850-2007) = 0.34C
Studies by various solar scientists tell us that increased solar activity (especially in the second half of the 20th century, where it reached the highest level in over 10,000 years) resulted in warming of 0.35C.
Together this makes 0.69C, very close to the actually observed value.
So we get a fair “sanity check” on our assumption for the next 150 years, assuming that the current slowdown in solar activity does not reverse itself again to the high levels experienced in the second half of the 20th century.
Regards,
Max
Yes, TonyB, I certainly agree with you that we need to use our limited resources (including fossil fuels) in a more sensible manner.
And I also agree with you that painting “hobgoblins” on the wall to frighten people is not a sensible approach.
But (as you alluded to Mencken) it is an approach used by politicians to get their agendas pushed through.
Regards,
Max
Max #2515
I have just read the link. Its exactly what we’ve been saying!
Much of it is the application of straightforward logic and analysis of actual data rather than continually inventing ever more incredible theories which then need to be defended.
There seems to be a lack of perspective within some sectors of the scientific community and this of course is transmitted to the politicians. If we could just hire Obama’s marketing team we could bury AGW in a year and get on with solving the many REAL problems of the world!
TonyB
JZ Smith your#2483
I hope to have something for you after the weekend, the trouble is that most sites seem to have the graph but not the raw data.
This one was pretty good but don’t whether it can be used yet.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/images/sunspot_num_graph_big_jpg_image.html
There is no doubt that the Maunder minimum period correlates very well with known low temperatures. The Dalton minimum also pretty well.
I think what I need to do is find out the ‘mean’ average number of sunspots then compare that to the mean average temperature and see how many fall below, on, or above, the line.
Its an interesting exercise but needs to be done precisely if it is to have any scientifc value as the temperatures can rise and fall rapidly from one year to the next so that the ‘overlaying’ needs to be placed exactly on the correct place in the sun spot cycle for the results to be meaningful.
After doing that I will insert the Beck carbon readings. This is on the basis that the sunspots may afect carbon readings/temperature changes but the carbon readings won’t affect the sunspot numbers- so I want to see the end results without prejudging them
TonyB
I haven’t taken the test yet, so here goes:
Q1 Do you think the world’s temperature has increased over the past one hundred years?
a. Yes
b. No [please exit the survey]?
c. Not sure / don’t know
. A- Yes
Q2 Which of the following is closest to your view of how mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have affected any such global warming?
a. They were the cause of all or most of it?
b. They made a substantial contribution to it?
c. They made a small contribution to it?
d. They had little or nothing to do with it?
e. I have no view on this
. D- little or nothing to do with it.
Q3 Do you think global warming is likely to continue over the next one hundred years?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure / don’t know
. C- not sure/don’t know
Q4 Which of the following is closest to your view of the likely effect on mankind of continued global warming?
a. It will be seriously harmful
b. It will be fairly or slightly harmful
c. It will be not be harmful – and may be slightly beneficial
d. It will be beneficial
e. I have no view on this
.D-compared to global cooling, definitely better.
Q5 Do you agree that taking action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of the priority lists of world governments?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure / don’t know
.B-No
Q6 Do you agree that taking action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of your personal priority list?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure / don’t know
.B-No
Hello Max
I understand you live in Switzerland so I was checking out the weather station at Fluntern near Zurich for data from meteo suisse. It’s a service I use a lot as I go to a village near Montreux four times a year. This is a record of the weather station site.
http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/06660
The link below is an excellent interactive map-so I know which restaurants to go to in Fluntern! Zooming in and out also shows that Fluntern is now in effect part of Zurich and the city is the largest in Switzerland with a total population of over a million including suburbs. The weather station would therefore seem to be a classic case of becoming marooned in an urban heat island and its current temperatures likely to be much higher because of it.
I now also know that James Joyce is buried in the Fluntern cemetery and Lenin and Trotsky took refuge in Zurich in world war 1
Do you know anything of this location and whether the weather data appears as compromised as I suspect?
TonyB