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.
BobFJ
You bad boy!
Looks like one of the posters you mentioned over at the Guardian site: onthefence, nefastus, MeFinny2, etc. hit the CENSOR button on your post.
I read it before it got squashed and did not find that it violated the Guardian’s code of conduct, but it must have angered one of the group into getting it censored.
Regards,
Max
Max
The Monbiot mob did the same to my post which gave links to the met office admitting that polar ice science is not settled, and that the IPCC themselves have much less faith than the irrationalists do on the veracity and usefulness of climate models.
I seem to remember that you also commented on having posts removed. Was it in this context?
If you and BOB have the will power and could give me some dates times and content I will phone the Guardian and try to get an explanation.
Tonyb
James P
Your 6325 is very interesting.
I am waiting for the first climate-related hoax report like this one (preferably one that has been peer-reviewed by like-minded friends and cohorts of the hoaxer).
Maybe it could be on the “pipeline theory” of hidden anthropogenic warming, i.e. warming which has already occurred due to past human CO2 emissions but, as a result of climate-carbon cycle coupling delays is as yet hidden in the equilibrium pipeline from whence it will emerge with a vengeance in precisely 31.416 years when a transient thermodynamic tipping point is projected to have been reached.
How about TonyB? He has the credentials. (But maybe he is too honest…)
Max
Hi TonyB
To your query: I got a few posts censored out, but am not sure whether this was done by another poster or by the site moderator (I suspect another poster, because it is so easy to do and remains anonymous).
These were not posts related to any specific scientific report, but usually quick rebuttals to some silly comment by one of the site trolls (that probably would have best been left ignored and unanswered in hindsight).
Try posting your message again. It is definitely on the main topic of the significance of recent Arctic sea ice developments, so should be welcome by the moderator.
Regards,
Max
Beprepared,
Welcome.
Hang around for awhile and don’t be intimidated about posting comments. I too was not big on commenting at places like this (or anywhere for that matter). I find this venue fair and open. From what I can tell, the regulars, Max, Tonyb, Robin, Peter, BobFJ; are fair minded conscientious, POLITE, individuals. I’ve been involved with this thread since December of 2007 and it’s a good group.
We tease and belittle each other, (mostly Peter Martin) Aka: “Temptarian”, but generally a good bunch. Over the course of time, following the links to resources provided here I’ve learned an awful lot about the topic.
One other thing………There is absolutely nothing wrong with using energy wisely and conserving natural resources………it simply makes sense………
Many would have you believe that climate Realists such as myself would like nothing better than unimpeded industrialism at the expense of the environment……….damn the pollution levels……nothing could be further from the truth………(CO2 is not pollution by the way, it plant food, which is the topic of the debate and what the loony eco-chondriacs are attempting to tax).
I’m an Engineer. Energy costs money. My life’s work has been devoted to squeezing as many Btu’s out of a therm or a watt or a gallon of fuel oil as possible IN ORDER TO SAVE MY CLIENTS MONEY. The side benefit would be introducing less products of combustion into the air (which is Ok with me also).
My biggest objection to this entire “green initiative” is government involvement. When my government attempts to dictate to me how much of a benign, legal, product I am permitted to buy, or how I use it, I begin to ask tons of questions……………which is what we’ve been doing on this thread for +/- 18 months.
Hi Guys
You’ll probably come across this anyway, but just in case.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
A handy way to get things into perspective the next time someone mentions “big oil”.
Barleysane
An interesting article wrtitten by a realstic green campaigner I personally admire. Very timely
It should probably be read in conjunction with the proposals for Kyoto2 which enables us to see the evolving picture.
TonyB
KYOTO2 PROPOSALS SENT TO KEY PEOPLE
More than 500 copies of the “Kyoto2” proposals for controlling greenhouse gases have now been sent to politicians, advisors and negotiators around the world who will be preparing for the international Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December. “These proposals offer a means of bringing down worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases that would be effective and efficient and, most importantly, equitable or fair to everyone concerned,” said Dr Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Kyoto2 support group (K2S) that sent the books out.
“Instead of assigning emissions targets to individual countries, there would be a worldwide system to control coal, gas and oil as close as possible to the point where they are taken out of the ground.” said Oliver Tickell, author of the proposals. “This should help to get round some of the things that have deadlocked climate negotiations to date. In particular, national governments would no longer have to worry about meeting national targets, or put taxpayers money at risk – they would simply have to cooperate with a global system that is fair for everyone”.
The ‘upstream’ regulation of greenhouse gases, with a steadily decreasing global cap, would be relatively easy to administer because there are comparatively few places where fossil fuels are taken out of the ground. The auction of permits would create a large ‘climate fund’ to be spent on projects around the world to bring in new clean energy technologies, conserve forests, and to help people to adapt to changes in the climate that are already in the pipeline. The money would be spent mainly in poor countries – which have contributed least to global warming, and where the needs are greatest.
“The climate fund – which could be as much as US$1 trillion every year – would be the basis of a ‘global green new deal’ that would revive the global economy, but in a sustainable way.” added Tickell. “In making a global shift to to renewable energy technologies and using energy more efficiently, hundreds of millions of people will gain employment, idle factories will come back into production, and we can break the link between economic growth and ever-increasing use of fossil fuels.”
—————–
NOTES
1 Further information may be found in:
“Kyoto2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse”, Oliver Tickell, Zed Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1-84813-025-8 pb.
Web: http://www.kyoto2.org
2 Oliver Tickell may be contacted via oliver.tickell@kyoto2.org or +44 (0) 1865 728118 or at 379 Meadow Lane, Oxford, OX4 4BL, UK.
3 K2S, the Kyoto2 support group, may be contacted via gerry.wolff@kyoto2.org or +44 (0) 1248 712962.
4 Summary of Kyoto2 and its advantages:
Kyoto2 aims to prevent catastrophic climate change by regulating greenhouse gases in a way which is effective, efficient and equitable:
? It is a global system to auction transferable Permits to pollute the atmosphere with industrial greenhouse gases up to a series of annual caps defined at levels that would prevent dangerous interference with the Earth’s climate system.
? As a global system it would apply equally in all countries. There would be no national emissions allocations and no need for the “territorial accounting” that characterises the Kyoto Protocol and the EU ETS.
? Greenhouse gas emissions would be regulated “upstream,” that is, as near as possible to the point of production, and in the case of emissions from fossil fuels, as close as practical to the point of production of the fuels themselves.
? This system would create market incentives for the wide scale and systematic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of alternatives, to be supported in turn by regulations and standards aimed at overcoming specific market failures.
? The funds raised at auction would be invested to tackle both the causes and the consequences of climate change, with an emphasis on addressing the needs of the poor and those most adversely impacted, including to:
? Help adaptation to such climate change as is already inevitable,
? Accelerate progress towards a clean, energy-efficient, low-carbon global economy,
? Reform land use so as to conserve biological carbon within soils, peat lands, forests and other ecosystems, and reduce emissions from land of other greenhouse gases,
? Research low cost and environmentally benign geo-engineering options that could in extremis prevent a ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ from taking hold.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Kyoto2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse, Oliver Tickell, Zed Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1-84813-025-8 pb. Web: http://www.kyoto2.org, Email: info@kyoto2.org.
KYOTO2 advantages
“If a product is made in China, by a company based in Singapore, using Australian coal, for a company in the UK, and exported to end users in the US, then which country should ‘own’ the emissions?” Oliver Tickell, 2008.
EFFECTIVE
? Kyoto2 is one of the most thoroughly developed proposals for controlling global emissions of greenhouse gases.
? By controlling greenhouse gases “upstream”, near to their sources, Kyoto2 simplifies organisation and administration.
? Kyoto2 sidesteps problems that arise in trying to assign CO2 emissions to countries:
? It avoids the complexity of trying to account for fossil carbon embodied in traded products.
? There is no need for special provision for international aviation and shipping.
? There are no worries about “additionality”, double counting, and other problems associated with carbon offsets.
? Steadily decreasing annual caps provide relatively direct control over emissions.
? Kyoto2 provides control over a range of greenhouse gases, not just CO2.
EFFICIENT
? Unlike other rationing systems, Kyoto2 channels funds into mitigation and adaptation.
? The market in emissions permits promotes efficient allocation of resources.
EQUITABLE
? Kyoto2 helps to protect the interests of poorer people and countries—and future generations.
? Kyoto2 helps industries and countries make the transition from non-renewable to renewable sources of energy, delivering “the gain without the pain”.
Your 6325 is very interesting.
I’m glad you liked it, Max! I rather enjoyed the remark by Salon that the editors of Social Text must have experienced “that queasy sensation that afflicted the Trojans the morning after they pulled that nice big gift horse into their city.”
I’d love to see an equivalent AGW piece. I bet the Guardian would swallow it – they can’t even spell! Your suggestion of a piece on the climate-carbon cycle coupling delay as yet hidden in the equilibrium pipeline, etc. sounds like a good start to me.. :-)
TonyB
At first glance the KYOTO2 PROPOSALS SENT TO KEY PEOPLE you posted sounds like a nightmare of a bureaucratic power grab and total buffoonery, which will cost ordinary consumers large sums of money, open the door for obscene profits made by a few individuals and achieve absolutely nothing positive.
Orwell coud not have come up with a more sinister plot.
Will study it in more depth to see if my first imprseeion was wrong.
Regards,
Max
It is a global system to auction transferable Permits to pollute the atmosphere with industrial greenhouse gases
Why do they always refer to gases (plural) when they are only talking about CO2?
James P
You ask why IPCC refers to “greenhouse gases” rather than CO2.
There are probably 2 main reasons.
(a) Leaving the door open for more restrictions in the future on other GHGs
(b) Every school child (that has not been brainwashed by Gore’s AIT sci-fi film) knows that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, absolutely essential for all life on this planet, exhaled by every human and animal on a continuing basis, and certainly not a pollutant in any sense of the word. Greenhouse gases (plural) sounds more ominous, and may include some REAL pollutants, like NOx.
Just my take on this.
Max
Max 6334
Did you notice the author? Oliver Tickell is the son of Christopher Tickell who wrote Margaret Thatchers climate change speech that started off the climate hare.
Ironically, although she opened the Hadley centre she is reviled by the green lefties, whilst Oliver receives the endorsement of none other than George Monbiot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
Oliver wrote “The Green Dollars”
http://www.pcdf.org/1992/39tricke.htm
in conjunction with Nicholas Hildyard who is none other than one of the sages who as editors of the Ecologist wrote
http://www.theecologist.info/page38.html
‘5000 days to save the planet’.
A time expired book which was a forerunner of a crop of books forecasting doom which we talked about last week. Neat symetry eh?.
What with Zac Goldsmith and now Oliver Tickell, we seem to be developing green dynasties.
Tonyb
Are you all denying even the natural GH effect now?
CO2 may well be ‘plant food’, as you put it, but it also affects global temperatures. If you remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, with everything else staying the same, the infrared absorption decreases by 9 percent. If you could remove all the greenhouse gases and clouds, from the atmosphere except CO2, the absorption decreases by 74 percent, meaning that 26 percent (= 100 percent – 74 percent) of the absorption is still present if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. So the effect of CO2 can be either 9 percent or 26 percent of the greenhouse effect, depending on how it is defined.
So you could argue that the contribution of CO2 is either 3.3 degs or about 8 degs of the currently accepted level of 33 degs.
The difficulty of course is the use of the phrase “with everything else staying the same”. In reality, if one constituent of the atmosphere is changed, everything else does not say the same. But, we do know that CO2 is an important GHG, even at its pre-industrial level of 280ppmv. We also know that any suggestion that this might be safely doubled is based on an ignorance of the workings of the atmosphere. Climate change deniers are quick to point to the uncertainties in the likely effect of doubling CO2 levels. I guess we could all be lucky and the warming might come in very much on the lower levels of what has been calculated.
Those of you who would like to take a gamble on this might like to test out what this might mean. You could all try crossing a busy road wearing blindfolds. You might be lucky too and make it safely to the other side :-)
Use of CO2 in Greenhouses
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
That’s all very well but tomatoes don’t vote!
If you remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere…
We would all be dead! Not just from the inability of plants to grow and replace O2, but because CO2 is a necessary trigger for breathing – one of the reasons that mouth-to-mouth rescuscitation works so well.
Climate change deniers are quick to point to the uncertainties in the likely effect of doubling CO2 levels. I guess we could all be lucky and the warming might come in very much on the lower levels of what has been calculated.
Since CO2 is rising and temperature is falling, the odds would seem to be in favour of ‘lucky’.
There are plenty of doom-laden scenarios, but the only one that we are being told to take seriously is AGW, which is mired in uncertainty. I suggest that we are rather more likely to be struck by a large meteor in the next 100 years, but I don’t hear the precautionary principle being invoked, or of a ‘climate impact tax’ to pay for the necessary defences…
Sorry, that was meant to be ‘global impact tax’.
Doh!
When CO2 is increased to over 1000 ppm it results in higher production and plant quality.
And, astonishingly, fails to suffocate the greenhouse workers!
This is a good read:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Carbon.htm
TonyB, Reur 6327, you wrote in part:
“…If you [Max] and BOB have the will power and could give me some dates times and content I will phone the Guardian and try to get an explanation…”
Wow! So you know whom to phone; I’m truly impressed!
In my case the most recent deletion against me was on their web-time of 21 May 09, 10: 50am, but it was relatively trivial:
Here is the record of the preceding and then the criminal post in my word processor, to place it in context:
However, my next post is the one (10:50 am) that upset someone, and was deleted:
Tony, I’m prepared to concede that it was pushing the limits maybe, so I’m not too concerned about it
However, there were other deletions and blocks which were more serious, and I’ll come back on those shortly when I have time.
Pete,
Where is your compassion for the natural world?
Well! I for one am not going to stand here and listen to you discriminate against the creatures and plants that cannot speak/vote for themselves!
Plants have right too I’ll have you know!
What are you, some kind of a herbophobe?
Plant rights now!
Hi Peter,
You estimated (6338) that the “pre-industrial” greenhouse impact of CO2 on our planet’s temperature is between 3° and 8°C.
I do not believe that I have seen any poster on this site deny that your estimate is valid, based on the greenhouse theory.
The renowned (but in some AGW circles reviled) climate scientist, Richard Lindzen, has estimated this at 5.2°C (pretty much in the middle of your range).
So, yes, according to the greenhouse theory, CO2 absorbs IR, leading to warming of the planet, exactly as you have said.
The relative importance of natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases today can be seen from the chart below:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/3210271667_a5015a92f9_b.jpg
Using Lindzen’s 5.2°C for the warming impact of 280 ppmv, Lindzen arrives at a 2xCO2 warming impact (from 280 to 560 ppmv) of 0.65°C, and a 4xCO2 impact of 1.3°C (from 280 to 1120 ppmv).
Others may argue that Lindzen’s estimate is too low, and that the 2xCO2 impact should be 0.8° to 1.0°C (rather than just 0.65°C).
Let’s say that a good value is 0.8°C
The key problem arises when the theoretical warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is exaggerated by a factor of 4 by inserting positive feedback assumptions into the climate models and then accepting the model outputs as factual forecasts.
We have covered this discussion in much detail in earlier posts, so there is no point to repeat it all now.
I would agree with the greenhouse theory (Arrhenius), the CO2 forcing factor as estimated by IPCC (Myhre et al.), the IPCC statement that all anthropogenic factors other than CO2 cancel one another out (IPCC SPM 2007) and the logarithmic calculation (Stefan-Blotzmann).
These tell me that a doubling of CO2 from its “pre-industrial value” of 280 to 560 ppmv will theoretically result in warming of 0.8° to 1°C.
At 385 ppmv CO2 today, we are around 45% of the way, leaving us around 0.5° to 0.6°C warming from today until year 2100, when we expect to reach the 560 ppmv CO2 level.
All the rest is model feedback assumptions and hype.
Regards,
Max
Max,
OK Lets go with 5.2 degs for the effect of CO2 alone with everything else staying the same. That’s the difference between the last ice age and now. This alone shows that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. Of course everything won’t stay the same if temperatures fall by 5 degs. The ice caps will expand and the albedo , or reflectivity , of the earth will increase.
Also I think you need to have a bit more of a think about the logarithmic nature of IR absorption. I think you have previously given the analogy of coats of paint on a window, which is a good one.
Say you coat the window with a thickness of paint just enough to halve the transmission of light. Then, when it is dry, you paint it again with exactly the same thickness. The level of light halves again. A third coat halves it yet again which means that the amount of light passing through is now 1/8 of the total. Therefore 7/8 is absorbed in the paint.
This gives you a quasi logarithmic response. But a purely logarithmic response cannot be correct because it gives the wrong answer in the limit of the thickness of paint being zero.
So, what are you saying? That the first ‘coat of paint’ warms the atmosphere by 5.2 degs but that the next ‘coat’ warms it by just 0.8 degrees?
It sounds quite unlikely, on the face of, but to get the correct answer you need to take into account the degree of saturation of IR in the atmosphere and the effect of the likely feedbacks or the interaction between the increased level of CO2 and all the other factors which contribute to the GHE.
The IPCC ‘best estimate’ figure of 3 deg C, for a doubling of CO2, sounds much more plausible.
TonyB Reur 6327, and further to my 6345, apart from deletions and blocks at the Guardian site, there is another tactic which is even more annoying to me. That is, that when alarmists like Onthefence and Deconvoluter, have dug themselves into an ever deepening hole, and I’m about to bury them even further, in a planned sequence of comments, the thread carries this foot-message:
“Comments are now closed on this entry.”
No explanation is given, and there is absolutely no correlation to the length of the thread, or its activity.
My suspicion is that the moderator or editor whomever, was beginning to feel “uncomfortable”. about the way things were going.
As an example here is the final post on Monboit’s hilariously erroneous; “How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds”
If you have time to scan back for a couple of pages you might find it interesting, and it is also interesting that Onthefence seems to have gone quiet. I had some strong stuff to come, but of course the context and opportunity has now been lost!!!!!!!!!!
If you have time to scan back for a couple of pages..
I would if I had more time, but the Monbiot/Guardian blogs are appallingly slow to load comments. Do you think it’s deliberate?