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.
Brute,
You sound like you have some sort of puritanical streak in you. The spirit of the Mayflower living on through the generations maybe? Unlike us Aussies who originally arrived in a strange land under different circumstances and have a roguish reputation for liking a bit of a flutter now and again. Life is full of gambles: marriage, jobs, kids, business. It would be pretty boring otherwise. Even putting your money in the bank isn’t quite as risk free as it used to be.
What’s $50? It costs me much more than that whenever my kids come to visit:-)
It just adds a little spice to the argument. Are you and Max prepared to back up your predictions with a little hard cash? Obviously not, and that speaks volumes.
Robin Reur 2581…it’s kids that may make it happen… …natural campaigners — no shades of grey, no nuanced arguments, just loads of passion and clarity…
Yes, it’s a bit of a worry when we are no longer allowed to B the S out of them, like in the good old days, when my early teens headmaster would habitually carry a bamboo cane, and not just for show. (NO REGRETS BTW, ditto my friends.)
Interestingly the latter comment is I think quite a good partial definition of fundamentalism, as demonstrated with the outgoing USA President in head-shaking statements like: You are either with us or against us, or, various naïve statements from Peter Martin. Everything is so simple and straight-forward to a fundamentalist.
On the other hand, like with all religions, the newer generation of kids in some advanced nations, especially of non-Catholic European stock, (and outside of the Bible belt in the USA), perhaps have the last laugh. In previous generations they were imprinted by their parents with their particular brand of religion, including schisms and fundamentalist versions, and that all other religions that were imprinted by equally devoted parents of whatever other ethno-religio origin, are false/evil. How come devotion to a particular faith is almost entirely dependent on one’s parents and/or “education“, and that some will even kill for it?
Will these new kids, imprinted with a new religion from new Mullahs, be able to convert their elders?
Re: 2571,Brute
It’s always good to start Monday morning with a smile, and this cerrainly provided one:
If only you could see the head office of Harmless Sky Global Communications Inc at this moment. The chief executive is presently sitting in front of a roaring log fire (the central heating went down on Friday night) with a rather old and battered laptop on his knee. Later, he may – but probably won’t – give some serious thought as to how the enterprise will weather the current financial downturn. Sometime next month, renewal of the domain registration will fall due, but on balance he feels that it will be un-necssary to restructure the finances of the organisation in order to meet this commitment, which amounts to all of £5. WordPress, the software that runs the site, is a free download, but the broadband connection on which Harmless Sky depends – the cheepest available some years ago – does in fact have a sponsor, the housekeeping account, because its used for a lot of other things as well, so that’s OK.
The miracles of the internet age!
TonyN
So the central heating went down…you are in a remote area so I suspect you use oil. You are saving money by not using central heating… so in effect you are saving yourself £30 or so, which you are using to pay for the costs of this site…
So in effect you are being supported by Big oil! I think the Barmouth Times needs to hear about this latest example of Big Oil trying to advance their own agenda. For shame!
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Re Arctic sea ice thickness (your 2597)
A February 2008 press release citing Canadian scientists shows that Arctic sea ice not only expanded its extent by 2 million square km over the average of the past 3 years, it also gained in thickness over last year, resulting in a major increase in total volume.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html
“Clearly, we’re seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year,” said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa. “The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year”, Lagnis added.
Under the sub-headline “Winter sea ice could keep expanding” the report quotes Langis, “The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that’s a significant increase”.
If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand. But he added that it’s too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007.
[As we saw from the more recent record the summer sea ice also made a major recovery from the all-time low (since 1979) of summer 2007.]
So much for another “snapshot” report (like the NSIDC press release you cited). One says “thinner”, one says “thicker”. Take your pick. And then wait a month for a new press release.
Here’s a bit more of a long-range look at things than your NSIDC PR blurb.
Divine + Dick, “Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas” (2006)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2004JC002851.shtml
“Historical ice observations in the Nordic Seas from April through August are used to construct time series of ice edge position anomalies spanning the period 1750–2002. While analysis showed that interannual variability remained almost constant throughout this period, evidence was found of oscillations in ice cover with periods of about 60 to 80 years and 20 to 30 years, superimposed on a continuous negative trend. The lower frequency oscillations are more prominent in the Greenland Sea, while higher frequency oscillations are dominant in the Barents. The analysis suggests that the recent well-documented retreat of ice cover can partly be attributed to a manifestation of the positive phase of the 60–80 year variability, associated with the warming of the subpolar North Atlantic and the Arctic. The continuous retreat of ice edge position observed since the second half of the 19th century may be a recovery after significant cooling in the study area that occurred as early as the second half of the 18th century.”
The D+D study suggests the presence of a 60-80 year variability and two- to three-decadal oscillations in ice extent. The authors associate the multi-decadal oscillations “with the so-called low-frequency oscillation found in Arctic climate and possibly associated with the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation variability.” The researchers further conclude that since the last Arctic cold period occurred in the late 1960s, it is likely that the Arctic ice pack is now at the height of its low frequency variability. This, the researchers say, “could explain the strong negative trend in ice extent during the last decades as a possible superposition of natural low frequency variability and greenhouse gas induced warming of the last decades.” So, the recent decreases in ice extent are likely to be only partially related to anthropogenic causes. And there is more. Divine and Dick also note that “a similar shrinkage of ice cover was observed in the 1920s–1930s, during the previous warm phase of the low-frequency oscillation, when any anthropogenic influence is believed to have still been negligible.”
So, if D+D were right that the Arctic ice pack was at “the height of its low frequency variability” when its extent reached an all-time low end-summer 2007, it could well be that the oscillation has reversed itself for the next multi-decadal cycle and that the record 2008/2007 recovery (since satellite measurements started in 1979) will continue. This is not to say that Arctic sea ice has recovered all the way back to the 1979 initial year extent yet, but it appears to have closed a bit more than half of this gap.
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
For an even longer-term view on Arctic sea ice, see another Scandinavian study:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006494.shtml
This study uses amplitudes of the annual signal in oxygen isotopes in ice cores. “The continentality and melt proxies are validated against twentieth-century instrumental records and longer historical climate proxies.”
The authors conclude “the degree of summer melt was significantly larger during the period 1130–1300 than in the 1990s”, thereby confirming the independent historical evidence from old sea charts and records of Viking migrations.
It’s always best to take a longer term look at things, rather than just relying on a snapshot view. And avoid NSIDC press releases, Peter. They are published to “sell” a message. Rely on published data where these are available.
But I’ll pass on your “wanna bet?” offer (we’ve already got one going on temperatures).
Regards,
Max
TonyB/Max: you may find these data interesting.
Hi Peter,
In shifting the topic from floating sea ice to grounded ice sheets, you wrote (2596): “If the Antarctic ice were not perennial it would raise sea levels by around 100 metres”.
That’s right. And if a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his butt with every jump.
The only comprehensive long-term study on the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (Wingham) showed that this actually grew in mass from 1992 to 2003.
A similar study (Johannessen/Zwally) for essentially the same 10+ year time period showed that the Greenland Ice Sheet also gained mass.
More recent short term and spot studies suggest a reversal of this growth.
Now back to sea ice. This melts every summer (both in the Arctic and the Antarctic) and refreezes every winter.
On average (since records started in 1979), Arctic sea ice loses around 61% of its winter maximum extent by the end of summer. Due to the different geography, Antarctic sea ice loses on average 75% of its winter maximum.
These ratios swing considerably from year to year.
Last year these percentages were: Arctic: 69%; Antarctic: 71%
Short term “blips” and hypothetical suggestions are to be avoided when it comes to sea ice or ice cap projections for the future, as I believe we both agree.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
One more point to your 2596: “But if we ignore the lessons and let the Greenland or Antarctic ice masses melt in the future, even temporarily, it will of course be a different story.”
What “lessons” should “we” not “ignore”, Peter?
(Please be specific.)
Why did the Vikings partially “let the Greenland or Antarctic ice masses melt” and how can we avoid doing what they did “in the future”?
(Please be specific.)
What “lessons” did the people living during the most recent Arctic ice melt of the 1930s “ignore” when they “let” this melting occur?
(Please be specific.)
It’s all a bit vague for me, Peter, but please no references to Hansen “wolf!” cries or (1,000 page – yawn!) IPCC reports. I’ve read them and they do not answer my questions.
There is nothing, Peter, that you, Brute or I (or James E. Hansen, Al Gore or even Barack Obama, for that matter) can do to change anything that may be going on with sea ice or grounded ice sheets in either the Arctic or Antarctic.
Wait! There may be something Obama could do. If the Arctic ice keeps growing embarrasingly, he could try to pull the plug on the NSIDC budget, so that these “inconvenient” measurements are stopped. But there are always the pesky Skandinavians, so even that wouldn’t help.
If you are of another opinion, please state specifically what I should do and how this will result in any change with a quantifiable estimate of the impact of this change.
Regards,
Max
I apologise to TonyN in advance for this extremely long post, but hope everyone will take the time to read it as the information is highly relevant to my co2 investigations. I emailed Beck and await an answer. In the meantime I have ploughed my own furrow-I don’t know if the information below is also on Becks list of references or not. Most of it comes from;
http://www.archive.org/stream/carnegieinstitut166carn/carnegieinstitut166carn_djvu.txt
Which is a 1912 document, plus from the two books previously referenced;
‘Physiography: An Introduction to the Study of Nature’ by T H Huxley published in 1885, the values converted to ppm are from 327 to 380 The measurements were carried out by Angus Smith and are originally given in his book ‘Air and Rain’ published in 1872.
So do those early observations match other data?
The following information comes from the 1912 document, except where stated
Please note the great historic importance of this 1912 date-if you can’t remember what happened please read on and all will be revealed at the end (no cheating and turning the page)
It is very obvious the past generations of scientists are much smarter and more meticulous than some give them credit for;
As far back as March 23 1778 Scheele provided the first definitive reading of the composition of the air and commented on similarity of readings wherever they were made. The following from the document
“ One figure in this early history of air-analysis shines out above all others that of the scholarly, isolated Scheele. That Scheele may rightly be designated as the pioneer in the study of the chemistry of the air few who examine the literature can deny. His results, while admittedly of no quantitative significance, do nevertheless imply a knowledge of the chemistry of the air, of its composition, and of the possibilities of change in its composition, which was expressed no more clearly by other writers many years later.”
Around this time Cavendish made some 500 samples of air by nitric oxide eudiometer and de Saussure took daily measurements for 3 years this evolved into the more reliable hydrogen eudiometer. These were very accurate and those scientists taking measurements from around 1800 were well aware of the importance of geography, weather, wind, season, altitude, contamination etc when tasking a reading.
In due course more sophisticated machines came into general use with market leaders being from Haldane (already extensively covered) and Sonden Patterson of Stockholm.
Readings from 1790 to 1820 should be considered interesting (and possibly correct) but it is from 1820 or so before the level of reliability increased enough for us to consider them as being useable. In looking at the vast range of sample measurements that follow, it should be borne in mind that they are a fraction of many hundreds of thousands and that many were taken outdoors, indoors or in known contaminated areas –such as a factory- and taken in order to comply with the 1889 factories act of co2 at below 900ppm.
By the mid 1850’s accuracy was said to be within 0.1%.
Amusingly there was friction even then between the two sides who had their own way of taking samples and who constantly criticised each others science. Kreusler being said to having taken ‘great exception to his critics’ over his methodology to which he retorted they related to ‘but one set of samples which had already been identified as false and withdrawn.’
The following co2 samples figures are from well observed locations/times and conditions; (some indoors some countryside)
Nov 1884 036 037 039 041 050 055 0389 0391 040 044 044 048
A week later under the same criteria
049 540 380 410 416 430 400 370 370 400 440
Feb 1885 a set of consistent samples from a rural area
350 340 340 340 351
and a week later 370 350 360 340 350
In 1902 Krogh took some Greenland samples said to be accurate to .0005 to .01%. measured at 700.ppm
“In a private communication from Dr. Krogh, he reports that a series of experiments made by him in Greenland in 1908 showed oxygen percentages ranging from 20.895 to 20.980, with an average of 20.945. The unusually high carbon-dioxide percentages of former years were not obtained, (up to 700) although two observations gave 0.055 per cent. Dr. Krogh also writes that in 1907 and 1908 Dr. Lindhard of Copenhagen made observations in northeast Greenland (Denmark Haven) using the identical modified Pettersson apparatus described by Dr. Krogh in a former paper. He reports that Lindhard’s results would be liable to about 0.001 per cent error, and they agreed perfectly with those found by himself on the west coast. Lindhard generally found about 0.035 per cent of carbon dioxide, but on one or two days it was below 0.03 per cent, and on 5 days out of 23,0.04 per cent or more. The maximum value found was 0.062 per cent.”
But what about those apparently absurd Greenland figures? The analysis at the time says;
“x The one inexplicable phenomenon is the abnormally high percentage of carbon dioxide found in the air of Greenland by Krogh.”
Independent Sets of samples from another scientists made in Paris in 1903 300ppm
1910 Bay of Genoa .Naples; cloudless sky; temp, on Moist 0.034
Equipment evolved quickly throughout the period;
“Eudiometric observations were exclusively relied upon during the first 50 years of the development of air-analysis, but later gravimetric methods were introduced by Brunner and Dumas in which the oxygen was absorbed by copper or phosphorus, and was subsequently weighed. Then there followed a return to the hydrogen-explosion method, which was advanced to the highest degree of accuracy by Bunsen, Regnault, Frankland and Ward, and Morley. Meanwhile the interesting method of Liebig, employing an alkaline solution of pyrogallic acid, and the copper eudiometer of von Jolly made their appearance. “
“Of particular significance is the fact that analyses made on the same samples sometimes showed extremely high values for carbon dioxide, ranging at times from 0.025 to 0.07 per cent.”
The document referenced provides hundreds of pages of equipment, techniques, samples readings and tips on ensuring maximum accuracy of readings.
“While the investigation was started primarily to study the oxygen-
content of the outdoor air, it was necessary to determine beforehand the carbon dioxide, since an alkaline absorbent for oxygen was employed; hence practically all the analyses are accompanied by simultaneous determinations of the carbon dioxide in the air. In the especially exact apparatus designed by Sonden and Pettersson, the carbon dioxide is determined to the third or fourth significant figure, but as the amounts of carbon dioxide that were to be used in our apparatus might at times reach 1 per cent, it was impossible to secure this degree of fineness in the calibration of the carbon-dioxide pipette, hence readings can be taken only to one-thousandth of 1 per cent. Consequently, since other methods are better adapted for securing accurate carbon-dioxide determinations, little stress has been laid upon the determinations made in connection with this research, although they are probably accurate to within 0.002 in all cases. The routine outlined was followed with practically no modification from April 5 up to Nov. 3, 1909. The details of an analysis made on April 5 at ll h 45 m a. m. and carried out with this routine are given in table 50.”
There then followed a long series of hourly and daily recordings a fraction of which are reproduced here; Many of the lower ones were selected by Keeling to base his 280 pre industrial level on;
Table 50. Results obtained on sample of outdoor air with
first routine, April 5, 1909, ll h 45 m a. m. 0.029 0.031
Table 51. Analyses of outdoor air made at the Nutrition Laboratory. 1 Series
1909.
Apr. 5 onwards almost daily to June 3 and virtually every hour
Then Oct. 18 to December
0.031 .032 .028 .026 .029 .030 .027 .030 .027 .029 .030 .029
.030 .031 .032 .030 .031 .031 .031 .032 .032 .030 .030 .032 .030
.028 .028 ‘.028 .029 .029 .031 .028 .030 .029 .029 .029 .031 .029
.028 .030 .029 .031
another series
.031 .032 .028
another series
Table 52. Results obtained on sample of outdoor air with
second routine, November 4, igog, g b /o m a. m.
0.035 0.036
1909 Pleasant, warm and sunny.
0.034 .033 .034 .031 .029 .028 .029 .031 .032 .033 .032 .030 .030
.031 .031 .031 .032 .034 .032 .029 .031 .032 .030 .030 .028 .033
.031 .031 .030 .028 .028 .028 .028 .029 .030 .028 .031 .031.030
.030 .031 .030 .028 .033 .032 .032 .034 .030 .032 .033 .030 .029
.028 .030 .028 .030 .029 .030 .028 .030 .029 .030 .031 .031 .033
.030 .030 .033 .031 .032 .031 .031 .031
An experiment had to conform to strict criteria;
“…. would be thoroughly mixed and have a fairly constant composition. Employing precisely the same technical routine, samples of the cylinder air were frequently analyzed as a control on the analyses of the outdoor air. The results of these analyses made between December 3, 1910, and February 9, 1911, are given in table 54.
1911. Dec. 9 2 56 p.m..032
Jan. 21 2 32 p.m. .031
Dec. 10 10 14 a.m. .031 3 43 p.m. .033
Dec. 13 12 02 p.m. .034
Jan. 23 9 37 a.m. .032
Dec. 15 11 52 a.m. .031 10 52 a.m. .033
Dec. 22 2 31 p.m. .033
Jan. 31 10 03 a.m. .032 3 43 p.m. .033
11 30 a.m. .033 4 52 p.m. .034
Feb. 9 .034
At this stage it became pointless to continue recording the information of thousands of samples as the figures consistently show readings of .034 or so throughout the daily readings made in Dec 1911 through to 1912- the measurement records can all be seen in the document referenced;
The results of the long series of samples;
“The results of analyses of air taken near the laboratory showed no material fluctuation in oxygen percentage during a period extending from April 15, 1911, to January 30, 1912. This constancy was maintained in spite of all possible alteration in weather conditions, changes in barometer, thermometer, humidity, and wind direction and strength; furthermore, the experiments were made before, during, and after the vegetative season. The average result of 212 analyses showed 0.031 per cent of carbon dioxide and 20.938 per cent of oxygen. The analyses of air collected over the ocean, at two different times of the year, and on the top of Pike’s Peak, gave essentially similar results. The average results of all the analyses made in this research of outdoor air are summarized in table 72.
The IPCC chart suggests only 285ppm at this time.
That readings were commonplace can be seen here;
“It will be seen, therefore, that since there are a number of simple and accurate methods for determining carbon dioxide, so the time-consuming and complicated determinations of oxygen are entirely unnecessary.”
Comment on Methodology
“The wisdom of taking samples dry is seen from these results, since in all dry samples the percentage of carbon dioxide was found to be always normal.”
These apparently higher than expected co2 figures are confirmed by this separate study in 1981;
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4655l63w6342p84/
“Abstract from articles The longest continuous record of measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration available to date, that was made between 1877 and 1910 at the Montsouris Observatory in the outskirts of Paris, is presented and the methods used and the site are described…..
….Mean decadal values of the Montsouris series show a marked rise in concentration from 283 ppm in the first decade to 313 ppm in the second, with a small and non significant drop to 309 ppm in the third decade of the series. The results of the measurements are thus compatible with the hypothesis that a major and variable non-fossil fuel source of atmospheric CO2 was active during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.”
That the co2 levels can vary considerably in a year (readings taken weekly and averaged at Mauna Loa) might be surprising, but it happens;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf
see the above study by Keeling, for example a location in Canada ranges from 360 to 378 (seasonal changes amongst others)
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/figures/co2dome.jpg
this diagram also shows the startling amount that co2 levels can change in a very short time . The long article the above diagram comes from is here
http://www.co2science.org/subject/u/summaries/phxurbanco2dome.php
The variation in co2 is truly astonishing and puts the earlier variable figures from longer ago into context
The IPCC icon is Mauna Loa so it is instructive to go to the oracle so see what that says about variability;-this link
http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/coop/scripps/co2/co2.html
shows how observations are made in general
The following one
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html#variations
is much more interesting and goes into specifics. In particular look at figure 4 and the wide range of the mole fraction in ‘scatter’ measurements figure 5a demonstrates real world conditions and the variation of co2 in the atmosphere shown in the top part of that graph, and in the bottom section the effect when averaged out over a day, so the 335ppm to 368ppm again puts the observed variability in the historic samples in much better context
The overall effect of taking measurements on an active volcano at over 3000 m altitude I shall leave others to debate but the averaging disguises the considerable daily variability
Now I’m getting into very technical area here but looking at the unaveraged 2008 daily figures and looking at my graph it seems to me that the scatter graphs have shown a small drop, indicating a co2 drop of 2 or 3ppm -is this a blip or is it responding to lower temperatures, or perhaps the cooler pdo could be having an localised effect here- cooler waters absorb more co2.
Conclusion
*The Victorians and others took readings more widely than we currently do
*they are very accurate
* Levels consistently show around 310 and above
* Co2 levels vary considerably
*European co2 levels at the commencement of the Keeling data in 1958 appeared to be around 30ppm higher than he recorded
*Averaging disguises the ranges.
*The current levels are not unprecedented
* Beck was right
To conclude (at last!!) interestingly the above 1911 readings had the note as follows;
“When the air-analyses were resumed in the fall, after a summer of unprecedented heat in Boston…”
AND;
“ANALYSES OF AIR FROM PIKE’S PEAK. (Boston)
The interesting expedition to the top of Pike’s Peak made by Haldane,
Yandell Henderson, Douglas, and Schneider, in the summer of 1911, was
utilized in that these gentlemen kindly consented to collect samples of air for this research….possibly resulting from the extreme heat of the summer, which had been abnormal for this section.”
Which at last brings us back to the teaser referenced at the start of this document as the references to unprecedented warm weather in Boston mentioned above (mirrored in my graph) allows me to wrap up this post. The date is of huge significance as that warm weather in 1911 continued and caused….
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=950DE4DC153CE633A25756C0A9639C946396D6CF
This is a back up report written by someone who was there on the ship
http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_and_other_ships_31.shtml
Yes the unprecedented warm summer of 1911 and the warm winter of 1912 caused the sinking of the Titanic-see how interesting history is Peter?
Hmm… I seem to remember posting something from a passenger on the 1930’s arctic voyage with Bob Morrissey who said much the same thing in her diary, and talked of glaciers a mile wide falling into the sea. How many times does ‘unprecedented’ warming in the Arctic need to happen to persuade some people that its nothing of the sort- oh yes 1934….and 1912….and 1894…. and 1817…. and 1790 and the Vikings and…
TonyB
Yep, we are all in danger of burning to a cinder from global warming………28 degrees here overnight, Arctic ice increasing and global temperatures plummeting. 47 inches of snow last week in the upper Midwest plains states……a blizzard in early November……ahhh, but this is simply a “regional anomaly” yes? (just wait until next year Peter?) The cards are stacked against the Alarmist, (to coin a gamblers phrase). Hansen and Gore should have chosen the “manmade global cooling” route to exploit…..the odds are more likely to show global negative temperature anomalies historically than positive. “Heat” is energy, “Cold” is simply the absence of heat. Being that our planet is surrounded by a universe of extremely cold temperature, the chances are that the planet will lose heat much faster than it will retain/gain heat, (my automobile or spending habits withstanding).
Robin I believe, described your demeanor best as the hysterical person in a movie theater…..instead of calmly requesting the patrons to exit the theatre through the nearest egress at the outset of a potential emergency; you’d be the guy that screams FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! as he pushes and tramples old ladies and children on his way out the door.
Puritanical streak? No……but I do recognize obsessive compulsive personality traits when I see them. Of course, it’s up to you to decide if your particular vice has made your life unmanageable……I just don’t remember anyone else on this thread offering wagers three times and droning on and on about it through several comment periods. We all have character defects…..recognizing one’s own and dealing with them is virtuous.
Here’s an idea, it seems to me that with $50.00 to wager that you’d have some “extra” cash lying around. Wouldn’t humanity be better served if you simply “donated” this excess cash to some poor, unfortunate, oppressed individual as opposed to flagrantly risking your hard earned dollars on frivolous, cheap thrills? Maybe donate the $50.00 to Greenpeace or some other worthy organization…..really do your part to save the planet from imminent doom……put your money where your mouth is Peter. If the “consensus” is so strongly on your side, wouldn’t the prudent, more responsible thing to do with the 50 bucks be to send a cheque to Al Gore?
God knows he could use every penny.
Or even better, send it to TonyN to help get his furnace repaired………
In my long post above I see the second to last link didnt work so here it is again-
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=950DE4DC153CE633A25756C0A9639C946396D6CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
TonyB
Peter: I see from your post 2600 that you’re reiterating your view about “scientific opinion” being “overwhelmingly against you”. You seem to have overlooked my post 2500 where, having said that I didn’t understand what you meant by your regular distinction between “deniers”, “contrarians” etc. and the “overwhelming scientific consensus”, I invited you to complete a simple survey. As I said then, by defining the views of some contributors here and comparing them with your view, we could establish clearly where you think the line is drawn between a “denier” and the “consensus”. It would be interesting and helpful.
So Peter, please go back to 2500 (here) and complete the survey. I look forward to the result. Thanks.
Exciting news!
I have had a response from Ernst Beck who was very interested in my graph and comments. I will be sending him all the background information I have and the various sources they have come from. I will keep you up to date
tonyB
Russian submarine’s fire safety system kills 20 in Sea of Japan
Naughty Russia is still using CFCs…..
Haven’t they heard about the ozone hole and the Montreal treaty?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24627532-401,00.html
Here’s another idea Pete………you should catch the first flight to Red Square and display your displeasure regarding this flagrant environmental abuse.
My suggestion to you would be to pack a toothbrush as I’m certain that the “open-minded” Socialist officials will “come for you” extending your stay with them indefinitely.
Max, your 2565:
Thanks for this great post. I know you’ve posted on this before, based, I think, on some of my even earlier posts about energy efficiency as a percent of GDP.
As we discussed previously, another important factor in your equation, in my view, is population density. Japan has a population density of 339/km², the EU comes in at 112/km², and the USA is 31/km².
The cost of moving goods and people over such longer distances (compared to Japan and Europe, for example) in the USA is a factor in carbon efficiency, though I’m not sure how you account for that in your table.
Hi JZSmith,
You are right. Population density is another very important factor directly affecting the “carbon efficiency” of various nations or groups.
The USA, Canada and Australia all have lower “carbon efficiencies” than the EU and Japan.
So does Brazil, even though it uses a lot of sugar-cane ethanol for transportation (which does not count as carbon emission), and therefore has a slightly higher “carbon efficiency” than the other three.
I have not figured a way to factor this in without complicating things too much.
Population density figures are published for each group. I suppose one could take the automotive fuel portion of total energy and adjust the index for this.
Just taking a rough look at it, this would put the USA (plus Canada and Australia) at roughly the same efficiency level as the EU and Japan, which makes sense. These countries certainly have the same incentives to increase energy efficiency and cost.
I’ll take a look at it.
I don’t suspect the IPCC folks or other more avid AGW-supporters / carbon slashers will consider either the population density or the per capita GDP as important factors; they are totally fixated on CO2 (and that’s it). If we all have to go back to the economic development level of Malawi or Haiti to reach lower CO2 levels, so much the better.
I have noticed that some AGW sites have just recently switched their thinking from absolute CO2 emissions (when the USA was #1) to “per capita” CO2 emissions (when China surpassed the USA as #1), in order to keep the USA on top of the “sinner” list. But getting them to think outside the box to include relative economic development (whazzat?) or population density differences (huh?) is probably asking too much. It would be interesting to get Peter’s thoughts on this.
But thanks for reminder; I’ll see how this can be factored in.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Reur 2609. Very interesting post. It looks as though you are getting close to exposing a previously generally accepted “sacred cow” (the Keeling curve) as flawed. I will be very interested in seeing how your study all fits together.
Also congratulations on getting Ernst Beck interested.
Regards,
Max
I’m gonna go out on a limb here…….. If the 2008 Arctic Sea Ice level intersects with the 1979-200 average, how long do you think it will be before the CO2 levels begin to be “adjusted” downward?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
The spin will be that the Gore/Hansenist policies are working thus lowering CO2 and saving the polar bears and the world from calamity……more “proof” that the world must “repent” from its evil capitalist ways…….
What do you think?
I don’t remember…….did the sea ice surpass the 1979-2000 average last winter at it’s peak?
Hi Max,
I’m sure you are correct about how the IPCC/AGW crowd views CO2 “mitigation”; population density would not likely be an important factor for them.
But arguing against that view we should ensure the facts are well understood. Japan, especially, would likely always have excellent carbon efficiency, due to the large population and small land mass. As you write, Australia, Canada, and the USA would always appear lower on the list due to transportation expense (both in cash and CO2) than more densely populated countries.
I think it is important. Thanks for looking into it for me.
Also thanks to whomever posted this link. Great info. (Sorry, I couldn’t find the original post.)
Max 2617
I have put together a complete record of my information and other input on the subject, so in effect Ernst Beck has a complete record of the various data collected. You were very instrumental in supplying useful material and trust you have no objection to my including your comments-no names are mentioned- although I have made it clear they were not my comments.
The material together with other stuff I didnt post is the size of a small book, and it is very interesting to see how it developed over the week.
Hopefully tomorrow I will have the revised Zurich Fluntern figures to show you
TonyB
EU global warming limit may not be possible -IEA
LONDON, Nov 6 (Reuters) – A European Union target to limit warming of the planet to no more than 2 degrees Celsius may not be technically achievable, the International Energy Agency said in a report to be published next week.
“Even leaving aside any debate about the political feasibility … it is uncertain whether the scale of the transformation envisaged is even technically achievable, as the scenario assumes broad development of technologies that have not yet been proven,” said the IEA’s World Energy Outlook.
Link
Note on my post 2621 above:
Hat tip to Greenie Watch.
Sorry for the omission.
Nope, it didn’t.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200805_Figure2.png
Does anyone else here have lapses of memory as they are getting older? Completely off topic, but I just don’t find my memory as crisp as (I remember) it used to be. Maybe Pete’s correct and I’m getting senile.
Global Warming and Nature’s Thermostat
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Pete, Reur 2601, you wrote concerning your proposed bet:
Yawn…. but Brute joked in part on this in his 2610:
Pete, I wonder if you properly comprehended Brute’s comments, in that there was an element of satire/sarcasm/ humour in them, and I’ve noted that fundies in general do not “pick-up” such oblique stuff too well. (can only read black OR white)
May I recommend, (if that is your leaning), that rather than you donate to Al Gore….. (The guy is already rather comfortable financially)…. Please consider this truly worthy cause:
Have you heard of Austin Health, down in Melbourne Oz? In a mailed report I received from them today, I see that professors M. Woodford and C, Rowe are heading research there, including use of Positron Emission Tomography (PET), that is looking very promising in early detection and complementary improved treatment of Alzheimer’s.
I recently donated AU$500 to Austin Health for a different very worthy project that interests me.
C’mon Pete….. It’s tax deductible…. Connect, and go for it via Email: fundraising@austin.org.au
Al Gore does not need your help!