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.
TonyB / Alex
First draft logo for rational AGW skeptics was a bit busy.
Suggest this as an alternate:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3161653514_42a8f20d29.jpg
Maybe we could incorporate Peter’s suggestion with the IPCC “head in the sand” motive or toss in a few seemingly drowning, but smiling, polar bears.
Regards,
Max
TonyB / Alex
In view of the critical importance of the AGW crisis, I thought our logo should depict the seriousness of the situation for our planet as we know it in a more human-related manner, but still retain the basic temperature curve as the underlying motif.
Here is another draft, which I believe shows the human dimension of the crisis a bit more explicitly than Peter’s “IPCC with their heads in the sand” suggestion.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/3161773578_f697dc7b76_b.jpg
Appreciate any comments.
Regards,
Max
Stupid Liberal kooks……….Here we have these granola munchers whining and sniveling about greedy, overindulgent Americans consuming more than their “fair share” of gasoline. We cut back on consumption and whadda you know??? Tax revenues to the Federal, State and Local government’s coffers plummet. Idiots………so they’re going to raise taxes to cover the shortfall anyway……on EVERYONE.
I had a (very) brief conversation with an Obamamaniac this evening who stated that Obama will “change the way things are done”. When she sees her tax bill rise even though she’s been “sacrificing” by riding a motor scooter on her 35 mile commute, I believe that she’ll get the true picture of what (Socialist) “change” really is.
Max,
Didn’t I say this would happen a week or two ago? My psychic powers of prediction have proven more accurate than Hansen’s.
Yes Robin, the world has been turned upside down…..the inmates are running the asylum.
Motorists’ habits spur call for tax increases
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0jhIdk5jvjtf5bEpyAbXQNZJpxAD95F30500
Oregon Set to Implement Pay-As-You-Go Road Taxes
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/editorial-oregon-set-to-implement-pay-as-you-go-road-taxes/
TonyN,
Will you explain the instructions for posting images again?
I hope you don’t mind but I’ve decided you need some more help to get your point across in a slightly more snappy way.
Besides icons, you need cartoons and photos. We’re lucky. We have polar bear cubs as our poster boys and girls of the AGW issue. But, you guys have the CEOs of some of the world’s biggest companies on your side. They look pretty cute too! Why not use them?
For instance Lee Raymond of Exxon Mobil is known to think that global warming is all a big hoax. Why not use him in something like this?
Great images guys! In the true spirit of capitalism perhaps we ought to send this national and charge everyone $10 for entry!
I would like to formally submit a variation of my cartoon which is merely the polar bear shivering whilst in scarf, gloves and one of our long awaited ‘D’ hats. I lack the cartoon skills to create this and unfortunately the polar bears that have been roaming outside our house for the last six weeks refuse to stay still long enough for me to draw them. Can anyone help?
I must confess I liked Peters Dinosaur but that lived in genuinely warm times not merely a minor hump in the great linear road of humpy temperatures. I’d also like to believe the star spangled banner 4 wheel drive is sitting in Peters driveway and also that the guy in the bow tie holding up the placard is Max.
Subject to Tony N’s agreement and as a way of driving traffic to this site whilst more serious science is discussed, I propose the contest is advertised more widely. As a huge inducement I will offer a maginificent prize for the best icon-agreed by popular acclaimation from the existing posters on this site, within two categories.
Category 1 Best icon for practical general use by sceptics
Category 2 Best icon not necessarily suitable for use by global warming sceptics.
This second category is so people like Peter arent excluded.
The magnificent prizes are described here
http://www.ethicalsuperstore.com/products/spinning-hat/global-warming-mug/
Whilst most of us will see the trophy as a deeply ironical symbol, others might see it as being factual. Closing date 10th January.
Icons must be submitted as a graphic either on this page or via a link and must be original work which includes adapting existing images.All rights remain with the organisers for possible use on our own mugs, posters etc.
Multiple ewntries encouraged
TonyB
Re: Brute #3429
You will find the basic instructions here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=19#comment-5778
And some discussion on the Admin page, link in LHS sidebar under Categories. Remember to make sure that your image of a size that will fit the comment column: about 550 pixels wide.
Hi Derek, Reur 3406, (TonyB of interest?…CO2 and its isotope measurements)
I’m just back from my trip, and have a bit of catching-up to do but meanwhile:
If you do an advanced Google on the exact phrase “Siemens Ultramat 3”, you will probably find 172 returns. The following extract dated Feb 2000, gives the introduction at ML of Ultramat 3 as 1987, and also identifies the earlier NDIR device:
However, maybe the type 3 at ML was replaced in 2006. If you are prepared to spend 13 GBP + shipping + VAT, you can maybe find-out what the following means within the body of the paper, according to Google:
The Ultramat 3 is a massive pen recorder, and according to the following photos is different to the multi component gear used by Scripps.
The Ultramat 23 is an advanced very compact multiple species digital device, apparently without the need for water removal.
Not only has the instrumentation changed since 1958, but also the definition and quantity of known absorption lines. As I mentioned earlier there are some six (?) isotopes of C & O in the CO2 compound, with each compound having different absorption lines. I have not seen much on this, and question whether the rarer compound lines were fully identified and if complex wavelength filters were available early-on.
I Googled for: Mauna Loa CO2 isotopes, and found evidence that they started looking just at 12C and 13C ratios in 1999, in a very interesting paper discussing the 13C/12C ratio hypothesis for Anthro influence.
I hope this helps Derek, and good luck.
It may be that apples are being compared with pears since 1958?
Peter: #3422
Please will you explain just what a hypothesis that depends on predicion can have to do with reality?
TYPO IN MY 3433
Sorry, for found evidence that they started looking just at 12C and 13C ratios in 1999
For 1999 please read 1990
It’s a nice picture, with no snow; Can anyone think of some better words; perhaps have the bear thanking Gore or Hansen
Ah, let’s go for a swim!
Those rock mussels have turned my tongue blue!
Liked Peter’s ” Lee Raymond of Exxon Mobil” logo, but here is one that is probably more directly to the point (i.e. earning big bucks from AGW hysteria):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/3162284483_4c479229f1_b.jpg
Max
How ’bout “polar bear relaxing in Arctic summer”?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/3163214100_1a91165ee9_o.jpg
TonyN,
My computer does not provide a “Copy Image Location” in the drop down menu when I right click. Any suggestions?
I promise this is the last batch (for now).
Peter will like the first one:
AGW mitigation lecture up north
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/3163304004_b747a9877f_b.jpg
Who’s endangered here?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/3162461507_9c3bc15186_b.jpg
Max
In order to make this award winning IPCC chart suitable for perusal (and comprehension) by policymakers it has been simplified and enhanced with key milestones:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/3162846855_2208f9670f_b.jpg
I think we can all agree (including Peter) that it truly deserved the first prize award for clever chartmanship.
Max
Hi Peter,
The whole “logo contest” fun has distracted us a bit.
We were stuck in our exchange with you believing in a 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” of 3.2°C, but unable so far to substantiate this belief scientifically based on observed evidence.
We saw that warming to date was partly caused by solar influences, and that the amount theoretically attributable to CO2 was around 0.3°C (from 1850 to 2008).
This observation leaves us a warming of another 0.4°C from today to year 2100, when atmospheric CO2 concentration will be roughly 2x the 1850 value.
This would confirm a theoretical 2xCO2 temperature impact of around 0.7°C, as estimated by Richard Lindzen and others.
So, if you have any physical evidence to support your belief in a 2xCO2 temperature impact of 3.2°C, bring it now so we can discuss it.
Otherwise, we will have to agree with Lindzen et al. that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is around 0.7°C.
Looking worward to your response.
Regards,
Max
Max
As if we needed any more evidence to demonstrate previous periods of global warming this Southern Hemisphere study demonstrates the MWP was a world wide phenomenen
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/03/4000-year-o18-histories-of-new-zealands-north-and-south-islands/
tonyB
Pete,
I’d like to officially appoint you as spokesman for all AGW Alarmists (for the purposes of this comment).
What is it that you guys want? Considering (for instance) that fuel consumption has dropped, (as far as I know here in the United States/according to this article), we are now to be penalized for driving more fuel efficient cars also? I thought that this entire “movement” was about lowering CO2 emissions…..now the amount of CO2 emitted is irrelevant and we must pay (on top of gasoline sales taxes) user fees per mile?
I don’t get it…… Will you eco-maniacs not be satisfied until all industry is destroyed? Even “green” industries?
Motorists’ habits spur call for tax increases
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0jhIdk5jvjtf5bEpyAbXQNZJpxAD95F30500
Oregon Set to Implement Pay-As-You-Go Road Taxes
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/editorial-oregon-set-to-implement-pay-as-you-go-road-taxes/
Seriously, what is your goal?????
Brute,
It is more a question of what everyone’s goal should be rather than mine alone. But, what I would argue for are policies designed to stabilise CO2 atmospheric concentrations and ultimately lead to their reduction. I posted these thoughts on the NS blog some time ago.
Reduction of atmospheric CO2 need not involve an abandonment of industry. Renewable sources of energy need to be utilised to the full. Solar, Geothermal, Wind. However, I can’t see that they are going to be enough, so we should aim to replace oil and coal fired stations by nuclear energy for electricity generation. There is enough Uranium 235 to keep us going for at least the next 100 years. More if fast breeder reactors are used. After that we can expect nuclear fusion to take over. There is enough Deuterium and Tritium in the sea to keep us going for ever if we can work out how to build fusion reactors.
People are scared of nuclear energy. But many countries have operated it safely for many years. No source of energy is risk free. We just have to make it as safe as it can be. Which is pretty good even when you include the Chernobyl disaster. That shouldn’t happen again with newer and better designed reactors.
The worlds forests and oceans need to be managed scientifically to keep them and their ecosystems in good health. Forests can still be used as a source of timber, its when the timber is burned that CO2 is emitted. So, we should look at using timber as a replacement, wherever possible, for concrete and other building materials.
Oil is not so readily replaced for transportation. If we can develop good enough batteries, electric cars are a solution. If not, liquid hydrogen is the obvious alternative for cars and trucks. Other solutions are being promoted these days, e.g. compressed gaseous hydrogen, but I don’t see anything but liquid hydrogen that will both avoid the emission of CO2 and give the range of petrol/gasoline/diesel powered engines. I’m more confident that batteries will be viable for cars in the near future.
Hydrogen seems rather bulky for aeroplanes, although some think that the advantage of having less weight for given energy will outweigh the disadvantage of having more bulk per unit energy. Most likely, we can continue to use oil, for the indefinite future. If aeroplanes become the only major source of putting CO2 in the atmosphere, then the earth can cope with that.
Its all going to require some money. I would suggest by diverting some of the trillions of dollars spent on military technologies towards the development of these newer technologies. No jobs need be lost – the guys we need to develop nuclear fusion etc are, by and large, currently working on ‘defence’ based work. They need to do something a bit more useful.
PS If you are having trouble with the drop down menus, and to add an image, just remove the {} and add your links etc to the code below.
Sorry the suggested code got chopped off. Can Tony rescue it? I’ll email it to him anyway.
“My computer does not provide a “Copy Image Location” in the drop down menu when I right click. Any suggestions?”
Mine does not, either. It just provides “copy” (and that works OK).
Max
Pete Reur3446, you wrote in part:
Pete, I’m intrigued by this, so could you please provide your expert comment on two points:
1) As I understand it when hydrogen is burnt, (oxidised), it forms water vapour, which is very definitely a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Would you please advise what might be the consequences of increased water vapour? Increased cirrus clouds from aircraft I guess, and…..? And with ground transport…..?
2) Has anyone worked out how to store the hydrogen in an aircraft? Will it be high pressure vessel storage or cryogenic? Has anyone worked out the cost/weight/safety implications of such storage? This really is Santa-land stuff!
Pete,
I suppose you will avoid answereing 3449, just as you have not responded to my earlier post HERE
Other readers can of course draw their own conclusions from this.