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,
All of the “green” power sources have drawbacks and reliability problems which is why they aren’t being used today. We burn coal and oil to provide electricity because they are proven, reliable, efficient and effective methods to generate electricity (heat).
It seems to me that the “Greens” feel that one morning an American Capitalist Pig woke up and said to himself, “I think I’ll start burning coal so that I can screw up the environment”.
No, what we are presently using to produce power, (oil, coal, gas, nuclear) to improve the quality of our lives, has been proven over time to be the most efficient, reliable, cost effective methods to date.
When someone invents a better mousetrap people will use it……willingly.
When someone develops a solar panel that works on cloudy days, that doesn’t require a football field of panels to produce a watt and that doesn’t have a monetary rate of return of more than 500 years, than I’m certain people will stand in line to buy it.
I’m also certain that Peter will have some sort of problem with my “quality of life” statement, but the fact remains that the average life expectancy now is upwards of 70 years (in the developed world), whereas the life expectancy of the same person 100 years ago, before electricity, was likely 40 years (don’t give me a hard time about the stats).
Also; you’d think that “compassionate” minded Liberals would embrace the idea of transforming the “undeveloped” world into a “developed” world through allowing those same people access to the technology (electricity) that we in the “West” have benefitting from for +/- 130 years.
JZ,
Right, I understand that numerous mountain passes are blocked solid with massive amounts of global warming right now….more than any other time in “recorded history”.
In fact, “global warming” was so bad last year that many mountain passes through the Rockies weren’t reopened until late June early July last summer.
Max,
Consider this; the temperature 26 minutes ago in Fargo North Dakota was -18 degrees Fahrenheit.
Considering that the global temperature has risen .5 degrees over the last 150 years, (due to my flashy car and because I keep the temperature in my home at 72 degrees); does that mean that if CO2 doubles in the next 150 years that the global temperature will rise by a factor of 1.0 degree Fahrenheit making the temperature of Fargo North Dakota on January 14th 2109 -17 degrees?
We’d better do something about this menace to Mother Earth right away………
Ahhhhhh, correction…..a doubling of CO2 will raise the global temperature an additional .5 degrees from what it is today making the temperature in Fargo North Dakota -17.5 degrees Fahrenheit on January 14th 2109.
Damn, public school math……..
A bit off topic,
TonyB says:3647
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?
A surprising finding of recent research is that carbon uptake by the atmosphere appears NOT to have increased over the past decade.
It is immediately apparent that the greatest vegetation carbon stores are to be found in the tropical and boreal forests.
Asia forests clearance for land use.
Losses from land use change. The total amount of carbon held in forest, vegetation and soils in the region has been reduced by nearly 60% over a 145 year period.
Current rates of deforestation are steadily reducing the the carbon storage and sequestration..
If you remove the sink CO2 will increase in the atmosphere.
I just wonder if the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is more to do with land use change and deforestation and hence the reduction of the second largest CO2 sink than it is to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
An increase in atmospheric CO2 should lead to an increase in growth of bio-mass which in turn should remove that excess atmospheric CO2, it should also provide more oxygen in the process, but only if deforestation had not occurred.
From 1700 to 1990 19% of the worlds forests have been removed.
This small anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is negligible and inconsequential, the main reason for this increase is a slight rise in global temperatures caused by a highly active sun over the last 3 solar cycles, the most active for 11400 years, the PDO shift to warm from 1975 and a predominantly El-Nino system over that period, this warmed the oceans and released CO2. This increased level of CO2 together with the anthropogenic portion would have been removed by the planets biomass had the worlds forests not been massively reduced. Deforestation is accelerating faster than ever before driven by the mistaken belief that biofuel will replace oil.
Just my opinion.
http://pdf.wri.org/page_forests_010_carbon.pdf
http://crops.confex.com/crops/2008am/techprogram/P43591.HTM
http://www.iupui.edu/~geogdept/g305/deforestation.htm
Carbonsink_LBA
The Amazonian forest carbon sink exerts a key influence on the global carbon cycle, with a total of 0.4-1.0 Gt C yr-1 being sequestered by Amazonian forests.
To put this into perspective, this value is similar to the total annual emission of CO2 from fossil fuel burning in Western Europe (0.9 Gt C in 1996). Any changes in the Amazonian forest sink strength, resulting from changes in climate or land-use, will therefore have a significant impact on the regional and global climate. Understanding and quantifying carbon-related processes in the Amazon is therefore of direct relevance to the formulation of environmental and climate policies in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. In response to scientific questions about the magnitude of the Amazonian forest sink and uncertainties related to the past and future sink strength, the CARBONSINK-LBA was formulated and awarded funding from the European Commission.
Consider how much CO2 would have been absorbed had there have been no deforestation.
http://www.alterra.wur.nl/UK/research/Specialisation+water+and+climate/ESSCC/LBA/
Hi Brute,
You wrote (3701), “Also; you’d think that “compassionate” minded Liberals would embrace the idea of transforming the “undeveloped” world into a “developed” world through allowing those same people access to the technology (electricity) that we in the “West” have benefitting from for +/- 130 years.”
Actually, this is how it works.
The “compassionate saviors of the planet” give the poor Africans (and others) lectures on the beauty of using “clean” power sources: wind and solar, rather than installing large “polluting” coal-fired power generation plants and distribution systems.
Since these “clean” sources are 3x as expensive and 1/5th as reliable as the “dirty” coal plant, it takes these impoverished nations 15 times as long to get the funding together to build them (which means, in actual fact, that they essentially never get built, with the exception of some small “showcase” units, which are used by the “compassionate saviors of the planet” for PR purposes).
The net result is that the inhabitants of these impoverished nations continue to be deprived of electrical power and, in many cases, continue to rely on firewood for indoor cooking and heating, killing about 2 million individuals annually from related respiratory diseases, according to WHO.
A side issue is that without an electrical power grid there can be no water treatment and distribution system, so that the poor individuals are deprived of clean drinking water as well, killing another 2 million people (mostly children) from dysentery and other diseases related to untreated drinking water, according to WHO.
A possible “silver lining” in all this for the “compassionate saviors of the planet” lies in the fact that a major percentage of these idealists are also firm believers in the suggestion that our planet and its environment are being destroyed due to a growing human population (the Malthusian “population time bomb” theory).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/population-paradox-europes-time-bomb-888030.html
The “compassionate saviors of the planet” can take solace in the fact that the 4 million annual deaths that result from depriving the poorest from electrical power and clean drinking water help, in a small way, to curb this human population growth (which is “destroying our planet”).
That’s how “compassion” works in real life.
Regards,
Max
Brute
Some stats on life expectancy (from various sources)
Today:
Developed world (USA, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand): close to 80
Developing nations (China, India, Brazil, other Asian and Latin American nations): 70-75
Russia + some other former USSR nations: 65-70
Undeveloped nations (mostly Africa): 45-50
Historical (USA only)
1850: 39
1900: 50
1930: 61
1950: 69
1970: 72
1980: 74
1990: 76
2000: 78
Estimated life expectancy in 1000AD was 24.
You could draw a correlation between per capita CO2 emissions and life expectancy that would give at least as good a correlation as (if not better than) “globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly” and atmospheric CO2, but I’ll leave that to someone else.
Regards,
Max
Brute
Your 3703 truly highlights the immensity and gravity of the AGW-induced climate crisis.
A shift of 0.5°F (from –18.0 to –17.5°F) in Fargo, ND over the next 100 years is indeed alarming, as I’m sure Peter (sitting in balmy Brisbane) will agree.
Just how many plant and animal species will become extinct as a direct result of this dramatic human-induced climate shift is difficult to estimate (without a large government research grant to study this potential disaster more closely), but it is very likely to be in the thousands.
Very frightening!
Max
Max,
Re: My life expectancy guesses at #3701.
I was pretty close, no?
Science is clear and technology available
The loss of 20-30% of ‘original’ forest cover by 1990 is responsible for nearly 45% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since 1850 (Malhi et al., 2002). Since the 1970s, carbon emissions from fossil fuels have surpassed those from deforestation (Malhi et al., 2002). Current rates of deforestation in Indonesia and Brazil alone would equal four-fifths of the annual emissions reduction target for Annex I countries of the Kyoto Protocol (Santilli et al., 2005). In a review of technical capabilities for monitoring deforestation and estimating emissions in developing countries, DeFries et al. (2007) found that such capacity is well-advanced in a few countries and is feasible in most others.
http://www.globalcanopy.org/main.php?m=5&sm=24&ssm=68&artid=38
RE: 3708
Heh, Heh.
My projected future date should have read 2159 which would be 150 years from now, but I figured my point had been made.
So, here’s the wager Pete, I’ll bet you that the temperature in Fargo North Dakota on January 14th at 5:05 P.M. (Greenwich Mean Time), in the year 2159 will be -17.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Put up or shut up Pete!
Here is what we all have to look forward to if the AGW side wins the debate. It is so crystal clear to me that those on the left are using the excuse of “AGW” to enact the the Big Brother, collectivist regulations that they have coveted for so long.
JZ,
All I have to say about your previous post is:
Forecast for ZIP Code 53562 Madison, Wisconsin
Thursday
-3° F | -22° F
-19° C | -30° C
Clear
Friday
5° F | 2° F
-15° C | -17° C
Partly Cloudy
Saturday
22° F | 7° F
-6° C | -14° C
Chance of Snow
30% chance of precipitation
Looks like Madison is in for a “warmup” by Saturday.
Brute and JZ;
The polar bears are after YOU, and those of youz that would drive such a useless big hunk of iron like that below, (Ford Bronco?), with a five or seven + litre donk. They’re coming to get you; you earth rapers.
I found this over at Gristmill, and couldn’t figure out what the topic was so thought I’d experiment with:
In my country, (Australia), it is illegal to, have the number plate/ licence plate/ registration plate, or whatever you call it over there, unreadable as in this incriminating photo.
Please, can the owner of the vehicle be identified so that the “Authorities” can collect the appropriate revenue?
REMY 3714, it looks like the URL for the image is screwed. Instead, please go to Gristmill @:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/14/94529/3459#1
Alternative caption to the car picture
“Global cooling hits the streets of New York”
TonyB
Aren’t you pleased that NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen has been chosen by his peers to…….
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090114/
Peter
Yep! The more Jim Hansen is promoted as the AGW advocate par excellence, the happier I will be.
Releasing Soil’s Carbon
Up until the late 1950s, plowing had released more carbon dioxide into the air than all the burning of coal and oil in history. (I wonder why only to the late 1950`s).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11951725
Since the mechanization of agriculture began a few hundred years ago, scientists estimate that some 78 billion metric tons – more than 171 trillion pounds – of carbon once trapped in the soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/notill.htm
1955. “What we learned is that after five decades of massive inputs of residue carbon ranging from 90 to 124 tons per acre, all of the residue carbon had disappeared, and there had been a net decrease in soil organic carbon that averaged 4.9 tons per acre.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071029172809.htm
Interesting is it not, plowing is I believe still continuing, put this together with the loss of 1/3rd of the forests and the burning of fossil fuels looks less of a villain.
Bob_FJ,
RE: # 3714
Don’t know if you’re kidding or not, (you have commented about my “over consumption” of motor fuel) so a quick anology:
I’m going to organize a group that advocates the regulation of wine consumption. You see, as a tea totaler consumption of wine offends me and beside that, it effects society as a whole in a negative way, (higher incidences of liver disease which effects my health insurance premiums).
Would you object to such an initiative?
Here’s another:
I’ve also decided that “recreational vehicles” such as motor homes are to be regulated and taxed at a higher rate than other vehicles simply because they are unnecessary and “campers” destroy the natural habit of public parks and national forests.
Would you oppose such legislation?
Brute,
Your 3701 got me to thinking about the apparent correlation between human CO2 emissions and human life expectancy.
It is a well-known fact that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (presumably at least partially enhanced by human CO2 emissions, at least according to IPCC) are beneficial for plant growth (forests, crops, etc.).
What has not been investigated is whether or not there is a correlation between the rate of human CO2 emissions and human life expectancy.
This investigation shows that this correlation is unequivocal, both in the historical and the geographic context.
It has always been clear that the human CO2 emissions from respiration are virtually certain (>99% probability) to be closely linked to human life expectancy on an individual basis, as life expectancy tends to stop at approximately the same time as respiration. This extremely robust correlation has been confirmed by exhaustive model studies as well as in clinical observations.
What now also appears to be very likely (>90%), is that human life expectancy has risen almost directly with human CO2 emissions from all sources. The correlation is very strong (R^2 > 0.9) in the historical global context (see upper graph), and also quite robust in the current (2005) geographic context (lower graph).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/3198985211_7530e545fb_b.jpg
Of course we all know that “correlation” (even robust correlation) does not provide “evidence of causation” (as in the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and “globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly”), but it does provide a “suspicion of causation”, as IPCC has pointed out in the CO2/temperature case.
While not depicted on the graphs for simplicity’s sake, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption appear statistically to give the second-highest benefit for human life expectancy (following that of respiration, as mentioned above). CO2 emissions from cement production appear to afford a lower life expectancy benefit with those from deforestation (while quite substantial in quantity) affording the lowest life expectancy benefit.
A more detailed study of China has shown a remarkable increase in life expectancy as the total human CO2 emissions from that nation have grown; the same trend has been evident in India.
Additional studies are required to further investigate this remarkable correlation and its possible future impact on humanity.
Max
TonyN,
You are letting your anti-science slip show again, I’m afraid.
The award to NASA climate scientist James Hansen wasn’t given by any particular AGW lobby. Though, the protestors against coal fired powered stations who were recently acquited in an English court, partly on the strength of his evidence,and maybe even Al Gore also, would likely have cast their votes for him, had they been enfranchised in the ballot.
He was,instead, chosen to receive the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal by his peers and colleagues in the American Meteorlogical society.
If you are dismissing James Hansen, you are also dismissing the AMS, and the opinion of world science too.
The objective writers at the Huffington Post are concerned about the deniers.
Hi Peter,
Sorry for butting in, but you wrote (3722) what I would perceive to be a rather illogical and silly statement to TonyN:
“He [Hansen] was, instead, chosen to receive the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal by his peers and colleagues in the American Meteorlogical society.
If you are dismissing James Hansen, you are also dismissing the AMS, and the opinion of world science too.”
Actually not, Peter.
Just try this one on for size.
Hansen’s peers and colleagues in AMS (including a lot of guys that work for Hansen) decided to give their boss an award, so that their organization gets more recognition and more research funding to support their work and keep them gainfully employed. Sounds like a smart move. Sure they “agree” with him. Hansen does not strike me as the kind of guy that thrives on internal dissent within his organization. He’s the boss and he screened and hired many of them, ensuring first that they were of the same mindset as he is. If they didn’t agree with him, they wouldn’t have even gotten hired and if some individuals skeptical of his views had slipped through the hiring filter, they would have been fired by him long ago.
Has nothing to do with “dismissing the AMS”, and certainly absolutely nothing to do with “dismissing the opinion of world science” (whodat?).
Don’t be so naïve, Peter.
TonyN is right. If Hansen were to become the “mouthpiece” for the AGW movement with his totally loony, exaggerated “tipping point” disaster predictions, the movement is doomed. Despite his “insiders’” award, most people aren’t going to fall for his hysterical hyperbole.
But, hey, I’m waiting for an answer to my 3679, where I demonstrated to you why the 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” of 3.2C as assumed by the IPCC climate models is not supported by the physically observed facts, and why these facts show that this number is actually closer to the figure of 0.65C as estimated by Lindzen as well as by Shaviv and Veizer. Why are you so silent?
Regards,
Max
Brute Reur 3720
My 3714 was not totally serious, and I would not approve of the two measures you proposed.
However, I will argue that there would have been some merit decades ago in gradually increasing the excise on petrol (gasoline), in the greatest gas-guzzling nation in the world, until it reached a high level somewhat like that seen in Europe. There are several reasons why that would have been good, and here are some, briefly;
1) Whilst there is a great deal of evidence that significant AGW is a load of old tosh, there is arguably considerable debate about how much oil will actually be AVAILABLE in coming years. (e.g. Saudi reserves have been questioned). I see the POSSIBILITY of oil supply problems as being a far greater risk to “the health of the world”, than AGW. (Also, there is the Middle-East situation)
2) If the taxation is properly administered, there is an element of “user pays” for all the infrastructure that is for the benefit of road users. (Why for instance should city dwellers not making much use of highways have to pay so much for them?)
3) Those vehicles which use more fuel, are generally those that cause more wear and tear on the highways than lighter more efficient vehicles, such as typically the European or Japanese types.
4) The gas guzzlers also generate more pollutants such as nitrous oxide and micro particulates which result in increased costs on the health system, and increasing need for emission controls that are also burdened on more efficient vehicles.
5) The American greed for oil has resulted in some disastrous foreign policy, which, may actually have worsened the risk of disruption to supplies, especially in the Middle-East.
(For EXAMPLE, as President Assad of Syria has tried to explain, if you cut-off the snake’s head, ten (?) will grow in it’s place…. Or if you like.… Why not find-out WHY the Palestinians are so pissed-off…. And willing to die and loose property etc, so utterly disproportionately for some little practical revenge.)
Sorry TonyN, I’d better stop there!