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.
For a plan to get the USA “weaned” from foreign oil imports in a relatively short time period see:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-ticker/2008/7/8/pickens-plan.html
This is a practical proposal from someone who really understands the US energy situation.
It makes sense, even if you don’t believe that human CO2 emissions are a problem for our planet.
Max
More censorship (Joe Romm style) from the proponents of AGW.
Hi JZSmith,
More on your #384 (and Peter Martin’s comments #387).
Looking at the GDP, population and CO2 figures for various nations, you can break them down into major groups to see how “carbon efficient” these economies are at generating wealth.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2651295468_76552bcfd6_b.jpg
Japan leads in “carbon efficiency”, ahead of the EU nations, Brazil, USA, Mexico, Canada, Australia and six developed East Asian nations. These 39 nations together generate around 80% of the world’s wealth while emitting around 52% of the world’s total man-made CO2. With a total population of around 1.4 billion, the average per capita GDP of these nations is around US$ 25,000.
A second group of major CO2 emitters includes the OPEC nations, India, South Africa, Russia, China and 11 ex-USSR nations. This group of 27 nations generates around 12% of the world’s wealth while emitting 40% of the world’s total man-made CO2. With a total population of around 3.3 billion, the average per capita GDP of these nations is around $1,700. Led by China and India, the economies of this group of nations are growing more rapidly than those of the first group, as is their share of the total worldwide CO2 emissions.
The unlisted nations (a mix of small wealthy nations, nations with average per capita GDP and the least wealthy of all) generate around 8% of the world’s wealth while emitting 8% of the world’s total man-made CO2. With a total population of around 2.0 billion, the average per capita GDP of these nations is around $1,800.
While energy consumption is a clear indicator of wealth, it appears that the wealthier nations are, in general, more efficient at generating GDP with less fossil fuel energy consumption (expressed in GDP $ per ton CO2) than the others.
Of course, there are individual differences based on the degree of development of non-fossil fuel sources of power generation: nuclear (France), hydroelectric (Switzerland) on the amount of automotive biofuels used (Brazil) and on the fossil fuel mix being used in each country (coal, oil, natural gas), etc.
But looking at “carbon efficiency” allows you to “think outside the normal box” of either “total CO2 emissions” or “per capita CO2 emissions” that are often used to compare nations and groups of nations.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Your post on Wikipedia censorship does not surprise me. I have found Wikipedia extremely unreliable and skewed when it comes to any topic related to AGW.
They are not bad on non-political topics of general interest, but you can forget them for AGW “scientific info” (which is “politics”, after all).
Regards,
Max
Hi Max,
Good info. It would be interesting to add a column to your table showing population density, since fossil fuels are so important to transportation, hence, I suspect, lower carbon efficiency. Consider that Japan is a very small country geographically, but has a large population and is very modern and has a high $GDP. The USA, by comparison, has a much lower population density, and therefore higher transportation costs to move goods from place to place. Wikipedia says Japan’s pop density is 337/km^2; EU, 114/km^2; USA, 31/km^2; and Brazil, 22/km^2.
That’s got to figure into the carbon efficiency equation.
(Sorry for the brevity today; have to run along to some other activities.)
manacker (398) — I’ll go with the two NRC reports which I previously linked.
Robin Guenier (399) — They do.
Lawernce Solomon is a fool.
Things aren’t going your way David!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
JZ,
Don’t forget to sign up before Benson beats you to it!
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less…………
David 408 : Your comment: Lawernce Solomon is a fool, made me think of you, and the problem you have with graphs that possess raw data together with broad band moving average smoothing. We know that you are a computer scientist and prefer much simpler graphs based on 10-year block averaging, regardless of how noisy the data is, and how sensitive it might be to the location of the blocks. However, I’ve just re-found the Hadley webpage of April 2008, which might help you to understand what they do, since you do not seem to appreciate the significance of it compared with the very crude block averaging.
Of course both block averaging and a moving filters require MSU data for the last half of their bands, so there is no difference there. From memory, GISS use 6, or maybe 5 years, The Australian CSIRO/BoM, use 11, and the dendros prefer either 30 or 40 years moving average. The longer the band width and also the type of code used, the smoother is the result. It’s an arbitrary choice, depending on how much smoothing is wanted, but is a lot more scientific than block averaging.
I hope you find it interesting, and not too difficult to understand.
Please take note of the discussion around the orange curve on graph #1, when they found their long-time arbitrary method for the recent years, to be no longer satisfactory
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
So, David (407), you say that the scientists contributing to the 2007 IPCC report, “know that AGW is a consequence of known physics”. Therefore, as they are uncertain “regarding the causes of early 20thcentury warming” (presumably a also consequence of physics – known or unknown), that must mean that the causes were something other than AGW. Thus, for the reasons I have stated (369), they cannot be sure that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver of global warming.
PS: I see (408) that alarmists still harbour the delusion that ad hominem attack is a valid argument.
Hey David,
You wrote (406): “manacker (398) — I’ll go with the two NRC reports which I previously linked.”
Great, David. I’ll stick with the 13 reports I linked.
As we say here in the (French speaking) part of Switzerland, “chacun à son goût” (everyone according to his own taste).
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Very good point (your #405) on population density. The nations with the highest “carbon efficiency” do tend to have higher population densities, as you point out. I’ll check the statistics to confirm this.
Obviously the USA, Canada and Australia have much lower PD than Japan, Denmark or Netherlands, which makes “carbon efficient” public transportation systems much more difficult to install and operate efficiently.
Using your analogy, this tells us that these larger, more dispersed nations are actually, in effect, inherently more “carbon efficient” than the ones with higher population densities. This makes sense. May even help explain why Russia is so low on the “efficiency” list.
I think the main point here is to get the AGW supporters to be able to “think outside the box” on total (or per capita) CO2 emissions by nation and relate these to generated prosperity (GDP), a basic economic concept that has been foreign in their thinking.
I’d be curious what Peter Martin thinks of all this.
Regards,
Max
Hey Max,
How come I thought you were in the Germanic part? Sprechen sie Froggy unt Kraut unt Iti?
This article is important: China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico are set to be five of the top eight economies by 2050. Therefore, as McRae says,
These are precisely the countries whose CO2 emissions are growing most rapidly – hence their extraordinary economic development. Therefore anyone thinking that emissions will be reduced to 50% of 1990 levels (or whatever the current “target” or “aim” might be), or indeed will be reduced at all, is living in dreamland. It’s not going to happen: we’d better get used to it.
David, further my 410 (responding earlier to your 408)
It may further help you to understand data smoothing techniques, if I point-out a few other things about various moving average analytical methods, as distinct from the very crude block averaging method, which, as a computer scientist, you say you prefer. (because you said that it was easier for you to understand)
If you study figure #1 in the Hadley discussion:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
You may comprehend that there, like a sore thumb, in diagram #1, is a simple Hadley cordal construct equivalent of what is commonly called a normal or Gaussian distribution, or more casually, a bell curve. This is the arbitrary choice of Hadley, to achieve the smoothing effect on the raw data, that their substantial group of scientists at UEA have elected to be a good standard. I actually endorse it IS A GOOD standard to use, putting aside the problem of MSU for the final 10-years. (and also assuming that the data is real)
However, I harped on the fact previously that the band-width of the filter is not the only consideration, in how noisy data may be smoothed. For instance, if you study the shape of the Hadley “bell-curve“, it is very Gaussian in it’s tails, and one might argue that if it was replaced by an unweighted moving average of around six years, unless the data was wildly noisy, the outcome would generally be somewhat similar.
On the same tack, I thought I would Google the Australian BoM/CSIRO about their 11-year smoothing, and I discovered that it is unweighted. In other words, there is no bell-curve, it is a moving rectangle! Wow, so it has much greater smoothing than Hadley! (and I would argue it is perhaps over-smoothed)
Just to add to the confusion, for Cyclones (Hurricanes), BoM use…… 9-point filter of Shuman (1957). ……Ho Hum (whatever that is!)
I tried to look at GISS, without firm success. I think from what I did find, that they use 5-year unweighted (rectangular) moving average smoothing, which is probably not hugely different in outcome to the Hadley pseudo-Gaussian method.
I would like to reiterate, that as an engineer, I find 10-year block averaging of noisy data to be totally unacceptable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TOTALLY!
Do you do computer modelling of anything?
Re: #401, Max
See another way of looking at this here.
Robin,
Would you be very kind and cross-post your #415 here as it is a useful contribution to that thread too, as are some other comments on this thread.
At some stage we are all going to have to think about the way in which the NS Continuation is organised. At the moment it is completely unstructured and if the volume of comments continues at the present rate there will soon be an irritating time-lag when loading.
I’ve noticed some argument on this thread about graphs at Tamino’s blog, but I haven’t followed it all that carefully. Would this be relevant to those involved:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3257#comment-272658
or would the discussion here be relevant to the point raised at Climate Audit? Just something that I saw in passing.
“I’d be curious what Peter Martin thinks of all this.”
I’m flattered that my opinion is asked for! ‘Per capita’ emissions don’t always mean that the citizens of country X are more virtuous than country Y, even if their emissions are lower. For instance, Trinidad has quite high CO2 emissions per capita, which I would attribute to the products of their tar extraction industry, and which mainly are used for export. So, it does raise the question of whether the citizens of Trinidad or the citizens of the end user countries should be responsible for these emissions.
You could make the same argument for many of the countries of the Middle East, whose oil industries generate high CO2 emissions.
Similarly much of China’s Co2 emissions are generated by their exporting industries.
So it is important that when any carbon trading scheme is established that industries shouldn’t just move from one country to another to escape their obligations.
Manacker has questioned my use use of the word ‘if’, in connection with the link between CO2 emissions and global warming. The internet may be full of comments from those who deny the connection, but any responsible policy maker should take more account of mainstream science than the rantings of those who have a problem accepting that science , but yet have few , if any, scientific qualifications in the subject.
Too funny not to note here.
Brute, like we discussed once on the NS comment threads, ‘AGW causes glaciers to melt as well as cause them to grow.’
Hi Peter,
“So, it does raise the question of whether the citizens of Trinidad or the citizens of the end user countries should be responsible for these emissions.”
Peter, your concept is screwy per se. We are not talking about “responsibility” for emissions by virtue of consuming the products that were produced concurrently with generating the emission.
Under such a concept “rich” nations are “guilty” of “generating the emissions” that occurred when the products they consumed were produced in some other faraway country.
So the basic crime is being rich (and hence “consuming” more than those who are poor). Solution: “let’s all be poorer”.
Obviously this is a distorted way of looking at things.
It equates prosperity with “responsibility for CO2 emissions”.
You can be sure that those in this world who are truly “poor” (and are therefore not using much energy or consuming many goods that require energy to produce) would much rather join the ranks of the “rich” (and thereby generate more CO2).
And you can be just as sure that those who enjoy prosperity today are not prepared to give it up just for the sake of “reducing CO2 emissions”.
Tell me honestly, Peter, is this what you espouse (a reduction in prosperity for the wealthy nations and a moratorium on growth for the poorest nations)?
If so, I can see why you do not have many people supporting your point of view because it is insane.
I’ll come back to your statement on CO2 later.
Regards,
Max
Hi BobFJ,
Live in German part now but spent 15 years in French part. No Italian.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I think we both agree that reducing the percentage of energy produced from fossil fuels is a good thing, for various reasons. France has caught on to this while “greener” Germany is still struggling with the idea. T. Boone Pickens has recently proposed an ingenious solution for the USA.
These moves will occur automatically as oil and natural gas become scarcer and more expensive and concerns grow about dependence on imports from unstable or even hostile regions.
Now as to the connection between CO2 and global warming: Sure there are “scientists” (plus some computer jockeys) that say there is a direct link (they are being paid to say this Peter, i.e. it’s their livelihood). There is a valid hypothesis supporting this point of view. More uncertain are the assumed “feedbacks” programmed into the models to exaggerate the impact of CO2 on climate. Without these, there is no problem from a 2xCO2 scenario by 2100.
There are some (like David B. Benson) that are arrogant enough to truly believe that we know all there is to know about what causes climate to change. Some are even dumb enough to say, “the science is settled”.
There are even some that say that the effect on Earth’s climate “could be” (not “is”, mind you) alarming some day in the future when a “tipping point” could been reached. This group (the “alarmists”) is a much smaller group than the first bunch. Al Gore, James E. Hansen, Joe Romm and others are in this category. Many of the “alarmists” benefit from the hysteria (fame, recognition, money) and some truly believe that they are striving to “save the planet”.
So here is my logic on this, Peter. Let’s see where you and I disagree.
Do humans generate CO2? Yes.
Do they generate more CO2 as their economies (and prosperity) grow? Yes (although the record shows that the CO2 growth is slower than the economic growth as the economies become more affluent).
Is there a connection between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Most likely.
Is there a connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature? Probably.
Do we know all there is to know about other possible causes for climate change and for 20th century warming? No.
Is the warming experienced to date a cause for alarm? No.
Greenhouse theory tells us we should have already seen 45% of the warming from 2xCO2 today, leaving 55% for the period until 2100 (when 2xCO2 is reached).
Is a projected future warming in this order of magnitude (i.e. 20% higher than that experienced to date) a cause for alarm? No.
Is a projected future warming at several times the recent rate of warming realistic? Probably not, since it is neither supported by the theory nor by the actual record to date.
Should humans stop growing their economies (and prosperity) in an attempt to slow global warming? No.
Appreciate your comments.
Regards,
Max