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.
Shoot…..Word Press won’t let me display photos of my new car….trust me…..it’s a Brute.
It looks very much like this.
Peformance
100% Electric – Zero Emission Vehicle
On-board recharging
Recharge Time – 3 1/2 Hours/220V and 8 Hours/110V (Faster Option Available)
Estimated operational cost of 2 cents per mile
0 – 60 mph in 3.2 seconds
Range – 120 miles (depending on driving habits)
1000ft/lbs of torque at 0 rpm
2375 bl. curb weight
Recharge Time – 3 1/2 hrs,not bad in an emergency
Range – 120 miles (depending on driving habits), about 40 miles or less driven as a sports car.
You wont hear it coming before it hits you.
Bobclive
I remember reading a report recently anguishing over whether the Amazon was actually a source not a sink of co2 as had always been thought. How does this fit into that thinking?
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Let’s see if we can put our discussion on the “2xCO2 temperature impact” (or “climate sensitivity”) as simply and succinctly as possible, following the (PC version of the) KISS principle (Keep It Simple and Succinct). We should now be able to wrap this issue up after all the dialogue we’ve already had on it.
Let’s start with your assumed 3.2C climate sensitivity and its basis, as outlined by IPCC.
1. IPCC tells us that the theoretical warming to be expected from a 2xCO2 “scenario” is around 0.8C (the actual calculation using the IPCC radiative forcing factors results in 0.7C, but we won’t quibble about that small exaggeration).
2. IPCC tells us their models assume that a net positive feedback from clouds will result in 1.3C warming impact, conceding in the same report that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
3. IPCC further tells us their models assume that a net positive feedback from increased water vapor (based on the assumption of constant relative humidity with warming) will result in 0.7C warming, after being partially offset by the negative feedback from the closely related lapse rate.
4. And finally IPCC tells us their models assume that a net positive feedback from surface albedo changes (less snow cover, melting of global sea ice, etc.) will result in a further 0.4C.
5. This makes 0.8 + 1.3 + 0.7 + 0.4 = 3.2C (all with ± ranges bringing the total to 2.5 to 4.0C) for a 2xCO2 “scenario”.
This is a theoretical value derived from model simulations using various assumptions.
We will ignore several studies from all over the world that indicate a significant upward distortion of the temperature record resulting from the UHI effect.
We will also ignore the fact that (despite some recent melting of Arctic sea ice) the net global sea ice extent has remained essentially unchanged, and the northern hemisphere snow cover has remained unchanged since the 1980s.
In addition, IPCC gives increased solar activity a very low assumed radiative forcing, conceding, however, that its ”level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”.
So much for the THEORY.
Now let’s get to the PRACTICE, i.e. the physical observations made, which either confirm or refute the assumptions made in the theory.
We have two approaches to this:
1. Actual temperature and CO2 record:
a. Using the actual long-term warming as physically observed by the temperature record (assuming that it has not been distorted too much by UHI effects resulting from the major urbanization and shut-down of rural measurement stations over this long period) and
b. Subtracting the warming believed by experts in the field (who have a higher “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing than IPCC) to have been caused by the measured increased solar activity to arrive at the observed anthropogenic warming over the period
c. Using the assumed (prior to 1958) and observed (after 1958) atmospheric CO2 concentrations, arrive at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, based on the actual observed warming attributable to anthropogenic factors (equivalent to that from CO2, according to IPCC) as observed in (a) and (b) above
2. Specific physical observations on feedback assumptions:
a. Physical observations of the net feedback from clouds (two completely independent studies by Spencer and Norris)
b. Physical observations on the net increase of water vapor with warming, resulting in a net positive feedback from increased water vapor (Minschwaner + Dessler)
As I have demonstrated to you in some detail, the two approaches result in almost exactly the same result: the net total of all feedbacks in a 2xCO2 “scenario” represents a slightly negative radiative forcing, bringing the 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” to around 0.6 to 0.65C (rather than 2.5 to 4.0C as assumed by the climate models of IPCC).
To summarize:
THEORY (climate model outputs based on assumed model inputs) assumes a strong overall positive 2xCO2 feedback resulting in a climate sensitivity = 2.5 to 4.0C (mean value 3.2C), or around four times the 2xCO2 warming without “feedbacks”. From this, the THEORY tells us that global warming from added human CO2 could be a potentially serious long-term problem for our planet.
PRACTICE (physical observations, using the two different approaches outlined above) confirm a slightly negative overall 2xCO2 feedback resulting in a climate sensitivity = 0.6 to 0.8C (let’s say 0.7C on average), or roughly the same as the 2xCO2 warming without “feedbacks”. From these observations, the PRACTICE tells us that global warming from added human CO2 is a negligible factor with no potentially serious long-term consequences for our planet.
You come up with all sorts of complicated rationalizations to defend the THEORY against the PRACTICE.
I say let’s stick with the PRACTICE to see how good the THEORY and its supporting climate model assumptions really are, and then modify the assumptions so that the THEORY ends up equaling the physically observed PRACTICE.
You apparently prefer to ignore the PRACTICE where it refutes the climate model assumptions supporting the THEORY or, alternatively, obfuscate the issues with additional side hypotheses or proclamations (“hidden” heat in the ocean, “2,500 consensus scientists can’t be wrong”, etc.) in an attempt to divert from the obvious conclusions.
This is the basic difference between your approach and mine.
Mine is based upon the scientific principle that a THEORY is only as good as the physically observed facts supporting it, namely the PRACTICE. This is “science”.
Yours is based on the firm, almost dogmatic “belief” in a THEORY and the assumptions supporting it, even if the physical observations show that these assumptions are not validated in PRACTICE. This is “religion” and not “science”.
I suggest that you go back to Yogi Berra’s thoughts on THEORY and PRACTICE, Peter.
Regards,
Max
TonyB,3678 BobClive 3672
There was also I finding a few years ago in Oz that mature forest here somewhere, was a net emitter of GHG including methane. This was by actual measurement, not modelling.
Young forest regrowth or plantations on the other hand were said to be absorbers.
I don’t have the info, but that is what I clearly remember, and it raised a few eyebrows! (Don’t hear about it much from the save our old-growth forests lobby)
Zero Emission Vehicle
bill,
Is this a truly accurate statement? I mean, wouldn’t it depend upon how the electricity that recharges the battery was produced?
As I think about it, I can’t think of any mode of transport that emits nothing…..(even walking).
Brute and Bill,
I am just heartened to learn that low or zero emissions vehicles can also be fun an fast; not the dull, serious, humorless stodgy utilitarian transport devices that the eco-terrorists, AGW believers, and social engineers would prefer we drive. I’m sure they’d actually prefer that we move to big, drab looking government-built apartment blocks in the urban centers where we can walk or take public transport to our eco-friendly manufacturing jobs where we all get paid according to our needs, and contribute according to our abilities.
Brute, still no photos to view of your Cobra, but keep trying. I drive a modern version of the Cobra junior (Pontiac Solstice GXP) and just love it. It’s a little 2L 4 cyl Ecotec that soon will be outputting over 300HP at 23MPG. Very fun!
Interesting article on deforestation since 1700.
I would consider not just the amount of CO2 released relating to the burning but the amount of forests in hectares lost as a carbon sink since 1700. The US reached a peak of deforestation between 1700 and 1850, does the pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 have anything to do with the extent of the worlds forests as a carbon sink prior to that time. In the southern hemisphere forests are being cleared at a faster rate than ever before mainly for bio fuel.
http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!deforestation%20-%20final.pdf
Link did not work try this?
http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!deforestation%20-%20final.pdf
[PDF]
Deforestation Contributes to Global Warming
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
release of biotic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ….. estimate the global deforestation since 1850, i.e. the deforested area and also the VOB. …
http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!deforestation%20-%20final.pdf
Still did not work, just type :
Deforestation Contributes to Global Warming
It is a worthwhile read.
Here is mine, I have also got a soft top.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/TTpolished.jpg
Here is the soft top.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/TTPictures043.jpg
Bobclive,
My buddy has one just like it. Very nice!
Very eco-friendly so as to help reduce your carbon footprint. To help stop AGW. Of course.
(That was for you, TonyN!)
Can’t seem to post my own personal photos, but this is the same car except mine is guardsman blue.
302 cu in, 345 Horsepower, 5 speed, Headers to Flowthru mufflers and ZERO pollution controls.
Sorry to bore you all with this but I just love this car……..
Bob,
Sharp looking car. Glad to see that a British garage is as cluttered as (my) American cluttered garage.
Sometimes I can fit the car in there……..
This is my car except mine is a dark blue.
TonyN is going to kill us, but how far away are you from Big Sur? I understand it’s an excellant road for cars like these….
I’m thinking of getting a bumber sticker that reads:
“My Other Car Emits Tons Of CO2 Also”
Brute, my latest “Dear Joe” message:
Results from 2008 Weblog Awards, for: Best science blog, out of ten:
Winner: Watt’s Up with That: 37.6%
Second: Pharyngula (See my post above): 32.5%
Third: Climate Audit (A rather “serious” scientific site): 10.9%
Oh dear!: Real Climate: 3.8%
Hey Joe, I notice that your own Weblog, (Climate Progress, is it?), did not make it into the ten science blogs voted on. I wondered if you may have been placed into a different category, so went to The 2008 Weblog Award Poll Navigation Page. Amongst the 50 odd categories listed, there did not seem to be one that fits your weblog, so maybe you should contact Weblog Awards, and mention that you seem to have been overlooked.
Mine is bigger and hornier than yours, so there!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/3196252610_e8a4d0c0ee_o.jpg
Well, one of them anyway.
JZSmith, Bobclive, Brute, Bob_FJ
Hey, you guys. Here’s a pic of my “low carbon footprint” car (a Model-T Ford).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3463/3196303856_9414139726_o.jpg
The engine is a 177 cubic inch (2.9 liter) four-cylinder, four-cycle, “L” head engine with 2 side-valves per cylinder, splash lubricated, water-cooled. It is hand-crank started, of course.
Engine horsepower is a powerful 20-22 BHP @ 1600 maximum RPM with a 3.75 x 4.00 inches cylinder bore and stroke, generating a compression ratio of 4.5 to 1 at a cylinder pressure of 50-70 psi and an engine torque of 83 ft-lbs @ 900 RPM.
With a 10-gallon (38 liter) tank, this “beaut” (as Peter would say) has a range of about 200 miles (320 km) at a cruising speed of 35 mph (approx. 56 km/hr). Top speed is 45 mph (72 km/hr), which it can reach in about 30 seconds (on a 20% downhill grade).
I can get around 20-25 miles per gallon at cruising speed (6.8 liters per 100 km).
Since I took this pic, I painted it canary yellow (the “Ferrari” yellow), added white-wall tires (balloon type 30×3″ front, 30×3 ½” rear) plus a bumper sticker to the back saying “IF YOU ARE JUST PASSING ME, YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT IS TOO HIGH SO SHAME ON YOU!”
You gotta do something to save the planet, right? I feel very righteous in my baby.
Max
I cant post a picture of my car but it does 45miles per gallon. For short trips I walk, for longer ones I try to cycle but very difficult to do on Devons very hilly roads.
Most trips that need a car are around 10 miles and if there was a sensible electric car that could be charged at home by my own resources rather than through the grid-which seems self defeating-I would buy it.
Unfortunately a very poor electric car is every bit as much money as a very good petrol one, and there is of course the risk of running out of juice somewhere. Until the technology moves on substantially they won’t catch on widely, and probably will get over taken by other forms of power-hydrogen/fuel cells in ten years?
Its the story of renewables really-they just aren’t up to the job and its no use pretending they are an alternative to the real thing yet
TonyB
Brute Reur 3668, you wrote:
Yes, I know how you feel, and as Max opined, the guy is a Jerk and liar etc. However, I look at it this way; Gristmill is a high traffic site, and there are probably lots of readers that do not comment but digest what is written. (In web-lingo I understand they are called lurkers). These are the people that I would like to influence, and if Romm is embarrassed or slowed-down then that is an added bonus.
BTW Max; Dessler is back at Gristmill, (27 Dec) after a noticeable absence, giving advice to Obama.
Max,
Seriously, I like the model T. If I had the space I would buy one, especially in such good conditions as yours.
I appreciate the engineering and historical significance of what it represents as an artist appreciates a fine work of art or a naturalist appreciates a mountain stream.
I would even go so far as to write that I appreciate the engineering involved with a Prius, (although I’d never own one as it’s simply a butt ugly car).
I suppose the point that’s lost on most “Liberal” minded people is that freedom represents choice…..a choice to own a Model T or a Hummer or a Prius if you’d like…….The “Liberal” mind seeks to force people into accepting their “choices” and none other while all the while preaching “tolerance and “diversity”.
Maybe you can elaborate as you seem to be the most cosmopolitan of the bunch, but there are cultural differences between the European world view and an American world view. Most Americans don’t feel comfortable simply “going along with the rest of the crowd”. We’ll make our own decisions and individual choices. A healthy Democracy demands it.
In a society of free thinkers, free markets and free people there will be a myriad of options available……not simply whatever the government deems fit or “allows” you to own, purchase or choose…… which I think is probably why most people don’t want any part of the “solutions” proposed by the Leftists that are promoting the global warming hoax.
If wind, solar or hydroelectric power are an available, competitively priced, “choice”, people will purchase it/them……If not, they won’t. When “green” power is less or as expensive and as reliable as conventional power sources people will “choose” it.
Forcing people to buy things that they don’t want is tyranny and slavery…which is the modus operandi of Socialists.
Brute
You said;
“If wind, solar or hydroelectric power are an available, competitively priced, “choice”, people will purchase it/them……If not, they won’t. When “green” power is less or as expensive and as reliable as conventional power sources people will “choose” it.”
This sums it up doesnt it? At the moment you would have to be making a real political or philosophical statement to invest in green energy. That doesn’t mean its not intersting or desirable but that it isnt practical or cost effective. I have never aspired to a big car but its up to everyone else what they do isn’t it?
My main concern is over energy security which is why I like the idea of using our massive supplies of coal (suitably filtered) to build much needed power stations, or to go down the nuclear road or to use the much neglected tidal route. We are being sidetracked by the misplaced concerns over carbon and are not doing what is best in our circumstances-if those circumstances happen to be green’ that is a happy ‘by product’ but shouldnt be the driving force at the expense of more rational systems.
I fear for our fragile countryside if we massively expand onshore wind turbines-I feel they are an expensive dead end as is solar in our circumstances.
TonyB
Brute, Big Sur is 5 or 6 hours away in Central California, but we have many great twisty bits around here in southern California, although many are not a good drive right now because of the massive amount of Global Warming that fell recently! (Although today and this whole week it has been and will continue to be mid 80’s (~28ºC)… whooohooo! Go AGW!)
Max, the model T is awesome. I love the new stuff that is very good on emissions and efficiency, to have fun but also help reduce AGW. Which is a big problem. Honest.