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.
Max
You are right, according to New Scientist there will be an unavoidable temperature rise of up to 2.4C so there is nothing we can do about that element.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327174.500-world-starts-to-act-on-climate-change.html
Mitigating this alarming Harry Potter effect -where magical elements seems to supercede known and observed physics- at a cost of many trillions of dollars to prevent the small additional ‘preventable’ rise to 3C seems highly extravagant. Intriguingly a possible rise of up to 10C is now being claimed.
Rational people need to start querying where the heat is hiding from. Perhaps we could call it the Pimpernel effect? They seek it here they see it there, they seek that elusive heat everywhere…
Tonyb
A moot point, Peter, but there is a decimal mistake in my post 7150. The cost (90 times $40 trillion) is obviously $3,600 trillion (or $3.6 quadrillion). Lots of bucks
This stack of dollar bills would be 396,000,000 km high. At 146 million km from Earth to the sun, this is almost 3 times the distance from Earth to the sun!
Astronomical.
Max
TonyB
Your “New Scientist” article (7151) would have been frightening if it weren’t all so totally silly.
Appropriately, your Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, gave his “$100 billion a year green fund contribution” speech at the London zoo.
At 800 million inhabitants of the contributing developed world, this means a mere $125 per year per man, woman and child or around #300 per year per household. Has anyone asked these individuals if they agree to making such a contribution?
The next question is, has anyone asked the 6 billion individuals who are not in this group whether they are ready to forego “business as usual” economic development and increased prosperity for a “donation” from the wealthy nations that works out to a per capita gift of $17 per year.
I doubt it. Even the animals in the zoo are worth more than that.
Max
Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74019.html
Max,
You say ” Not being a US tax protester”.
Well I must say you sound like one. If it quacks like a duck! ete etc
On climate change (and health reform too) the new US administration is doing no more, in fact arguably a bit less, than they promised in last year’s elections. Its is fair enough to protest when governments do the opposite of what they promise in elections, but it is fundamentally anti-democratic otherwise.
Americans like to pride themselves on their democratic credentials. I’m not quite sure why. They have a pretty poor record in South America in supporting democracy. Sure, they are all for it when their guy wins, but what happens when he doesn’t? That is the real test. It is a test that the ‘tea party’ protesters, essentially ring wing elements from the Republican party, are currently failing.
Hi Peter,
Here are my comments to your last post as an outsider who has followed recent US politics closely from the sidelines.
I do not recall any campaign promises made by the current US President to introduce a carbon cap and trade scheme (i.e. an indirect carbon tax) on the American public.
I do recall the campaign promise to increase offshore drilling to reduce US dependency on foreign oil imports.
I also recall promises to cut excess spending and get the US away from spiraling deficits (which were blamed on the previous administration and its foolish excesses in Iraq).
So, you see, Peter. Campaign promises are made to get elected.
On health reform, Obama appears to be sticking closely to his campaign promise script.
On offshore drilling he is not.
On cutting budgets to stop spiraling deficits, he is definitely not.
Cap ‘n trade is a new “rabbit out of the hat”, which will, in effect, cancel out the promised “middle class tax cut” in a classical “bait and switch” maneuver.
The “tea party” protesters have not taken on “cap ‘n trade”, at least as yet. They are concerned about the general high level of proposed federal spending of taxpayer funds and specifically about the health care reform proposals.
If one listens (on CNN, for example) to the more astute supporters of the new administration and its plans, they realize that the “tea party” protests are not simply a distraction orchestrated by “right wing” elements of the Republican party, which can be scoffed off as such, but a real “grass roots” phenomenon that must be taken seriously by the administration.
The U.S. voters are notoriously fickle. Obama has won an election with a very well organized campaign, and entered office with overwhelming goodwill of the U.S. public, according to all the polls. Everyone wanted “change” from the Bush policies. The financial crash became Bush’s financial crash, so everyone wanted a change here, too.
This “goodwill” has started to erode. The “tea parties” are symptomatic of this erosion, and the administration must take serious steps to calm them down, or it will lose even more goodwill.
These are my thoughts. But I believe Brute or JZ Smith would be better “discussion partners” when it comes to US politics than me.
Max
UN climate summit flop feared as 20,000 hotel room reservations are cancelled
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2519/UN-climate-summit-flop-feared-as-20000-hotel-room-reservations-are-cancelled
Max,
You say that you “don’t recall” any election pledges about carbon cap and trade schemes.
Either you didn’t bother to read this or you have a poor memory:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more
“Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families”
Max,
So you think you are a climate sceptic? These guys wouldn’t think so.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
They say “Human-generated greenhouse gases are warming the earth but not as much as alarmists say never was a good strategy for winning the debate”. Even the natural GHE is ‘poppycock’ to them. Just another part of the big hoax!
Why don’t you become a real man and drink your whisky neat with these guys, instead of watering it down with dangerous talk of even a fraction of a degree of human induced warming?
Peter (7158)
Thanks for refreshing my memory on Obama’s cap ‘n trade campaign pledge. Guess this was not given as much publicity as the “middle class tax cut” (which it effectively cancels out).
From the lack of support a carbon tax now has in the USA, it looks like lots of US voters missed this one, as well (or it was so well camouflaged that they did not realize that they would be the ones paying it all in the end).
Guess it proves Abraham Loncoln’s saying that “you can fool all the people some of the time”.
Max
Further my 7129 & 7134 above on Oz-Victorian bushfires, it is a fact that other states also have fires, mostly in the SE.
Here is a map of the 2002/2003 season, for NSW, Victoria and Tasmnia, in which the area burnt in Victoria alone was three or four times greater than in the recent 2009 fires. The difference of course in terms of impact on assets and human lives lost, is where and when the fire front travels as a firestorm driven by excessive winds. BTW, South Australia, to the west of Victoria also has its fair share!
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/0/ccb3f2e90ba779d3ca256dea00053977/Body/0.4F14
Sadly, one of the top causes of these fires is from deliberate lighting. A man is on charge for one of the fires causing 10 (11?) deaths at Churchill.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/man-charged-over-churchill-bushfires-faces-court-20090817-en4q.html
The biggest human loss and saddest in bush-beauty etc was at my beloved Marysville which was declared as deliberately lit. A man is suspected but is not charged, possibly because of press reporting and TV paid interviewing of him prejudicing the case!
In the following link, it gives that since 1976 the major cause of Victorian bushfire initiation is from lightning strikes at 26%, following by arson at 25%.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/ccb3f2e90ba779d3ca256dea00053977!OpenDocument
Oh, and here is a list of major bushfires in Victoria since 1851.
Notice especially; 1939, 1969, and 1983.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfoe.nsf/LinkView/E20ACF3A4A127CB04A25679300155B04358FFCDA5CA1F43FCA256DA6000942C9
Gotta go…. More to come.
Peter
Thanks for “I Love CO2” link (7159).
You ask (in jest, I’m sure),
Checking out the “Global Warming etc. Sceptic’s Overview – May 2008” tab of this link (by R.C.E. Wyndham, UK) I found the following:
Natural GHE is accepted as fact with statement that this is “a good thing, for otherwise we’d freeze.” (Guess I’d have to agree with that.)
Planet has not warmed since 1998. (That’s what the thermometers show, Peter.)
It has warmed in the past and is not “unusually warm now” (guess I would also agree, depending on definition of “unusually”: it is warmer than the LIA period prior to current warm period, slightly cooler than MWP prior to that, warmer than “Dark Ages” cold period, cooler than “Roman Optimum before that).
To the question, “Do CO2 concentrations explain recent climatic variation – last 150 years but especially since late 70s?”, the “Sceptics’ Overview” says “no”. (I would agree that there are other factors beside human-generated CO2 at stake, such as the high level of 20th century solar activity, ocean circulation cycles, etc., and that it is foolish to myopically concentrate on only the anthropogenic factors alone, ignoring all others; I also agree that the feedback assumptions leading to a significant theoretical warming from a doubling of CO2 are highly suspect and are not supported by robust empirical observations).
The point is made that the greenhouse “fingerprint” (more warming in the troposphere than at the surface) is missing and that the “evidence” for a strong warming caused by AGW is not there, except for computer model outputs, which provide no real evidence. (I would have to say that I agree here, as well; this is a “weak point” in the AGW argument, which has not been resolved.)
Gore’s ice core CO2/temperature cause/effect “cockup” is mentioned. (I agree that this was an embarrassing error on the part of Gore, which undermined a good part of his AIT film.)
The second big “screwup” of the AGW “movement” (and in particular IPCC) was its eager acceptance (without doing extensive “due diligence”) of a bristlecone pine tree ring proxy study (MBH 98), which purported to erase a well-documented and historically recorded Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age; the study was later exposed as a fraud. Instead of apologizing for not having checked this out more closely in its earlier report, IPCC stubbornly stayed with its “flat climate history” story by accepting hastily put-together “copy hockey sticks”. (I agree that this was a very silly move on the part of IPCC, from beginning to end, since it has lost a lot of scientific credibility with this approach).
The report states “there is no empirical observational evidence to show that CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise, has any relevance at all to warming of the planet”. (I would have to agree with this statement.)
The UHI effect is mentioned, as is the fact that the modellers’ adjustments for this effect with increased urbanization is based simply on population size and “guesswork”. (I would agree that it is strange that no adjustments were made by simply comparing the measurements at nearby well-sited rural station measurements with those at poorly-sited urban stations: this would be the “empirical” way to observe differences and adjust for them. I personally suspect that this was not done in this manner because it would have resulted in reduced warming.)
Mention is made that the work based on empirical observational evidence “by Profs Ergil Friis-Christensen in Denmark and Nir Shaviv in Israel has shown uncanny correlation between temperatures deducible over many centuries and the flux of sun spot activity”,but that this.has been largely ignored by the AGW crowd (IPCC, etc.). (I agree that it is a shame that IPCC did not list the cosmic ray/cloud theory as a viable alternate explanation for much of the recent warming, but instead simply limited its “solar forcing” estimated to direct solar irradiance alone and wrote off the cosmic ray/cloud theory as “controversial”. Again, I have to agree that this myopic fixation on anthropogenic factors to the exclusion of all other theories is scientifically questionable; it appears to me that IPCC is not “looking for the truth” about the causes and impacts of climate change, but is “looking for the proof” that its hypothesis of AGW as the principal driver of our climate is correct.)
The write-up continues with a listing of climate changes allegedly attributable to AGW and questions whether some of these are actually occurring and whether those that have been observed can really be attributed to AGW. (I generally agree that the evidence is not there that AGW is causing any of these observed, or imagined, changes.)
The fallacy of “peer review” within an “insiders’ clique” is mentioned, with particular reference to the MBH 98 fiasco, where this point was specifically mentioned as a weakness by the Wegman investigation. (I agree that “peer review” is only as good or bad as the group doing it.)
The myth of a “consensus of 2500 top scientists” is questioned, as is the process by which scientific results get massaged by political and bureaucratic writers of “summary reports”. (I have not studied this in any detail, but I seriously doubt the “2500 scientists” claim, and I see that more and more scientists seem to be joining the ranks of rational skeptics.)
So I can identify with essentially all that is listed in the “Sceptics’ Overview”. It all makes sense to me. How about you? With which specific points would you disagree, and on what basis?
Max
Bob_FJ
Could it be, though, that AGW really WAS the cause for all those bush-fires?
For example, it got so unbearably hot (from AGW, of course) that these poor demented arsonists literally “lost their cool” and resorted to arson in desperation. Plausible? Let’s say it’s “more likely than not” (>50%) maybe “not based on formal attribution studies”, but at least on “expert opinion”.
Also, we are not 100% sure that electrical storms are not increasing with higher “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperatures”, are we? [There are usually more in summer than in winter, right?] Where is the empirical evidence that this is not the case? (It does not exist.) Therefore, increased incidence of lightning is “more likely than not” (>50%) a result of warming, which itself is “likely” (>66%) caused by “anthropogenic activity”, again maybe “not based on formal attribution studies”, but at least on “expert opinion”.
Together, we can conclude that it is “virtually certain” (>99%) that the future incidence and ferocity of bush-fires will increase, as a result of higher temperatures directly attributable to anthropogenic warming.
Whaddaya think? Will it fly? Let’s run it past Peter for a “reality check”.
Max
Hey Pete,
I’m interested in getting your take on this…………why are the number of climate skeptics growing in your opinion?
Please, no bumper sticker slogans or conspiracy theories…….Please don’t give me the Wall Street Journal is a “capitalist rag” supported by “big business” and “corporate greed”……..just an honest assessment, without spin.
Thanks.
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
Odisaster’s popularity (and the Democrat Party’s) is sinking like a stone. His government run healthcare initiative has upset the apple cart and will most likely prove his undoing.
The Cap & Tax bill will break America already under excessive strain from his announcement that he’s increase the deficit to 9 Trillion.
Anyway, Obamacare and his advocacy of Nationalizing the health industry have overshadowed his global warming tax. I’m certain after the dust settles it’ll come up again.
We have house guests all the way from England staying with us this weekend. Should provide some interesting dinner conversation…..
My apologies for the poor grammatical quality of my last post. Mrs. Brute has relegated me to the screened porch typing on a tea table for the duration…………
Uh Oh………..
UK Arrests in Carbon Credit Trading Scam – organized crime said to be involved…..
Brute,
You ask “why are the number of climate skeptics growing in your opinion?”
I could argue that they aren’t. For instance, here in Australia, the Liberal Opposition recently held up the Government’s Emission Trading Scheme for a while. If they had continued to do this, under the Australian constitution, the Government could have called for a so called “double dissolution” election with the ETS bill right at the top of the political agenda. The opposition decided that this wasn’t going to turn out so well for them so backed down, with some face saving measures, and reached an agreement with the Labor Government. Its not normal for an Opposition to shy away from the chance of winning an election.
It may be different in America. There the ‘centre of political gravity’ is more to the right than in Australia or Europe. Big business has mobilised its propaganda against climate science, just as it does against anything else which threatens the short-term profitability of the system. The Wall Street Journal (which you linked to) is very much a part of that propaganda weapon. They’ll publish articles by Lindzen, and other sceptics, without any right of reply by the mainstream scientists who are accused of perpetrating a general ‘con-trick’ on the population. And yes they are having some success. But, although they can, to some extent, manipulate public opinion, they can’t manipulate the fundamentals of science.
It is interesting that you might have some English guests. Hopefully they will tell you that Cricket is a really good game. It looks like they might win the series against Australia which should please them no end. Even if they are Tory supporters they might explain that the NHS is not quite as Marxist as you make out. Even Margaret Thatcher had to go out of her way to assure the population that the “NHS is safe with us”. People do moan about it though. The hospital food is dreadful! But whenever I’ve been in England and had to use it I’ve had no cause for complaint.
It will be the same next election too. The Conservative party will promise to improve the NHS, which is of course fair enough, but they won’t dare to suggest abolishing it, even though that is what they might like to secretly do. And of course the Labor Party will accuse them of exactly that.
Max, Reur 7163 , you wrote:
Well actually Max, (you clown!), I don’t think so, and if we look at the history, it is noticeable that in terms of area burnt in Victoria, there has been a steady lessening since 1851.
Here is a summary of perhaps the most notable fires in Victoria alone, extracted from:
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfoe.nsf/LinkView/E20ACF3A4A127CB04A25679300155B04358FFCDA5CA1F43FCA256DA6000942C9
1851_____About 5 million hectares or a quarter of Victoria burnt, 12 lives lost.
1926_____Area burnt not given but five widely dispersed areas affected, with 60 lives lost. (also widespread in other states)
1939_____1.5 to 2.0 million hectares burnt, with 71 lives lost
1944_____Grass fires burnt ~1 million hectares, and between 15 – 20 lives lost. (presumably due excessive winds)
1962_____Area burnt not given but five areas badly affected and 32 lives lost.
1969_____280 fires mostly in grass, 23 lives lost, 7 significant towns affected.
1983_____(Ash Wednesday). Over 100 fires in Victoria burnt 210,000 hectares and caused forty seven fatalities. (in Victoria). Although the area burnt was relatively small, it hit with excessive winds 10 critical areas. S.A. also badly affected.
2003_____Largest fire in Victoria since 1939 at 1.3 million hectares but no lives lost. (in Victoria). 87 fires started by lightning. (NSW/ACT was far more severely affected.)
2009_____about 300,000 – 400,000 hectares burnt and hit relatively densely populated entrapped mountain areas with excessive wind. 173 lives lost. (Big losses at Marysville and Churchill were tragically deliberately lit)
However the declared severity of these fires tends to be measured more in terms of human lives and assets lost, rather than area burnt.
If we look at the demographics, I recall that the Oz population growth since 1914 has been four or five-fold, depending on region, and also, it was regionally dramatic in the gold-field areas starting in the later 19th century.
In pro-rata population consideration, 1926, 1939, and 1944 were relatively tragic in human terms.
Also, if we refer to the stats for Victoria since 1967, in table 1 of:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@.NSF/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/ccb3f2e90ba779d3ca256dea00053977
Whilst it gives the cause of ignition of bushfires at 25% being arson, it also gives another 42% as being accidentally human caused ranging through; farm machinery, unattended camp fires, and even “controlled hazard reduction burns” that got away etc.
Thus, the hazards of human caused fires, in Victoria, allegedly totalling some 67% of all causes, (together with some unknown that might also in part be human caused), would appear to be an increasing function of strong population growth, that has been dramatic since WW2 from immigration.
I pause….. More to come.
[snip]
Secretly? I sense that you’d like to lure me into the healthcare debate here. While I love to oblige, TonyN would most likely frown upon it.
TonyN’s patience has just run out. Sorry it had to be you Brute, you’re not the only offender by any means
Since you didn’t asked my opinion, I’ll provide it anyway……….
The longer the debate rages concerning Cap & Tax, the more evident it becomes that the assertions made by proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hysteria are full of it. As time ticks by, people are beginning to realize that what they’ve been told by the politically motivated Ecochondriacs is information based on junk science, emotion, political ideology and Leftist financial interests. The curtain is slowly being drawn back on the charade that is human caused “climate change” and the notion is being rejected by reasonable (taxpaying) citizens who will be responsible for funding the boondoggle.
As Max has stated, the dire economic situation also has contributed to the reluctance of the rank and file to be persuaded and the real time weather (“climate”) observations/trends are proving the global warming “experts” to be wrong.
Time is the friend to the opponents of the “sky is falling” histrionics of the global warming crowd………people do venture outdoors occasionally and realize that the world is not coming to an end because they purchase (insert consumer product here). The socialist politically motivated guilt trip isn’t working anymore (thank God), and only the most blind adherents to the ecological doctrine are still hanging on……their shrill cries of “the end is near” becoming more desperate and panic-stricken.
You can’t fool people for very long before they realize they are being deceived……buyer beware is being practiced by the citizenry………which is infinitely preferable to buyer’s remorse.
By the way, I drove past the local funeral parlor the other day (in the environmentally incorrect Brute-mobile), and was amused to see that they are now offering “Green Burials”……just an amusing anecdote to throw in here and to refute the notion that the media “propaganda” is slanted to the “skeptics”.
Peter
You wrote to Brute (about recent articles in the US press, which are skeptical of the premise that AGW is a serious threat):
They don’t need to, Peter.
The “fundamentals of science” do not support the premise that AGW is a serious threat; it’s only the computer models that do.
Max
Hi Max
It doesn’t do the sceptics cause any good when mistakes are made and not rectified. One such seems to be a comment from Plimer in his book that Volcanoes emit as much co2 in a year as does all human industry in the same timescale.
On the surface this appears demonstrably incorrect and as a geoligst Plimer would surely know this.
Therefore I am wondering what is the precise phrase that he uses? Is it qualified in any way?
I am asking you as you have read the book and I haven’t, and I hope it is something you can quickly find.
Incidentally whose book did you think was better overall-Plimer or Taylor?
Thanks in advance for your help
Tonyb
TonyB
Yes. You are absolutely right when you write, “It doesn’t do the sceptics cause any good when mistakes are made and not rectified.”
Peter pointed out the error you mention, plus two others.
On p.413 Plimer writes: “Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined.”
This is incorrect. As a geologist, it is strange that Plimer made this rather silly mistake. He wrote several very informative pages on volcanic eruptions and their impact on our climate, so it is all the more curious that he would make such an error.
Degassing of CO2 (and other gases) created our early atmosphere, which was composed largely of CO2 for a long time.
Had Plimer written “Volcanoes have produced more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined”, this would have been true, but putting the sentence into the present tense makes it false.
The other errors Peter mentioned:
Plimer wrote (pp. 98-99) that NASA had to withdraw its claim that 1998 was the warmest year (in the USA) and that several years in the 1990s were warmer than any before after Steve McIntyre pointed out errors in the record. But Plimer fordid not mention that this dispute only covered the USA record and not the global record, where the 1990s remained the warmest decade. So Plimer was wrong here, as well. Another silly error.
The third error has to do with the relative GH impact of termites and humans, where Plimer wrote (p. 472): “termite methane emissions are 20 times more potent than human CO2 emissions”. In fact, studies on termites show that the estimated methane plus CO2 emissions from termites are equivalent to the emission of 4.7 GtCO2 per year, while humans emit 27 GtCO2 per year, so Plimer is wrong here, as well.
As far as comparing the books by Taylor and Plimer: The authors come from different backgrounds, and this is quite apparent in the books. I would not say that one book is “better” than the other, however.
As a geologist, Plimer spends a lot of time talking about our planet’s early climate, including cyclical warm and cool periods both in the distant past and in the recent history of our planet, pointing out that the current climate changes are neither unprecedented nor unusual.
Taylor also discusses these early periods briefly, but shows that the late 20th century warming was caused by an unprecedented combination of several cyclical natural events. He points out that the risks of global cooling are far greater than those of global warming
Plimer cites 2,000 references (albeit several duplicates), while Taylor cites a few hundred.
Both authors deplore the fact that “climate science” has become “politicized”, but one can detect the particular regret of Taylor (as a past environmental analyst, himself) that the environmental movement has, in effect, been hijacked by the giant “climate change industry”.
A sentence (p.361) in Taylor’s book tells a lot: “It is striking that a small group of men working behind computer screens created a virtual reality in which the future climate became the enemy of mankind.”
Finally, the six-point summary and conclusions in Taylors “ending note” (pp. 371-372) are succinct and masterful. Plimer does not end the book with such a “bang”.
I enjoyed both books and learned quite a bit from both of them. I have not found any errors in Taylor’s book (I’m sure there must be a few, which someone will point out), but the few errors and “goof-ups” in Plimer’s book have not taken away from the validity of its overall message.
Max
Max
Thanks for that.
You have exactly answered my supplementary question before it was asked, as the context is all important. If I was Plimer and trying to wriggle out of his silly statement, I would blur the incorrect tense used and agree about the annual volcano emissions being smaller than mans annual emmissions- as per the first link…:
“Less than 1% of annual CO2 emissions come from volcanoes.
from: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh…as/volgas.html
“Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.
Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) – The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.].
Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.”
…BUT, I would then point to this article
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
“University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this”3.
“The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge,” Archer writes. “Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.”
This demonstrates that if much of co2 stays in the atmosphere FOR EVER total co2 contribution from Volcanoes remaining in the atmosphere is greater than mans. We are on to semantics and the delicious prospect of the warmists being hoist by their own petard and rhetoric!
I am not seriously defending Plimer however, which is why I wanted the overall context.
If Robin is around he might be able to throw some light on the equally inappropriate use of semantics that AL Gore used when trying to defend his inaccuracies in his sci fi classic ‘An inconvenient truth’ in front of a British Court. He lost on many of his points and the film had to carry a health warning before it could be shown in our schools..
Plimers three mistakes are so elementary that I am sure all of us on this blog knew the correct answers without needing to look them up. How they could get into the book in the first place, let alone stand the first round of editing seems silly for such high profile statements.
Peter Martin was right to point them out.
Yes, I particularly enjoyed the phrase from Taylors book;
“A sentence (p.361) in Taylor’s book tells a lot: “It is striking that a small group of men working behind computer screens created a virtual reality in which the future climate became the enemy of mankind.”
I put it into my review but unfortunately space constraints forced me to cut it.
Tonyb
TonyB
Yes, I believe Plimer should add an “errata”, to his book, just to clear things up. He also included two or three charts, which appear to me to be distorted or confusing, if not misleading, opening the door for criticism.
BTW, IPCC should also add a several-page “errata” for the errors in their SPM 2007 report, but they will, of course, not admit to these.
I could not find any errors in Taylor’s book. I seriously doubt that Peter could, either.
When your review of the book by Taylor comes out, let us see it.
Thanks.
Max