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.
Hi Robin,
You are surprised (4521) and even shocked at Drayson’s words, “There is a significant minority of senior managers who do not accept the evidence for climate change and don’t see the need to take action. It really shocked me that those views are held …”
After quoting another scientist who points out some of the basic problems with computer models, you go on to write, “Doesn’t Paul Drayson know that most of the “evidence” these senior managers don’t accept comes from those very computer models?”
This is precisely the problem, Robin (along with the politicization of the process and the staggering amounts of public research funding and even more obscene amounts of potential carbon tax or cap and trade monies involved).
Richard Lindzen addressed the pitfalls of relying on computer models to predict the future in an essay written several years ago, which is still just as pertinent today as then.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
“While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable–regardless of reality.”
Drayson has obviously fallen into the trap of “holding in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer” and confusing this with scientific “evidence”.
Regards,
Max
I liked this: in his column about Sir Fred Goodwin in the Telegraph on Wednesday, Boris Johnson described him as having
Says it all really.
Max: my point was that Paul Drayson may well not even have known that the “evidence” which he believes is so compelling comes from computer models.
BTW Lindzen’s wise words equally apply to the increasingly complex models used by financial “experts”.
Yes, Robin, I agree. If Drayson was not even aware that the so-called “evidence” to which he made reference is in reality no more than questioable computer model output, then he is operating from an even higher level of ignorance than if had swallowed the computer model data and equated it with “evidence”, as Lindzen suggests.
Nassim Taleb’s “Black Swan” covers the pitfalls of relying on computer projections pretty succinctly.
One thing that baffles me over and over again is that AGW-promoters truly seem to believe that the general climate models, which are unable to predict next year’s climate with any degree of certainty can somehow miraculously predict the climate 100 years from now.
The often repeated suggestion that long term projections enable the models to remove “background noise” and “outliers” lies at the very heart of the matter.
Taleb points out that precisely these “outliers” and unexpected events are more likely to throw off a long-term prediction than a shorter-term one, with the very simple premise that it is not so important what an expert forecaster “knows” as it is what he/she “does not know”.
And therein lies a big part of the problem.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Yes you are correct. Understanding that the oceans will take longer to warm than the land, both on a short and longer term scale isn’t ‘rocket science’. Incidentally I hate that term. The difficulty with firing rockets is much more related to the engineering than the science. That’s quite straightforward by comparison.
But I like the way you declare victory on these topics. To add to my analogies of how you must be the sort of person who claims they’ve won at Poker when holding a busted flush, or in checkmate at chess, or without taking a trick in Bridge I’ve thought of a couple more.
Do you claim you, or your chosen team, have won at football when the score is 8-0 and you’ve hardly managed to get the ball out of your own half? Or, in racing, would you expect to be declared the winner when you’ve fallen off your horse at the first fence?
I think that last analogy pretty much describes your performance in your recent “its all because of the sun” argument! Directly equating the change in TSI with climate forcing was pretty much the equivalent of letting your foot slip out of the stirrup.
BarelySane
“We know that supplies of coal, oil, gas, are finite whether they run out in 10 or 500 years is another matter.”
Yes, they definitely are “finite”, but we can estimate how long they would last at current consumption rates. From this we can also calculate how much CO2 this would generate and how much theoretical greenhouse warming this would cause.
There are estimates out there for the total worldwide reserves of each. The Oil and Gas Journal is a good source, but there are many others.
Oil and Gas Journal states that “proven petroleum reserves” today are 1,317 billion bbl. This includes that portion of the Canadian tar sands that is now under development of 174 billion bbl, but excludes an estimated additional 200 billion bbl there. It does not include the oil shale, which is estimated to be 2,500 billion bbl (with a large percentage in the USA). Then there is the offshore Arctic at 90, Greenland at 110 and ANWR at 16 billion bbl. The OCS is estimated to bring in 86 billion bbl and Brazil’s recently discovered giant offshore fields a total of 29 billion bbl.
This equals an optimistically estimated world total of around 4.3 trillion bbl or 159 years at today’s consumption of 75 million b/d.
Converted to metric tons, this equals around 570 billion tons.
Total recoverable reserves of coal around the world are estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy to be at 930 billion tons. Other sources estimate the total long-term coal reserves more optimistically at around 1,500 billion tons. This higher estimate represents around 242 years at today’s consumption of 62 billion tons/year.
The world’s ”proven” natural gas reserves are estimated to be 176 trillion cubic meters. An optimistic assumption of new finds would add another 200 trillion cubic meters for a total optimistically estimated world total of 376 trillion cubic meters. At today’s consumption of 2.8 trillion cubic meters/year, this equals around 134 years.
If ALL of these reserves were used up, this would generate:
Coal = 91% carbon
1 mt coal generates 0.91mtC
equals (44 / 12) * 0.91 = 3.34 mtCO2
Total reserves generate: 1,500 * 3.34 = 5,005 GtCO2 (billions tons CO2)
Oil = 85% C
1 mt oil generates (44 / 12) * .95 = 3.12 mtCO2
25% of oil is used for non-combustion
75% of world’s reserves generate: 0.75 * 570 * 3.12 = 1,330 GtCO2
Natural Gas
1 cubic meter of natural gas generates 2.0 kgCO2
20% is used for non-combustion
80% of world reserves equal 301 trillion cubic meters
1 trillion cubic meters generate 2.0 GtCO2
80% of world’s reserves generate: 301 * 2.0 = 603 GtCO2
For a grand total CO2 emission (over the next 100-200 years) of:
5,005 + 1,330 + 603 = 6,938 GtCO2
Mass of the atmosphere = 5,140,000 Gt
Currently less that half of the CO2 emitted by humans “stays” in the atmosphere. Let’s assume that this increases to two-thirds = 4,625 GtCO2
This represents an increase of (4,625 * 1,000,000) / 5,140,000 = 900 ppm(mass)
Equals: 900 * 12 / 29 = 592 ppmv
C1 = today’s CO2 concentration = 385 ppmv
C2 = CO2 concentration when all fossil fuels consumed = 385 + 592 = 977 ppmv
C2/C1 = 2.538
ln(C2/C1) = 0.9313
assume 2xCO2 climate sensitivity = 0.8C (based on actual 20th century observation and IPCC estimate of CO2 radiative forcing)
ln(2) = 0.6931
dT = (0.9313 / 0.6931) * 0.8 = 1.1C
This is theoretical warming from all the CO2 contained in all the fossil fuel reserves of our planet. That’s all the theoretical AGW there will ever be!
So are we making a “mountain out of a molehill” here?
Regards,
Max
“Barelysane”
You say “For me i use aliases”
I notice that you’ve used the plural. What other aliases have you used?
Sorry, there are 2 “typos” in my last post. The calculation is OK, though, since I used the correct values.
Today’s coal consumption is 6.2 billion tons/year (not 62)
CO2 generated from oil is (44 / 12) * 0.85 (rather than 0.95)
Peter reur 4530
This is a totally silly post with absolutely no discussion of the facts but a bunch of irrelevant analogies to poker, chess, bridge, football, falling off the horse, foot slipping out of the stirrup, etc.
Come with facts, Peter, not irrelevant hogwash. It just makes you look silly (like your obsession with “sockpuppets” and “alter egos” and continued harassment of BarelySane).
Regards,
Max
Barelysane,
If you are in IT maybe you can help me with something?
I need to set up a PC wireless network for a client. They’ll all need to share files (using Windows file sharing). But not all to the same level of access. I think three subnets should cover it.
Everyone should have internet access and in addition we need another couple of APs which allow internet access only to visitors. No file sharing.
Can you tell me how I would set up the subnet masking and gateway addresses to allow this?
From Wikipedia:
Rocket science is an informal term for aerospace engineering concerning rockets which launch spacecraft into or operate in outer space.
Due to the complexity and depth of this area of engineering (requiring mastery in subjects including mechanics (fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics), physics, matehematics, control engineering, materials science, aeroelasticity, avionics, reliability engineering, noise control, flight test), it is also informally used, much like brain surgery, as a term to describe an endeavor requiring great intelligence or technical ability. Often the term is used ironically to describe an endeavor that is simple and straightforward by stating “it’s not rocket science” (one of the top ten irritating phrases, according to research at Oxford or “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist”. It is also used ironically to describe a person who is simple-minded: “He/she’s not a rocket scientist.”
Sounds every bit as complicated and challenging as “climate science” to me, Peter, but let’s not get off our topic with another semantic side track.
Regards,
Max
Brute,
You write “This entire global warming/climate change ‘initiative’ has nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’ or protecting polar bears. This is about government control of private industry and increasing taxes to forward a Socialist political agenda…….nothing at all to do with science or ecology”
Yes I know that this is what you think. It’s what 99.9% of climate change deniers think too. Its what you want to think. Your big mistake is to reject something because it may be politically unpalatable, declaring it to be false with little or no understanding of the science. I agree its a big problem for you very right wing types, but have you thought what will happen in the years to come? What if you are wrong? Which you of course are!
Your brand of politics which has orchestrated delaying tactics and associated denialism of an obvious scientific problem will have caused decades of delay. It will go down in history for that.
In the years to come you and your brand of politics will be blamed for all that and more besides. Extreme pro-capitalist, climate change denialist views will become no more acceptable in the mid 21st century than pro-Nazi holocaust denialist views are today.
Peter, are you really calling those of us who are skeptical of the AWG theory Nazi’s? Is that really what you want to do? And really what you think? If so I pity you…
On to more light-hearted things.
JZ,
Have another try at reading the last sentence
” Extreme pro-capitalist, climate change denialist views will become no more acceptable in the mid 21st century than …..
A little to much truth for you Pete?
Another outburst from your paranoid, delusional, psyche?
Your musing and agenda are based on emotions rather than science and logic which is patently obvious.
Facts are facts Pete; the world is growing colder and CO2 numbers are rising all the while. Your cockamamie Socialist ruse has been disproven by facts.
You do what you want; call me a National Socialist if you want to, live in a tent and eat tree moss and berries if it makes you happy; but the ice caps are not melting, the polar bears are not dying, hurricanes are no more intense or frequent and the sea levels are not rising anymore or any less than they have throughout the natural historical cycles of the planet.
A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critic(s)
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/a-heated-exchange-al-gore-confronts-his-critics/
Mar 05, 2009
It’s the Sun, Stupid!
By Dr. Willie Soon
The theory that climate change is chiefly caused by solar influences “is no longer tenable,” says US National Academy of Sciences president Ralph Cicerone. Carbon dioxide, he argues, is the key driver of recent climate change. I beg to differ. The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for 5000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather on Earth. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel noticed that when there were few spots, the price of wheat soared – because, he surmised, less “light and heat” from the Sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Is it true then that solar radiation, which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate, and caused so many climate shifts over the ages, is no longer the principal influence on climate change? The UN?s climate panel claims there is scientific “consensus” that man-made CO2 emissions are causing
“dangerous” climate change. However, its 2007 Climate Assessment is fraught with serious scientific shortcomings in its discussion of the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate.
The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China. The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic. I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic. The hallmark of good science is the testing of a plausible hypothesis that is then either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in
the Arctic. It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
Willie Soon is a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. This is his personal opinion based upon 18 years of scientific research
Pete,
Willie Soon is not my “real” name or the name of my “sock-puppet”.
JZ Smith, (sorry I typed your name in the wrong place last post)
Have another try at reading the last sentence
” Extreme pro-capitalist, climate change denialist views will become no more acceptable in the mid 21st century than …..
Brute and JZ,
You ( especially Brute ) have posted so much of this sort of stuff before that it barely deserves comment.
I’m just wondering how you have decided that Soon is right and everyone wrong. Nearly all solar scientists have agreed that the warming of the late 20th century cannot be attributed to solar changes.
But who are you both? Just another couple of no-names. No real names that is. Just another couple anonymities; too ashamed to put their names to their opinions.
Hi Peter,
In your recent diatribe against JZSmith and Brute you have again fallen into the trap of avoiding the facts and concentrating on their identities:
“But who are you both? Just another couple of no-names. No real names that is. Just another couple anonymities; too ashamed to put their names to their opinions.”
What a silly statement.
You also picked out the solar scientist, Dr. Willie Soon, in your statement, “I’m just wondering how you have decided that Soon is right and everyone wrong. Nearly all solar scientists have agreed that the warming of the late 20th century cannot be attributed to solar changes.”
Peter, you are ignoring what many solar scientists (i.e.”everyone”) has concluded, namely that 0.35C of the overall 20th century warming (a bit more than half) can be attributed to the sun, while around two-thirds of “the warming of the late 20th century [i.e. 0.23 out of 0.35C] cannot be attributed to solar changes” alone.
There is no discrepancy here, Peter. The long-range 20th century record shows that a bit more than half of the warming (0.35C) was caused by solar changes over the entire time period, while the shorter term “late 20th century blip” in the record shows this was only one-third (0.12C) during this relatively short period.
Can you grasp this simple fact, Peter?
Or does it violate your myopic pseudo-religious fixation on human CO2 as the “root of all evil”?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Something new for you to think about:
We have shown that CO2 can account for a bit less than one-half of 20th century warming.
But what about the other half?
Yes, it appears from the long-term record (since the early 17th century) that the sun has been responsible for a major portion of the pre-industrial warming since then, but the mechanism is unclear.
Measurable direct solar irradiance cannot account for all of this.
The Svensmark hypothesis looks plausible, but is yet to be validated with actual scientific experiments.
But wait! There is another factor that can be considered: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
Even strong supporters of the AGW hypothesis, such as Hadley, concede that the shift from frequent (warming) El Niño events in the late 20th century (including the one that helped cause the record warm year 1998) to more (cooling) La Niña events more recently has caused a general cooling trend, despite all-time record human CO2 emissions.
But is this part of a longer-term pattern of warming and cooling, such as that caused by the PDO?
Fortunately, there are some studies out there that help explain the observed historical and projected future impact of the PDO on global temperature.
There are also other studies that attempt to show a link between these PDO cycles and cycles in solar activity.
But back to the PDO.
A recent announcement by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory stated that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase.
A study by D.J. Easterbrook (April 2008) “La Niña and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Cooling in the Pacific Ocean” shows that this shift is “right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007)”.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific.pdf
The report states, “As shown by the historic pattern of PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of an ongoing warm/cool cycle the last 25-30 years.”
The report goes on to show that these historical multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles correlate well with cycles of the PDO (CO2 change added by me):
1910-1944 (warm) 34 years (with little change in CO2)
1944-1976 (cool) 32 years (with increased change in CO2)
1976-2007 (warm) 31 years (with major increase in CO2)
2008 (start of a new 30-year cool cycle?) (with all-time record CO2 increase)
The report concludes, “Thus we seem to be headed toward several decades of global cooling, rather than the catastrophic global warming predicted by the IPCC.”
What do you think of all this, Peter?
Is it possible (as IPCC Chairman Pachauri has conceded and Hadley have confirmed) that natural factors may be offsetting the warming otherwise expected from AGW?
Just another “brick in the wall”.
Regards,
Max
ALL: I was deeply sobered by Barelysane’s 4512 to Peter Martin, and thus wish to confirm my similar sentiments. I was alerted by Barelysane by him elucidating in part:
This plain reasoning set me into thinking that since Peter Martin has this weird “identity OCD”, and displays some highly counter-logical thoughts elsewhere, that I would prefer that he would not know my street address etc, since it is not impossible that he might even be dangerous to me, as is seen in incidents of road-rage etc.
Thus I thought to check if he could actually find-out more about me. (as a given Robert Findlay-James). So, I checked-out Melbourne (telephone) white pages, and found that I was not in there! Phew! So I also did a Google, and although there are some published Robert Findlay-James’ around, and some similarities like Finlay-James and Findlay-Jones, I seem to have avoided him from finding my crucial security details!
Actually Pete, this was all a bit tongue in cheek, and I invented a name that I thought might impress you! You strike me as a “stiff-upper-lip” type, that might “doff your hat” to someone with a hyphenated surname. Initially, I contemplated Nelson Mandela, or Martin L King #3a, but felt you might suspect that it might not be genuine, and decided that something “more aristocratic” might fawn your gullibility better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, for any Americani around: I have often wondered your sometimes national habit of naming the birth issue from some males as having the same name, but I guess to avoid potential confusion with delivery of mail etc, the first issue; let’s say for example in the name of the father Fred E Nerk, is named Fred E Nerk 2. I’m just curious: Could there also be a Fred E Nerk 2a, and if not, why not?
Max,
Since 1950 the sun has been relatively constant. So what the solar scientists are saying is that the 0.6 deg C warming which has been measured since then cannot be attributed to solar causes.
I’m sure you can grasp this simple fact.
JZ and Brute,
There’s no point trying to discuss science with you two. Your opposition is entirely political.
A friend sent me this link and quotation by email about “Marxist -Leninism is Coming to America” and I initially I thought I’d tease you both about it.
“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to Communism.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8915
As the article is in the Conservative Canada Free Press, and knowing the high standards that are expected from their journalists, you’d be quite worried wouldn’t you?
Well, it almost pains me to say it but it’s all a load of bullshit. It’s like I said with the talk about sockpuppets. You can almost ‘hear the voice’ of the writer if you listen carefully. This didn’t sound like Karl Marx to me, and sure enough a quick search on Google proved that it wasn’t him at all. It might even have been Richard Geno making it all up himself.
So next time you are tempted to believe anything that you read in the CFP…..
Incidentally I did email RG and the CFP to let them know they’d cocked up.
But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to acknowledge their mistake.
“Its the sun stupid”
This is a new thread on precisely this subject.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/
Peter I have much enjoyed your more thoughtful posts here in the past, but please take a bit of time out, review your obsession with sock puppets and aliases and return to the fray in a more rational frame of mind-your politics are getting in the way of your arguments.
Tonyb
Peter
I think you are quite right that this is a made up quote and not from Marx at all. It does illustrate how misinformation from both sides can circulate so readily and become the ‘truth.’
Didn’t some politician say something along the lines of ‘a lie can spread round the world before the truth can get its boots on?’ And that was before the days of the internet!
I was also going to complain to the Canada Free press but it seems this is just one of hundreds of references to the topic.
Tonyb
Here’s an interesting story: this weekend, the University of the West of England is holding a conference on “Climate Change Denial”, organised by (wait for it) the Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. It will be “bringing together a group of people – climate change activists, eco-psychologists [!!], psychotherapists and social researchers – who are uniquely qualified to assess the human dimensions of this human-made problem”. Professor Hoggart, who is helping to organise the conference, says:
Er … no mention of another “perspective”: the inadequacy of the evidence that we are indeed facing a “threat” that is, as claimed, “unprecedented”. Or perhaps another: that, in the unlikely event that we are facing such a threat, the measures being implemented to deal with it are likely to be, at best, inadequate or, at worst, seriously harmful. Or perhaps another: that the use of words such as “denial” is not conducive to balanced discussion.
There’s a serious issue here. There appears to be an attempt to move from labelling those sceptical of the orthodoxy as “deniers” to accusing them of having a psychological disorder. It may be noted that a common practice of authoritarian governments is to categorise dissidents as being mentally ill.