Mar 172008

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.”

  1. I missed out the ”and data”

    I doubt Uncle Gordon will notice…

  2. Jasper Gee

    Thanks for info on RC and BBC house troll(s).

    The M.O. and intellectual level at the 2 sites has been almost identical, so it does not surprise me.

    Max

  3. I see that Max is having a bit of a ding-dong with Gavin Schmidt et al over at RC, and that Gavin is being a bit naughty. I’ve decided to join in with the following post 822 awaiting moderation. I doubt if it will clear, so I thought I’d post it here for the record and possible interest.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Gavin, Reur responses to Max, appended on his posts 798, 801, and 805, you wrote in part:

    [798] “Nonsense. We can “ignore feedbacks”? Maybe if we lived on the moon. – gavin]”

    [801] “…And by the way, there’s a big difference between saying there are uncertainties in the feedbacks and claiming they can all be ignored…”

    [805] “…your claims about feedback being ignorable is the nonsense, not your estimate of reserves. – gavin]”

    Thus, you have accused Max three times so far of ignoring feedbacks, apparently based on the final line of his 798 where he wrote:

    “…So this tells us that the combustion of all the fossil fuels on this planet will result in a theoretical greenhouse warming of under 2°C (excluding the suggested increase due to net “positive” feedbacks).” (my emphasis added)

    However, this should be read in the context of his whole post in which the uncertainties in feedbacks are indicated to not allow, at this time, for reliable adjustment to the underlying CO2 GHG effect. Thus he does NOT ignore feedbacks, and clearly indicates that he has excluded them because of that uncertainty.

    In fact, Max has been very active elsewhere discussing for instance the work of Andrew Dessler et al (peer reviewed and published in GRL) that indicates a positive feedback of water vapour within certain constraints. He has also discussed the work of Roy Spencer et al (also peer reviewed and published in the very same journal; GRL) in which a highly significant negative feedback in clouds is indicated, but again within certain restraints. (eg spatially in latitude, as were the limitations with Dessler’s work)

    In fact, Max does not ignore feedback, it’s just that there is uncertainty both in magnitude and sign of the various elements of it, and he did not include any guesswork in that respect in his 798, as stated.

  4. How, Brute and JZ, has your great and powerful democracy got itself into this absurd situation?

  5. In contrast, Brute and JZ, it seems from this that our Oz friends may (may) be about to see sense.

  6. Further to my #6804, this (from the Financial Times) confirms that, for all the ballyhoo, Obama’s cap-and-trade bill will have, as the Carbon Depot article put it, “no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented – both implausible assumptions)“:

    The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself.

    How will this be spun at the big (post Kyoto) Copenhagen conference?

  7. Further to the above, I happened to come across the website for the “Road to Copenhagen”, a European initiative providing “a unique initiative which allows YOU to contribute to the UN negotiating process“. Interesting – so I looked for the science that might persuade me to do that. All I could find was an article entitled “We have around 2850 days or 97 months to save the planet” because, it goes on to say:

    That is when we, according to “doomsday climate experts”, will go beyond the climate’s “tipping point”. A point where it is no longer likely that we will stay below the 2C temperature rise threshold.

    I wonder who these “doomsday climate experts” are? Hmm …

  8. Robin (6805)

    The WSJ article is encouraging. Great headline, too: “The Climate Change Climate Change” :-)

  9. Well yes, James P, the tone of the WSJ‘s report is encouraging. But the facts reported are absurd. For example:

    If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be “scientifically meaningless.”

    And this (addressed to Senators):

    Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most — but will not have a measurable climate impact?

  10. Robin – not sure I follow. Are you saying it would have an impact on temperature/climate?

    Sorry if I’m missing something obvious.

  11. No, James, all I’m saying is that, whereas it’s encouraging that the WSJ is telling its readers that the bill is scientifically meaningless and would have no effect on the climate anyway, it’s absurd for the US to be placing this completely pointless economic burden on itself.

    In any case, it seems from this that the developing economies are unlikely to be doing much to curb their GHG emissions – making all this Western posturing even more absurd.

  12. JamesP

    As Robin says, this is a lot of US posturing, but follows hard on the heels on the posturing by the component parts of the UK, all of whom have made grandiose plans to cut CO2 emissions by up to 80%.

    Bearing in mind that we have an emerging energy crisis it is very dificult to see how cutting our co2 emissions (mostly generated by energy) can be offset by renewables.

    In addition it is gesture politics-the reduction planned by Scotland will cause a great deal of pain (and expense for consumers) yet co2 generated naturally will offset Scotlands efforts within 4 days.

    That generated by man in countries such as India China and Brazil will eliminate Scotlands efforts in a couple of weeks.

    The UK has produced half a co2 molecule per 100,00 since the industrial revolution in 1750. The worlds economy is built on cheapish fossil fuels and there is simply no replacement at present. That doesnt mean to say we shouldn’t be looking for alternatives, but at present they don’t exist in a practical economic form.

    Tonyb

  13. Robin
    ..it’s absurd for the US to be placing this completely pointless economic burden on itself

    Agree entirely, and I get the impression that Steve Fielding does too!

  14. TonyB

    Presumably you saw this:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/hadley_centre_for_climate_change_budget_cut_mod_funding/

    I assume this has more to so with a turf war about which department pays the bills, rather than cold feet about funding climate research, but interesting nonetheless.

  15. JamesP

    The U.S. Senate is discussing a tax bill (dressed up as a cap and trade initiative and misnamed the “clean energy bill”). But you asked Robin whether this will have any impact on global warming, which it obviously will not.

    But let’s look at some concrete suggestions that were made to “fight global warming”.

    Dr. James E. Hansen has proposed that no new coal-fired power plants be built in USA starting in 2010 in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

    Between 2010 and 2012 an average of 5,374 mW per year of new coal-fired power capacity was planned. Let’s assume that this rate would continue to 2050. This would be a total of 215,000 mW of coal-fired capacity that was not built. Over the 40 years (2010-2050), these plants would generate a total of : 215,000 * 8,500 * 40 * 0.5 / 1,000,000,000 =36.5 billion mWh of electricity.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

    Coal-fired plants emit 0.91 mt CO2 per mWh generated.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric

    So over the 50 years Hansen’s proposal would eliminate 0.91 * 36.5 = 33.3 GtCO2.

    Assuming that 70% of this would have stayed in the atmosphere = 23.3 GtCO2.
    Atmosphere has a mass of 5,140,000 Gt.

    So Hansen’s proposal would reduce atmospheric CO2 by
    1,000,000 * 23.3 / 5,140,000 = 4.5 ppm(mass) = 3.0 ppmv

    What would his proposal cost?

    Nuclear power plants cost around US$ 4,000 per kW to construct, whereas new coal fired plants cost around US$ 2,000 per kW.
    http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600/

    Each year 5,374 mW of new nuclear capacity would be required.

    Over the 40-year period, this would cost:

    4,000 * 1,000 * 5374 * 40 = $860 billion.

    And the investment cost, over the cost of building conventional coal-fired plants would be $430 billion.

    Per ppmv CO2 “reduced”, Hansen’s plan would cost: 430 / 3 = $143 billion.

    This cost would be much higher, of course, if instead of replacing new coal plants with nuclear plants they were replaced by more expensive (and less reliable) “renewables” such as wind or solar power.

    And how much “global warming” would this plan eliminate?

    Let’s say by 2050 the atmospheric CO2 level would have continued to grow by 1.9 ppmv per year without Hansen’s plan to 462 ppmv; but with Hansen’s plan we have been able to reduce this by 3 ppmv.

    Even using the exaggerated (and totally unproven) 2xCO2 impact of 3.2°C, this reduction in atmospheric CO2 would only result in a temperature reduction of 0.03°C, at a cost of $430 billion.

    Ouch! Aw, c’mon, Jim, haven’t you got a better plan?

    Maybe we should move on to “Plan B” rather than Hansen’s first plan.

    Stay tuned, JamesP. It gets even “curiouser”…

    Max

  16. JamesP and Robin

    We just saw that Hansen’s “Plan A” to stop new coal-fired power plant construction from 2010 on will not bring us very much in our struggle to reduce atmospheric CO2 content, stop global warming (and save the planet). And it will cost us far too much.

    But let’s go a step further with “Plan B” as both Hansen and Al Gore have envisioned.

    In addition to stopping new coal-fired plant construction, let’s shut down half of the existing coal-fired plants and replace these with nuclear plants.

    There are 1470 coal-fired plants today, producing 314,000 mW.

    So let’s say we shut half of these down by 2050, at the same time as we replace all construction of new coal-fired plants with nuclear plants.

    This will shift an additional 157,000 mW from coal to nuclear over the 40 years.

    Over the 40 years this will shift 26.7 billion mWh from coal to nuclear and reduce the cumulative CO2 generated by 0.91 * 26.7 = 24.3 GtCO2

    If 70% of this would have stayed in the atmosphere, this means a reduction in atmospheric CO2 of 0.7 * 24.4 = 17.0 GtCO2.

    How much did this reduce the total atmospheric CO2 content?
    Atmosphere has a mass of 5,140,000 Gt.

    So Hansen’s “Plan B” would reduce atmospheric CO2 by
    1,000,000 * 17.0 / 5,140,000 = 3.3 ppm(mass) = 2.2 ppmv

    And it would avoid 0.02°C global warming (even at the exaggerated IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C.

    What would his proposal cost?

    Nuclear power plants cost around US$ 4,000 per kW to construct
    http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600/

    If we assume that it costs nothing to shut down and decommission the coal-fired stations, it would cost (over the 40-year period):

    4,000 * 157,000 = $628 billion.

    Per ppmv CO2 “reduced”, Hansen’s plan would cost: 628 / 2.2 = $288 billion.

    Ouch! This is worse than “Plan A” to stop new coal-fired plants.

    And it only gets much worse if we replace nuclear plants with more expensive and less reliable “renewables” such as wind or solar.

    The lesson to be learned: Keep Hansen out of policy questions and put him back to doing a better job of measuring global temperatures instead.

    Max

  17. TonyN

    Yes I saw this item-well done.

    I am not sure if the met office are reducing their activities at all though- or perhaps they are just trying harder to get funding from elsewhere-as their search for new staff is at the highest I have known in recent years.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/

    Tonyb

  18. Blimey, Max – I don’t think my calculator’s got that many zeros!

    My inner pedant is telling me that mW are milliwatts, but I knew what you meant.
    Sorry – the proofreader’s curse, I’m afraid…

  19. Max

    All of this assumes that in plan A or B that alternative forms of energy generation are completely carbon free-the fusion material has to be obtained and transported from somewhere, and the power plants need to be built using lots of co2 guzzling concrete and the old power stations demolished. All by people using co2 guzzling vehicles to carry out their work.

    As for the alternatives-such as wind-they simply could not take up the slack-we would be left with an energy deficit. Of course making and trasporting turbines and the towers (not to mention the concrete bases and approach roads) are hardly co2 friendly in themselves.

    Nobody in govt has taken a real world calculation or made a proper cost benefit analysis, and instead have just taken an emotive approach.

    tonyb

  20. TonyN: you say that “Nobody in govt has taken a real world calculation or made a proper cost benefit analysis”. I disagree: it seems that someone in the Chinese and Indian governments has done just that.

  21. TonyN: it seems that the reason for the Met Office funding cut is because the Ministry of Defence has decided that climate change is not a security threat.

    You may have missed the Martin Parry (who co-chaired the IPCC’s working group on climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and used to be at the Met Office) comment:

    Global and regional security will be threatened by climate change, and the MoD is hopelessly wrong to think it is outside its responsibility.

  22. Robin

    It was I that made the statement not TonyN.

    We were talking about the US and Uk govts, so let me amend that statement to;

    ” no one in the developed world has made a proper cost benefit analysis”

    Let me add, that if the population realised they were being asked to pay some £150 billion per ppmv of co2 (max’s figure) which would theoretically reduce the temperature by an amount too small to be measured on any thermometer, they might start to realise this is an ideological movement. It basically wants to either remove mans impact from the planet, (greens) or to create vast amounts of new tax revenue (govts).

    I think the Chginese and Indians must be rubbing their hands in glee at the idea that all ‘polluters’ will have to buy a carbon credit (probably through Al Gores co) who in turn will have to buy them from India or China.

    tonyb

  23. Apologies all – I addressed both 6820 and 6821 to the wrong Tony. I was referring to TonyB’s 6819 and 6817.

  24. TonyB: this is moving too quickly – my 6823 crossed your 6822. And, yes, I agree that the Chinese and Indians (and Brazilians etc.) must be “rubbing their hands in glee”.

  25. Robin 6824

    And Al gore

    TonyB

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha