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. TonyB

    Your point to James P on differences between “sunshine sensors” is interesting.

    As you note, at makes all the alarm over tenths (or even hundredths) of a degree increase in “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (with land surface thermometers having an error of plus or minus 0.1 degree C and the sea temperature measurements unable to even agree whether it is warming or cooling) seem utterly foolish.

    The same can be said for the hype and hysteria about rising “globally averaged sea levels” in fractions of millimeters, which are projected to soon inundate small island countries or swallow up NYC (based on satellite altimetry with a measurement error of plus or minus 0.5 cm). These also seem utterly foolish.

    As indeed they both are.

    Max

  2. Brute

    Good news about BP in the Gulf of Mexoco.

    Let’s hope they are allowed to develop this new discovery and are not blocked by the “clean energy lobby”.

    Max

  3. Max 7351

    This institutionalised inaccuracy is why I used to gnash my teeth when you and Peter argued over fractions of a degree about nonsensical and inaccurate global temperatures (in itself a meaningless concept) back to 1850-when global data simply didnt exist-let alone was accurate.

    Mind you, global temperatures to 1850 are positively scientific when compared to the notion of accurate ‘sea levels to 1700.’

    It seems crazy to change the world economic system because of concerns over sea level rises that;

    a) Rely on three highly interpolated North European tide gauges back to 1700 as being some reliable measure of global movements.

    b) Satellite altimetry of global sea level (another silly concept) that is more inaccurate than the measurement it is taking.

    With regards to this overall subject I am trying to track down if it is true that the trend increase in global sea levels in the latest IPCC report is based on the data from just one tide gauge in Hong Kong.

    The gauge exists, the measurement claimed is correct, but we only have Morners testimony that the IPCC have fiddled the figures by using this one gauge. As a sceptic it would be good to see written evidence that this is true but the IPCC don’t seem to mention how trends are derived.

    Certainly sea levels are not rising at the amounts claimed in the UK, and I understand that the seas around the Swiss coastline shows no rise at all :)

    tonyb

  4. Brute

    Got this e-mailed to me (by an American friend) and thought you might be interested.

    For those that don’t know about history … Here is a condensed version:

    Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

    The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

    1 . Liberals(Democrats), and
    2. Conservatives(Republicans).

    Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

    Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

    Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

    Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Those became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

    Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals became symbolized by the jackass.

    Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, government employees, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

    Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud and Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, entrepreneurs, inventors, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

    Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. Most liberals remained in Europe when conservatives came to America. They crept in after the wild west was tamed and created a business trying to get more for nothing.

    It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above.

    A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.

    And there you have it.. !

    Now (for the benefit of TonyN):

    Liberals have recently decided that the productive endeavors of Conservatives (producing stuff and delivering it to customers) have warmed the climate and that this could be a very bad thing.

    They have based this on a theory, promoted by Liberal climate scientists, which suggests that CO2 gas causes a lot of warming.

    Conservatives manufacturing people require energy to produce goods, and Conservative truck drivers require motor fuel to transport these to both Liberal and Conservative customers, and these endeavors generate CO2.

    So the Liberals, who have a natural desire “to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production”, have decided to tax them for their CO2 emissions.

    The Conservatives, be they production workers, truck drivers, “big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, entrepreneurs, inventors, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively” oppose this idea and question the theory behind it.

    That should help Peter understand the “politics” of Global Warming (especially in the USA).

    It’s all quite simple.

    Max

  5. TonyB

    Yes, you are right.

    We in Switzerland are on the alert for rising sea levels, with the largest concern currently centered in and around Basel (backing up of high tides over the Rhine), in Geneva (where scientists are nervously watching the Rhone) and in Ticino (where the scientists really don’t know which way to look, but are gravely concerned anyhow).

    It is a tense situation, complicated by the fact that the scientists and administrators involved at the three most crucial sites speak three different languages and are unable to exchange rapid warning alerts.

    We realize here that every millimeter counts and can make a difference.

    A top secret emergency plan (the Mumpitz Plan, named after a legislator by that name) is being developed based on model study results carried out at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, to shut down flow from the Swiss glaciers that feed these vulnerable arteries, but since this is top secret, I can’t talk about it.

    Max

  6. Peter

    You asked me about Plimers 2xCO2 warming estimate. I have no notion where he got his estimate, but here are some possibilities.

    Plimer says increasing CO2 from 380 to 760 ppmv would cause a warming of 0.5°C maximum.

    Lindzen (a well-respected climate scientists) has stated that a doubling from 300ppmv to 600ppmv of atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in only 0.5 °C GH warming

    This study gives three estimates:
    http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    They are:
    1.76°C ± 0.27°C
    1.39°C ± 0.24°C
    0.46°C ± 0.08°C

    Here is another study that says:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/962/Scientist-There-is-no-possible-global-warming-threat-for-at-least-next-193-years–Predicts-possible-COOLING

    “Because this radiative band is near saturated, a doubling of CO2 could only add an additional 0.3°C to the 3.4°C greenhouse effect already caused by the current level of CO2. (This is a maximum value with a more likely computed value being less than 0.1°C.)”

    Plimer did not reference his source, so maybe he took Lindzen’s estimate.

    Or did Plimer take the IPCC estimate (just under 1°C for CO2) and then adjust this for a positive water vapor feedback (add 0.9°C, per IPCC corrected for lower RH with warming per Minschwaner + Dessler study) and a strongly negative cloud feedback (subtract 1.4°C, per Spencer et al.study)..

    Who knows?

    Who cares? Is this important? If so, why?

    Max

  7. Reading your comment # 7355……..The lunacy that mankind is even discussing the subject of “Global Warming”, “Climate Change” or whatever clever marketing label they’ve applied just smacked me in the face. Maybe it was the man made volcano posts or the giant mirrors in space that all sort of hit me at once a few minutes ago.

    Why the hell are we wasting time and money on this?

    I’m going to eat lunch and purposely open a can of soda pop……..just to add some more carbonation to the atmosphere in defiance of the politically correct, environmental goose steppers.

  8. Thanks, Max (7349)

    Originally, I was trying to establish the GHE component of the natural lapse rate, which it seems reasonable to assume is the main thing that keeps us warm, and is absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenic anything.

    It now appears that there is absolutely no agreement about the contribution of CO2, yet governments the world over regard it as a serious problem and already have tax and other regimes to counter it (e.g. in the UK, car tax is already based on CO2 emissions). So much for the science being settled!

  9. Max #7355

    You forgot to seek the opinion of those who speak Romansch, surely still one of the four official languages of Switzerland?

    For those unfamiliar with Switzerland it was one of the cross roads of the Roman empire and its traditional name of Helvetia is based on the Roman name.

    http://en.allexperts.com/e/h/he/helvetia.htm

    The Romansch are poetically said to be descendants of Romans, and it is true their language has some similarities to Latin.

    http://www.everyculture.com/Europe/Romansch.html

    Romansch is centred on a town called Chur which I know well, having walked the high level passes near there that the Romans used to patrol their empire and launch attacks against their enemies.

    Of course in those much warmer Roman Optimum days the glaciers were higher than they are today, and Hanibal had a much easier time of it than the romantic view of his struggle over the icy Alps-perpetuated by the Victorians-would suggest.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=221

    The Mumpitz plan (that you can not talk about) is doomed to failure unless you include those distinctive citizens of Switzerland who speak Romansch. (Although it must be conceded that their lofty heights and complete lack of coastline for 500 miles might suggest their opinion might not be worth a great deal)

    tonyb

  10. TonyB

    Will discuss your suggestion of including Romatsch speakers in Mumpitz Plan. One problem is that the roughly 50,000 individuals who speak this language have been unable to agree which Romatsch-dialect is the official language – so there are three, covering the three regions, where this language is still spoken.

    Since the upper Rhine gets its water from Romatsch-country (without which all those Dutchmen down there would run dry) it seems you are correct that the Romatsch speakers should be included.

    Since I live near Chur, I’ll see what can be done.

    Max

  11. Max,

    You say “I would assume (since Plimer does not give a specific reference for his source) that his statement of 18°C is an error.”

    Plimer doesn’t give references for many, if not most, of his statements. Are they in error too?

    This point is not just an incidental aside. It is fundamental to the question of the risks involved in letting CO2 levels rise out of control.

    Plimer is saying that if all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 18degC. On the other hand, if the CO2 concentration were doubled the temperature would rise by less than 0.5degC.

    Does this sound at all plausible?

    What about the 0.5 degC figure? Is that just a mistake too? Maybe we should ask him? Oops! he might say. I’ve got the decimal point in the wrong place there. I really mean 5 degC.

    At the very least, he should provide some references, or show his own calculations, for the source of these figures.

  12. JamesP,

    You accused me of misquoting Plimer. There was no misquote. Even Max has to admit that Plimer has it wrong.

    You accused me of misquoting Max too. I did admit to the possibility that I’d misunderstood what Max was saying. He’s declined to comment further, so I guess we can now take it that talks of salaries and “hard cold facts” does mean that he’s advocating that economic pressure pressure be applied to scientific bodies to get the results he wants rather than the genuine opinion of the the scientists involved.

    Anyone can throwing up accusations of misquotes, and taking sentences out of context. You don’t need any skill or knowledge to do that and it really is an argument of last resort.

  13. TonyB

    You posted a link to a study on Swiss glaciers. Here is a Swiss study that gives some very revealing data.

    http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/html_d/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf

    The Swiss study (by Christian Schlüchter and Ueli Jöri of the Institut für Geologie, at the University of Bern) was made to determine the historical extent of the expansion and retraction of Swiss alpine glaciers, using the evidence provided by remains of trees, etc.

    Some excerpts below:

    The two most recent time periods that were identified by these remains were the Medieval Warm Period and the climatic period called the “Roman Optimum”. In both periods the glaciers were smaller than they are today, as shown by this evidence. Similar evidence of other more distant periods of glacial retreat and smaller glaciers than today were also found.

    Over the last 10,000 years, more than 50% of the time had a smaller glacial extent than today (so this extent is not “unusual” at all).

    Recently uncovered remains of trees and other vegetation under receding glaciers were analyzed for C14 isotope and this showed that they grew during periods of high solar activity, during a time when the glacier extent was much smaller than today.

    The study found that during the “Roman Optimum” the glacier “tongues” were actually 300 meters higher than today, which may help to explain why Hannibal was able to cross the Alps with elephants.

    The lowest level of glaciation in the Alps apparently occurred during a period around 7,000 years ago, according to the study. At that time the glaciers had apparently disappeared almost completely

    The study showed that the maximum extension of the Swiss alpine glaciers in the past 10,000 years occurred around the year 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age. This is the “baseline” used to measure glacial retreat today.

    The study concluded that the expansion and retraction of glaciers is a far more dynamic process than had been assumed to date, with a concluding comment that glacial retreat is not necessarily a result of warming, since periods of dry, colder weather can contribute to glacial retreat just as much as a general warming can.

    So it is actually much more complicated than IPCC would have us believe, and what is occurring today is not “unusual” at all, and certainly not linked to recent anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    Regards,

    Max

  14. Max, in your 7342 you wrote in part:

    Remember the blog exchanges we had at RC on the apparent disconnect between local temperature and retreat of the Jacobshavn Glacier at Illulisaat (Greenland)? As I recall, you were chastised by a Nick Barnes for showing that there was no relation between the glacier and [NH] global temperatures, in which he pointed out that the ”glacial response was to local, not global, temperature trends”.
    I then went to the trouble of down-loading the local temperature record over the entire 20th century and found out that Barnes was wrong. There was no “temperature response” at all.

    Yes, although Nick Barnes did come-up with some useful stuff. However, real nonsense came from John P. Reisman such as in the quote below, this being an example I guess of his “simplified systems theory”. It was in response to some points I made on this the world‘s fastest retreating glacier. These points included that it had been erratically retreating for ~150 years but that paradoxically, for the period 1964 -2001, during that famous 37-year period of great warming, it virtually stood still.

    #509 BobFJ
    The answer is thermal inertia.
    Remember context is key. Any data you look at out of context might look funny. That is why cherry picking is so silly.
    It only ‘looks’ counter intuitive, but it is not. The human mind is limited by perspective until knowledge and understanding meet closer to truth to relieve the prematurely apparent contradiction.
    Natural variability is short term. Climate is long term. Oceanic thermal inertia keeps the warming at bay in relation to the additional forcing imposed.
    Regional variation and natural variation are pieces of the puzzle, but not the whole puzzle.
    Remember, we are on a new path, that of warming, natural variation does not go away, it just weaves like a drunk driver on a different road…”

    Extract from his # 524 @ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/summer-sea-ice-round-up/comment-page-11/#comment-132851
    (My 509 is on same page #11)

    Incidentally, there was an interesting follow-up here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/summer-sea-ice-round-up/comment-page-11/#comment-132882

    Where Nick Barnes had brought to light that the NSIDC data for Jakobshavn differs to that from MODIS

  15. Max,

    You seem to be getting your knickers in a twist about my remark that you are “almost totally wrong”. You obviously don’t agree.

    You could be right. I think it might be incorrect. I think I should have just said “totally wrong”.

    Max and Brute,

    This new oil find in Mexico. Have you calculated how long it will last?

  16. Max and Brute,

    I’m not sure that I trust either of you with a calculator, and you wouldn’t trust the answer if it came out of a computer, so I thought I’d just do the calculation for the new Mexico/BP “Giant” field.

    According to the BBC website:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8233504.stm

    It is 3 billion barrels. There is some speculation that not all of it will be recoverable. Maybe 30%. Lets not be too pessimistic. Lets assume BP can get it all.

    World consumption = 85 million barrels per day.

    So, I make that 35 days supply.

    I bet you guys are relieved about this find aren’t you? You’ve got just over a month longer to fuel your V8’s than you would have had without it.

  17. You guys should dismiss Ian Plimer, and Max, as dangerous warmists.

    On page On page 366 of his book, Ian Plimer says:
    The Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15 degC. If the atmosphere had no CO2, far more heat would be lost from Earth and the average surface temperature would be -3C.

    That is 18 degC colder even than in pre-industrial times. There is a well known logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations an temperature rise. Just knowing this value (18degC colder) is enough to tell us what will happen if CO2 levels double.

    This graph shows that Ian Plimer is predicting that temperatures will rise by 6.5 degC. Very much towards the higher end of the IPCC scale.

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2666/3883856952_2bf0a799b2_o.png

    Max is somewhat better. He reckons that it would be only 6 deg Cooler without any CO2. This translates to a temperature rise of 2.1 degC for a doubling of CO2 levels. Dangerously high for a sceptic I’d say. You’ll have to watch yourself, Max. You’ll get kicked out of the club.

    My figure of 9 degC is pretty much consistent with the mid range IPCC estimate of 3 degC.

    If anyone would like the original spreadsheet just ask TonyN by email.

  18. Max, in your 7342, you wrote in part concerning NASA Earth Science’s dilemma on the observed increasing sea-ice in the Antarctic:

    This is all the more curious when you look at NASA’s [their other mob: Earth Observatory] rough chart on what is happening to temperatures in Antarctica.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
    Most of the Antarctic Continent has been cooling at 0.1 to 0.2°C per year (average annual rate), while the smaller Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Ice Shelf areas are warming at 0.1 to 0.2°C per year. But curiously, the map shows that the ocean surrounding the continent is also supposedly warming.

    That is the April 27, 2006 version that you refer to, which must be a source of deep embarrassment to “Earth Observatory” after it escaped into the public domain. They have since coyly issued; but barely 18 months later; (November 21, 2007), a reduced colour-contrast “corrected” version as follows:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

    This shows an even broader warming, versus the earlier version, which seems rather paradoxical to the observed increasing sea-ice and ice cap growth. (Hence posing a dilemma in the Earth Sciences division)

    However, what has long fascinated me about the warmer water around the WAIS and The Peninsular is: Why?!
    And, when we look at the geology of The Peninsular, what does it look like? Well a bit like the southern end of South America maybe?. And what is their relative alignment? Sort of along their mutual tectonic alignments I do believe. Strange coincidence that!
    And, Mount Erebus, a substantially continuously active volcano, and a large number of known “dormant” volcanoes, and Pine Island glacier, and reports of submarine stuff like smokers in the area where the water is notably warm? Odd that!

    I’ve also taken the latter “corrected” NASA Earth Observatory image and have applied some sensible further colour and contrast “corrections” that I feel may be appropriate:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3883097165_546d373ab5_o.jpg

    Boy! That water off the WAIS is just boiling in the version according to Bob!

  19. Peter (7362)

    You accused me of misquoting Plimer

    Sorry – I should have said ‘taken him out of context’ (or as Peter G said, ‘creative cutting and pasting’), since you omitted the next line, which does rather alter the message:

    “The efficiency of the CO2 trap is essentially insensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    I was surprised to read (7367) that you think “There is a well known logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature rise”.

    Max will be pleased, as you told him in May: “I think we have already established that the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration cannot be purely logarithmic.”

    Clearly, this isn’t just a ‘simple calculation’ or if it is, we first have to agree on which one…

  20. Bob (7364)

    You quote Reisman: “The human mind is limited by perspective until knowledge and understanding meet closer to truth to relieve the prematurely apparent contradiction..” (ad nauseam)

    Does he have a day-job as a faith healer? I haven’t read such Grade-A tosh for a long time.

    Pseuds’ Corner beckons…
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pseuds_Corner

  21. Hi Bob,

    Based on latest NASA “correction” to Antarctic coastline temperatures, looks like it’s high time to book a beach vacation down there.

    But, upon closer look there appears to have been some “adjustment” to the facts, some changes of scope and a fantastic job of “chartmanship” and PR-manship” involved.

    The earlier depiction showed “Arctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004”; the later one “Two Decades of Temperature Change in Antarctica”. A note below the later depiction says:

    “This image illustrates long-term changes in yearly surface temperature in and around Antarctica between 1981 and 2007. (An earlier version of this map is pictured in a previous posting on the Earth Observatory.)”

    The link “previous posting” gets us back to the earlier depiction before “adjustments”.

    Were the years 1981 through 1987 “truncated” from the earlier record two arrive at “Two Decades of Temperature Change”?

    Why would NASA do this when every climatologist worth his salt knows that “climate” requires three decades of data and two decades of data are just “weather”?

    Since we are talking about changes (between the two versions) in many locations in the interior from a cooling trend of 0.1°C (1982-2004) to a warming of 0.025°C (? To 2007), this would represent a dramatic warming from 2004 to 2007 in those locations. Why have we not heard in all the headlines of this “dramatic warming of the Antarctic interior”? Because it did not really occur?

    Note another “chartmanship” change: the scale (below) has been cut in half, so that we are looking at a warming trend of 0.025C over “two decades”. As they say in New York, “Gimme a break, buddy!” How accurate are these thermometers down there?

    The final bit of superb “PR-manship” is the neat little note next to a very red (= warm) “blip” off the Antarctic Peninsula, saying: “site of the former Larsen B Ice Shelf”. Cute!

    Looks like the Earth Observatory folks hired in a slick PR agency (at taxpayer expense?) to help them convey their message much better than their scientists had been able to do by just reporting facts.

    Your more scientific points (7368) about the tectonic alignments and submarine volcanic activity at the Antarctic Peninsula (where it appears to warming most rapidly) are, of course, “spot on”, but I thought I would point out some of the “non-scientific” hype that NASA uses to sell the AGW message to an unsuspecting and often gullible public.

    Regards,

    Max

  22. JamesP,
    Yes I have questioned the logarithmic relationship in the past. In fact I might just say that I was a little surprised that Excel came up with the equation it did.

    I need to look at it a little closer but clearly its taken ln(0) to be 0 which isn’t strictly speaking correct. But as I said a couple of months ago if you overlook this glitch in the maths, then the logarithmic approximation is close enough for practical purposes.

    Anyway the graph shown is exactly as produced by Excel so it must be right. Maybe I’m being a little too pedantic in raising the objection.So you want me to quote this line?

    “The efficiency of the CO2 trap is essentially insensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    Its just the same as saying that doubling CO2 will produce an increase of less than 0.5 deg C which I did already quote. But if you try to produce a graph which goes through the points -18degC and +0.5 deg C it clearly does not obey the logarithmic realtionship. Still less the alternative exponential relationship which I proposed as a possible alternative.

    You say “we first have to agree on which one”. OK you suggest something and we’ll see if we can agree on it.

  23. Peter

    You wrote about the recent BP discivery in the Gulf of Mexico.

    A fact of which you are probably not aware. Oil companies usually understate the amount of recoverable oil from a new discovery.

    35 days of world supply! Wow! That’s a biggie.

    Of course, it’s only a “peanut grinder” compared to the oil shale deposits in the NW US (Colorado, Wyoming, etc.), which are estimated to contain as much recoverable oil and gas as the entire Middle East, as we discussed earlier here.

    But we are talking about AGW on this blog, Peter.

    And the fact is that ALL of these existing and projected new oil and gas reserves on our planet, if commercially exploited and then combusted, would increase the atmospheric CO2 level to around 1,000 ppmv.

    And (at current use rates) this would be in 150 years. As oil becomes a more scarce (and precious) commodity, its use as a fuel will decrease (replaced by nuclear power and electric cars?) and a growing percentage will go into non-combustion (petrochemicals, plastics, etc.), thereby probably extending the time period over which it is all consumed.

    That’s it, Peter. That’s all there is.

    Is this a “disaster”?

    Ask James E. Hansen, and he will, of course, say “YES” (because he is in the “disaster scenario” business; that’s his “bag”, as they say).

    Ask Arrhenius (once he got his figures straightened out), IPCC (Myhre et al.) and Stefan-Boltzmann and they will tell you “NO” (since this would theoretically mean a global warming of around 1.3C).

    Since this future warming will theoretically occur at the same time as solar scientists tell us we are headed for a theoretical cooling down, it appears to all be a bit of “much ado about nothing”.

    Face it, Peter. We do not have any idea what our climate will be like in 150 years. IPCC cannot even make any kind of meaningful forecast for 10 years, as we just saw.

    Hooray for BP! Let’s hope there are more such discoveries to get our economy humming again, (and not too many activist groups, lawyers and bureaucrats blocking the development of this field).

    Max

  24. Re 7372.

    Keep up the good work, TonyN.

    Max

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha