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.
On the subject of Solar Cycle 24 a glance at this graph:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
(the one halfway down) the page should enable you to make as good a guess as anyone else as to whether the solar cycle will return as normal in a few years time. I’d say probably yes, but we’ll have to wait and see.
But, if we are really very very lucky, solar activity will stay low for the next couple of hundred years and help offset a small amount of AGW. It won’t be much. Just about a decades worth at most. That’s why the temperature figures have been level recently.
Peter,
You have no notion of how I came to realize that the scientific case for the AGW premise was weak, that the recent warming was most likely caused principally by natural causes and, therefore, that all the hype and hysteria surrounding AGW forecasts for the future were a hoax.
I told you how and when this happened.
I also told you that I did not start blogging on this issue until long after I had come to the above conclusion.
Now, if you want to call me a liar without any evidence that this is so, you are free to do so.
I will just return the favor.
End of discussion on this point, Peter. It has really become quite boring.
And it is very clear to me (and probably to all the other bloggers here) that this is a sidetrack you are using to avoid the fact that you are unable to provide any empirical data to support your premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, despite requests from both Robin Guenier and myself.
Bring empirical data, Peter, not silly BS.
Max
Peter,
The forecast for Solar Cycle 24 in the NOAA press release you cited (7276) may be a bit on the high side at a Wolf number of 90, based on studies by other solar scientists, but it confirms a significant solar slowdown in any case:
During the two warming periods of the 20th century we had solar cycles with Wolf numbers of 190 and 160, and during the mid-century cooling cycle it dropped to 108 (see my 7250 for detail), thus disproving your statement (7244):
It has been anything but “pretty much constant”, as the facts show, Peter, so that “facts” DO “fit”.
And, interestingly enough, the warming/cooling cycles we’ve observed correlate fairly well with solar activity.
But, hey, we know it isn’t the sun, don’t we, Peter? It’s anthropogenic CO2 that drives our planet’s climate. Right? (Even when there is no apparent correlation, let alone any empirical data, supporting this premise.)
Duh!
Max
Benefits to Plants
http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=225
Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air’s CO2 content. These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need. Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today’s CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation.
Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth’s natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.
Join us as we explore these and other important benefits that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are bestowing on plants. Carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels should not be feared; they are something to be celebrated!
You are now saying that “I said ‘most if not all’ simply because I can’t speak for everybody.”
Good grief, Peter! Are you a politician? I am not *now* saying it – I said it originally, and expanded because you asked me to.
I have also stopped beating my wife.
Perhaps you’d like to answer my original question about atmospheric warming, i.e. how much of the oft-quoted 33 degC is due to CO2 and how much to the good old-fashioned gas laws?
Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
• 1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
• At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
• The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
• Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
• If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
• Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
• Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
These phrases sound fine…..you should embrace, cherish and protect your rights as an Englishman or an Australian.
You seem to harbor the silly notion that you are a “citizen of the world” subject to the laws of some world governing body and that because you believe this, I must adhere to your supposition also.
Which international law should we as individuals be subject to Peter? Napoleonic law? Sharia law?
Sure, as a nation we can enter into international treaties; however, the Constitution of the United States trumps these treaties when applied to citizens of the United States within the boundaries of its borders.
A short while ago, real-time:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
Hey Peter
You ask Brute:
How do phrases like “my rights as an Englishman” or “my rights as an Australian” sound to you?
Can’t say, Peter but “my rights as a Swiss” sounds real good to me (and over 7 million others here, no matter what language they speak, Canton they come from or political party they support).
Max
Bob_FJ
To add to your pretty picture of a spotless sun, see:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
For tables and graphs showing the years with most spotless days (since 1849) click the link provided.
Regards,
Max
A must see………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlaS5A0KLoA
Hey Peter,
Let’s see if I can sum up your beliefs on AGW (based on observation on this thread).
1. AGW is a serious threat to our environment, our society and our planet
2. AGW is caused primarily by human emissions of CO2
3. An overwhelming consensus of scientists and scientific organizations supports the AGW premise so it must be correct
4. Computer model outputs provide scientific evidence supporting the AGW premise
5. Immediate action is required to “mitigate” against a future disaster caused by AGW
6. A carbon tax or cap and trade scheme whereby carbon emissions are taxed would be a good first “mitigation” step to force human society to use less fossil fuels
7. Those who support the AGW premise do so on the basis of the supporting science
8. Those who deny the AGW premise are motivated by politics, not by science
9. Those few scientists who do not support the AGW premise (only a handful) are either ill-informed, confused or in the pay of right wing organizations
10. Most AGW deniers are affiliated with right wing organizations or causes or are somehow in the pay of large oil or coal interests
11. Al Gore’s film, AIT, may have had a few errors and exaggerations, but basically summed up the AGW problem fairly succinctly
12. James E. Hansen’s predictions of “450 ppm as a dangerous CO2 level” at which “tipping points” in our climate could occur are realistic, even if slightly overstated
13. Ian Plimer’s book, “Heaven and Earth”, is completely misleading and full of errors
14. The same is true of Peter Taylor’s book, “Chill” (which I have also not read)
15. There is basically no point in reading books or publications that have differing views on the AGW premise, one can get all the information from IPCC reports.
Would you care to add any other points to your “credo” on AGW, or have I summed it up correctly?
Max
Brute,
I’m not sure why you’ve introduced the Constitution of the USA, not that there is much wrong with as such, into the argument. And not for the first time either.
There are those of us who don’t consider that the USA constitution trumps everything else on an international scale. Last time I checked it didn’t say anything about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere anyway. But maybe, if you feel it would do any good, you could add a clause forbidding it to cause any climatic problems at all.
Max,
Your list contains some good points. I wouldn’t disagree with most of them.I’m not sure about Peter Taylor’s book. I haven’t even seen it. But if you are saying its full of crap like Plimer’s book I’ll take your word for it.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t read anything else other than the IPCC. There lots of other good stuff too.
I’m not sure about point 10. There is a lot of psychology involved in why people become Global warming deniers which is a scientific study in itself. Sometimes it is simply just because they are too heavily influenced by Fox News or what they read in the Daily Mail. Or maybe that’s what their friends think and need to conform to the group.
I am saying that deniers haven’t looked at the science in a thorough and detailed way, and then come to a dispassionate conclusion. Maybe there is such a person out there but I haven’t come across one yet. And yes , Max, that includes you.
Max 7261
I agree and you have expressed how I feel and how I have transitioned perfectly, so I won’t try and improve it. However for Peter Martins benefit I will throw out some numbers of where my gut feel on where the electorate is.
The deniers, for a want of a better word, are about 0.001% if that, of those against AGW and everything else. They do not represent my views or anyone on this blog. The rational sceptics fall into 2 groups. A smallish but growing group such as ourselves who by dint of their inbuilt curiosity and education started researching this subject well before people such as Peter Martin appeared on the scene telling us we had preconceived ideas. Joining this group are people from all walks who are reading the many books such as Nigel Lawson’s and Ian Pilmers to name but two. Some of these people have no great grasp of science but are intelligent people and are beginning to be very concerned at what they read. If you read any of the books from the other side of the argument they are often incoherent and have no scientific credibility at all. An example of this that I have in my hand is The Hot Topic by Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King (one of the buffoons of AGW) There is also a growing group of sceptics that are sceptical because the whole process is being oversold. In a democratic world the people just know when they are being sold a pup, and this is one of the biggest ever. So far politicians have not been listening, and this has been clearly reflected in recent election results (in Europe at least) that have move to the right or towards authoritarian rule.
It is we Europeans and some others that have sat back and taken cheap shots at the US over its consumption of energy and output of CO2, and now it’s those same Europeans that will lead the world out of the malaise as they suddenly realise what is in store for them, and it’s all the more ironic as Americans realise that they have elected a leader based on emotion and who’s policies are far removed from the American tradition. What you will see, and it’s what you always see from left wing governments that don’t get their way is the Obama administration turn authoritarian as they attempt to get their policies through against the grain. This is where the Brown government is at present. Peter Martin’s intransigent attitude on this subject is a reflection of this and will eventually turn off even those who may be inclined to be sympathetic to the cause.
Peter Geany,
Are you trying to convince me that you are one of these political neutrals who are only concerned about the science? If so, you might just want to leave out sentences such as:
“what you always see from left wing governments that don’t get their way is the Obama administration turn authoritarian as they attempt to get their policies through against the grain”.
They are a bit of a give away I’m afraid.
TonyB,
You surprised me recently in that you managed to make a sensible comment and it is worth repeating here.
“The first [group] are ’sceptics’ who have thought deeply about it, read the papers and changed their original position based on actual facts and observations…..”
“The second group are ‘deniers’ (lower case and non perjorative) who hate the govt, hate authority, believe they should be able to do whatever they want. AGW is just one of many things they automatically disbelieve because they think it is a govt attempt to control them. There is a political element here, but equally very many hate govt of any complexion. This last group hate AGW because they believe it is being used as a tool of the govt to intrude in to their life.”
I guess there may be some slight disagreement on the relative size of these two groups. How would you rate the contributors to this blog? Which group would you assign each one to?
I didn’t write that and I also didn’t write that the US Constitution applies to anyone outside of America.
Entering into a treaty (such as Kyoto) is unconstitutional as it subjects American citizens to the authority of international governments.
“The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution?
Alexander Hamilton: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government. It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be comparable to an agent betraying his principal or authority.”
Max,
I was wondering if you’d be interested in a making me a cash offer for any of my internet personas? They say everyone has their price:-)
You can then point to a previous history of having agreed with the scientific consensus but, now that you’ve retired and had more of a chance to reassess the evidence, you can say you’ve changed your mind. For purely scientific reasons, of course. There are even some left of centre politics thrown in for good measure.
I think you’ve blown your cover as Max Anacker. Once you’ve said somehing like “To seriously believe all the hype that man is causing a climate disaster that will destroy the planet is not only, basically, stupid, it is extremely arrogant.” its all over, I’m afraid, as far as any scientific credibility is concerned.
I am saying that deniers haven’t looked at the science in a thorough and detailed way
And you have, obviously, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to answer my question about the contribution of CO2 to the natural warming due to the lapse rate. I don’t need it to ten decimal places…
Hey Peter.
We have agreement! (Well, almost…)
Looks like I got your beliefs on AGW pretty much “spot on”, with two minor exceptions.
To point 15: “There is basically no point in reading books or publications that have differing views on the AGW premise, one can get all the information from IPCC reports.” You had a comment (7289).
As I understood your comment, you disagree with this, provided the books are in agreement with the AGW premise. If they (like Plimer’s and Taylor’s books) are not, one should not waste the time reading them (as you have posted here and elsewhere). Have I got it right now?
Your wishy-washy comment on point 10 (that most AGW “deniers” are right wingers) is a bit of a waffle, Peter; you have come out pretty clearly on that one on this thread and elsewhere.
Now let me give you my position regarding AGW, for your information:
1. The premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, is based on an interpretation of the greenhouse theory
2. The greenhouse theory is a plausible hypothesis, even if it has not been validated by experimentation or empirical physical data
3. Warming has occurred in multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles (total cycle around 60 years) since the modern temperature record started
4. There are no empirical data that support the premise that this warming was caused by an increase in anthropogenic GH gases, primarily CO2
5. In order for GH warming from CO2 to represent more than just a minor factor, hypothetical “positive feedback” factors must be applied, which increase the CO2 warming based on the GH theory by a factor of 3 to 4
6. There are no empirical data to support these “positive feedbacks”; instead they are based on climate model “outputs”, which, in turn, are based on “assumptions” fed into the climate models
7. The actual 20th century warming does not support these “positive feedback” assumptions
8. Empirical data based on physical observations on clouds do not support these “positive feedback” assumptions
9. Empirical data based on physical observations on water vapor do not support the level of “positive feedback” from water vapor assumed by the models
10. The cyclical nature of our planet’s observed climate changes correlates more closely with changes in solar activity and other possibly related natural factors than with changes in CO2 levels
11. The IPCC assumption on solar forcing is limited to direct solar irradiance alone, thereby greatly underestimating the empirically observed role of the sun on our climate over the long term; other proposed mechanisms are written off as “controversial” and therefore ignored
12. The input “scenarios” for the model forecasts assume a future rate of CO2 increase which is several times the actually observed increase to date, thereby further exaggerating forecasts of future temperature rise due to AGW
13. The long-term tide gauge record shows no increase in the rate of sea level rise in the second half of the 20th century, as compared to the first half, as assumed by IPCC
14. Based on long-term satellite studies, there is no conclusive evidence that polar ice caps (Greenland, Antarctica) have shrunk over the last decade of the 20th century; in fact, these studies show that they have both gained in mass
15. There is no conclusive evidence that Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover has diminished since 1980, when satellite measurements started
16. While Arctic sea ice has shrunk since satellite measurements started in 1979, Antarctic sea ice has grown by almost the same amount
17. The projected “demise” of the Greenland (or West Antarctic) ice sheet in “100 or even 10 years” with increased sea levels of 6 meters as warned by the UN Secretary General is absurd and pure fear mongering
18. Atmospheric surface and tropospheric temperatures have dropped significantly since 2001, despite all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, in direct contradiction of IPCC forecasts, which called for a strong warming
19. The upper ocean (supposedly the “heat sink” for global warming) has cooled since comprehensive Argo measurements were installed in 2003
20. The postulation (by climate scientist and AGW activist James E. Hansen) that 450 ppmv is a “dangerous level” for atmospheric CO2, which could lead to irreversible deleterious “tipping points” in our climate is preposterous
21. Al Gore’s film, AIT, is pure fear mongering based on a few tid-bits of science and a lot of imagination and should not be used to frighten impressionable school children
22. Ian Plimer’s recent book, “Heaven and Earth” may have a few errors, but is nevertheless a well-reasoned and well-referenced study pointing out the weaknesses in the science supporting the AGW premise
23. The same is true of Peter Taylor’s recent book, “Chill”, although there are no obvious errors here
24. The IPCC 2007 SPM report contains several errors, exaggerations and outright untruths; in addition there are a few notable omissions. As the quasi-offical summary on climate science paid for by taxpayer funds, it should be the “gold standard”, and therefore held to a higher standard of accuracy than books written by individuals, such as Taylor or Plimer; unfortunately it falls short of this standard, and is really a rather obvious “sales pitch” for the AGW premise.
25. The principal critique of the AGW premise is based on the weak and flawed “science” supporting this premise, as outlined above; political and economic considerations are obviously linked, but are secondary.
That’s about it. I’m sure that TonyB or others here might have a few more items to add from their standpoint, but these are the main points that come to my mind.
Max
The one where you saythe temperature drops by 9.8 degC for every 1000 m of elevation?
I don’t think the amount of CO2 would make any difference to it unless it increased by several orders of magnitude from its present level.
Max,
Thank you for your list. Did you think that we had one or two tiny doubts that you’d like cleared up on your personal position? I’m not quite sure which they were now, but, rest assured, I do think your position is now totally clear and, incidentally, almost totally wrong, too!
You’d be an interesting topic for psychlogical research. (I did write ‘psychiatric’ originally but I altered it!). Do you have a favourite football team? I must say I always annoy my friends when they get cross with the referee and scream for his blood when a close decision doesn’t go our way. But I often say something like “well he was a lot closer than us so perhaps he’s seen something that we didn’t” which often doesn’t go down too well. They see only what they want to see and won’t hear a word to the contrary.
I bet you are like that aren’t you? Most people are. Its probably just human nature.
Peter Martin 7291
Dear dear, Peter you don’t know me, so you cannot say that. My eldest son is reading Political Science, and I have done some research for him, that is how i know this. There are some truly shocking statistics about our current government out there, but one of the overriding facts that I found was the above. Those on the left have the most enormous difficulty in accepting that there is any other view. Always have and always will. And it all comes down to control and we the we know best attitude. Well you don’t always, no one does. What my personal politics is has no bearing on the science, which you don’t seem to be able to understand.
Now Peter if you harbour any hope of convincing us that your view holds any sway, give us some facts, and stop waffling, as you are demonstrating an ignorance of the many and varied subjects that we have studied that you profess to know but simply do not.
I don’t think the amount of CO2 would make any difference to it..
Thank you Peter. I don’t want to make rash assumptions, but that sounds as though you agree that CO2 is, at most, a minor contributor to the warming effect of the atmosphere, often given as 33 degC (or K, if you’re fussy). If this is the case, why all the excitement about CO2? I realise that other processes are involved, but one has to start somewhere, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence that CO2 makes a significant difference to the temperatures we experience.
Well, well, Peter.
We are making progress here.
You have agreed (7289) that my assessment of your beliefs on AGW is fairly accurate. We did not get into a discussion about whether the beliefs, themselves, are “right” or “wrong” – we just agreed that they just happen to be your beliefs. Right?
I have posted you my beliefs. You (7297) have not expressed any doubt that these are, indeed, my beliefs (it would be rather unwise to do, since I am obviously more knowledgeable about my beliefs than you are). But, interestingly you added:
So you have introduced the “who is right and who is wrong?” question and given your personal opinion to this question.
Now, I’m afraid you have to get a bit more specific that just opining “you are almost totally wrong”.
Please state specifically which of my points are wrong and what evidence you can provide that this is the case.
If you cannot do this, point by point, then your assertion that they are “almost totally wrong” is unfounded and meaningless, as are so many of your previous posts.
The ball is in your court, Peter. Let’s see if you can do a more convincing job than you have been doing so far.
Max