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.
Particulates are for the purposes of this blog zero.
Um, is that at the tailpipe or from the manifold? If the latter, what are diesel particulate filters (DPF’s) for? I still see quite a few modern vehicles emitting smoke…
TonyB: thanks for showing us your review of Peter Taylor’s Chill. I finished it this week and found it seriously depressing.
Taylor is a ecological scientist, social anthropologist and long-time “green” environmentalist, having advised and acted as lead advocate for, in particular, Greenpeace for many years and having worked with UK government departments, the European Commission and Parliament and the UN. His expertise includes nuclear operational risk, marine and atmospheric pollution, wildlife conservation, renewable energy and, of course, climate change. He believes strongly in sustainability, in wildlife conservation, in community and in local, especially rural, decision-making. He is a fervent opponent of big corporation and government bullying and control re environmental issues. But, after his devastating critique of AGW – largely by reference to sources and data provided by the IPCC itself, he shows how a mission to “save the planet” has united politicians, government agencies, computer labs, environmental groups, scientific institutions and the media in an all-powerful alliance supporting and giving momentum to the absurdly simple “solution” of emission control based on the flawed virtual reality of computer models. All this – he argues – ignores the reality of the inevitability of potentially damaging climate change resulting from the interaction of complex natural cycles; solving nothing, it will have a devastating impact on landscape, wildlife, natural beauty, biodiversity, rural community and human values and freedoms. Not least, he shows, it will make hundreds of thousands of people vulnerable to increased poverty, misery and famine – especially if, as he fears, the current threat is really global cooling.
As he says,
He sees little prospect of that momentum being halted – unless, that is, the whole system collapses. And that, he suspects, could well happen. I fear he may be right.
As you say, Tony, “essential and provocative reading”.
Wow Robin. Thanks.
I was thinking of picking up the book but I’m now having second thoughts.
Seems very dark/discouraging.
James. Particulate traps are now part and parcel of the whole performance package on the very newest vehicles and not a part that can be separated, although having said that they are not yet needed in Europe to conform for all engines. The larger engines (10 litres and above) are generally clean enough without a trap. Some bus companies fitted them to older buses, more as a publicity stunt than as any well thought out process. They just clogged and caused increased fuel consumption. And what is often not realised is that car and light commercial vehicles conform to an easier set of regulations. The best manufactures have used technology to sort emissions in-cylinder without recourse to bolt-on fixes. This has resulted to some spectacular advances. However as with any new regulation or technology there is a protracted period between the last day old tech can be produced and time that the last of that product may be sold and put into service. So it is possible to see the odd older piece of technology that appears quite new with a bit of smoke appearing.
But remember despite European arrogance the US leads the world in emissions technology and legislation. And it takes time to turn over all your older vehicles. I don’t know where you live, but if are ever in London, check the tail pipe of one of the newer buses. You’ll see no black carbon in the exhaust. And despite the best efforts of an ignorant press all heavy-duty trucks conform to these impressive standards.
And these standards are now mandated for new construction equipment after being exempt for a long time. Even the rail industry is adopting these standards.
http://www.cummins.com/cmi/content.jsp?siteId=1&langId=1033&dataId=2980&newsInfo=true&menuId=4
So rather than the one billion on electrifying the great west rail all we need to do is refurbish the engines and chuck the old noisy smelly fuel guzzling carbon belchers out and install the latest electronically controlled engines. And the other amazing thing is they made right here in Britain in Daventry. Wonders never cease.
Brute
Both myself and Robin agree CHILL is esential and provocative reading. It exactly describes the reasons that Peter believes we are all right wing neanderthals and he is a beacon of scientific objectivity.
He often asks what motives he believes we think his side has for their gross exaggeration and distortions, and this book supplies those motives.
Outright Conspiracy from the start? No. A coincidence of interests and then a Collusion of interests? Yes.
In that respect I think it is interesting to burrow beneath the motives that warmists have ahd enable us to understand where such as Peter are coming from. (The author has impecabble green credentials)
The book also gives a lot of very good science. In that respect alone it is worth buying, but as a means to know how the other side thinks and why, it is essential.
Tonyb
Brute
I can only agree with TonyB on Peter Taylor’s book, “Chill”.
It makes the case very logically that the current hysteria surrounding AGW is based on faulty science, a lot of hype and a collusion of very different special interests.
His dissection of the scientific basis for the AGW craze is done with surgical skill, and his postulation for the real causes of the recent warming is well-presented and convincing.
His prognosis that we are probably headed for colder times ahead is not really good news, since he points out that these are much rougher on humanity than warmer times.
As a “greenie” himself, he regrets that the environmental movement has been hijacked by a bunch of (partially) well-meaning but confused computer nerds, who have no real notion about the environment themselves.
The book is very well researched and (unlike Plimer’s book) the AGW crowd will have a hard time finding a handful of errors or “nit-picks” to try to discredit the entire book.
Max
Jasper Gee
Thanks for Duae Quartunciae link.
Will check it out.
Max
James P
Looks like Peter Geany answered your question re oil conversion to CO2 (at least for the last step of the process).
I just assumed that all the oil not specifically converted into petrochemicals or plastics would end up going to CO2, including the fuel used for refining. Even the gasoline exhaust CO eventually gets converted to CO2 in the atmosphere, as I understand it and the unburned hydrocarbons are largely converted in the catalytic converters. A purist might argue that some of the plastics do not get recycled but incinerated, so also go to CO2.
This assumption does not make much difference to the conclusion that we only have enough fossil fuel out there (optimistically estimated) to raise atmospheric CO2 level to barely 1,000 ppm (in 150 years or so), so we can ignore the IPCC projections, which go higher than this:
“Scenario” A2
1,252 ppmv by year 2100, resulting in GH warming (incl. all assumed feedbacks) = 5.4°C
“Scenario” A1F1
1,542 ppmv by year 2100, resulting in GH warming (incl. all assumed feedbacks) = 6.4°C
These are “never-never” projections, based on impossible CO2 levels and imaginary “positive feedbacks”, which are used to arrive at the “disaster” predictions favored by the media and other scaremongers.
Even using the exaggerated “feedback” assumptions of IPCC, a more realistic estimate (i.e.CO2 increase continues at same CAGR as actually experienced) = 582 ppmv = 1.9°C
Putting in actually observed cloud feedbacks (rather that those assumed by the climate models) puts this at 0.5°C.
So you can see how exaggerating two variables (2xCO2 GH effect and estimated future CO2 levels) can multiply a reasonable estimate by a factor of 10 or more to result in a “disaster” prediction.
Max
Brute: I hope I haven’t deterred you from reading Taylor’s book.
TonyB and Max are right: his message is important. Western society has created a monster, comprising government departments and agencies, massively well-funded corporate NGOs (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund, etc.), bankers and financial manipulators (greedy for the pickings from carbon trading), computer “experts” and consultants, the scientific institutions, academic bodies (desperate for funding), huge industrial complexes (the nuclear power industry, “renewable” energy technologies, power distributors – even, paradoxically, the oil conglomerates) and, of course, the mainstream media. Because it’s “saving the planet” and “knows” what is best for people, often with the best of motives, this monster feels entitled (“Green … the new Black”) to sweep aside the barriers that used to protect local interests – thereby threatening landscape, wildlife, biodiversity, community and human values and freedoms and, by further damaging an already weakened economy and ignoring the real threats from a naturally changing climate, making countless people vulnerable to increased poverty and famine. It seems unstoppable.
OK, that’s pretty depressing. But understanding your enemy is an essential first step to opposing him. And this enemy has three weaknesses: (1) the essence of its cause is based, not on the realities of the global ecosystem, but on an inadequate virtual climate created and maintained by “a small cabal of computer specialists”; (2) despite the incessant propaganda, many ordinary people in the West are suspicious about what’s going on; and (3) the so-called developing economies of China, India etc. seem unlikely to take any practical notice of it. There is a possibility – albeit remote – that these weaknesses might stop the monster in its tracks. Whereas here in the UK any hint of public dissent is trampled contemptuously under foot, at least in the US you have a vocal, if confused, opposition.
Taylor’s book is not perfect – I think, for example, it’s over long and assumes too much prior knowledge. And, Brute, Taylor is an avowed “green” and his book displays what you might regard as some disturbingly “liberal” sentiments. But it’s potentially a major help in focusing an understanding of the enemy. I urge you to read it.
Peter
You wrote:
When it comes to checking oil reserves, forget Wiki. Use the Oil and Gas Journal (these guys are experts on, “guess what?”: Oil and Gas). They can tell you what the oil companies report as “proven reserves”.
Then I have checked many references on the new finds since the O+GJ estimate, the yet unproven but expected areas in the Arctic (incl. ANWR, O/S and Greenland), continental shelf O/S, added tar sands and the gigantic oil shale deposits.
All told we would optimistically have about 150 years at present consumption levels if all these suspected new finds come in. If they don’t, we’d have less and there would be less atmospheric CO2 when all fossil fuels ran out.
You then opined:
Yep. Peter. But you’ve got no gas gauge, so you have “no notion of what will happen in future”, as I wrote.
Remember the Manchester horse manure prediction. It was very well calculated, based on the best knowledge of the time.
IPCC’s predictions are even more ludicrous because they go out 100 years into the future and the 1860 Manchester prediction only went to 1920, and they are based on skewed and exaggerated assumptions, to start with, as pointed out.
And, on top of it all, IPCC has shown that they cannot even predict 10 years into the future, so how could they ever do so over 100 years?
Max
Peter
Here are the estimates (in billions of bbl), which I have seen for suspected but not yet “proven” oil reserves
ANWR………………..16
new OCS……………..86
new Brazil O/S……….29
additional tar sand….200
Arctic O/S, Greenland..200
Shale…………….2,500
The 3 billion bbl BP find in the Gulf of Mexico is a “drop in the bucket” here (part of the “new OCS” estimate).
Obviously, the worldwide shale deposits (a large portion of which are in the USA) will be a major factor. Some work on exploiting these commercially and economically has already been started by Shell and there are some smaller companies also involved, but this is still in its infancy. Since oil shale represents such a big opportunity (as much oil as the entire Middle East), it will undoubtedly get developed someday in the future, despite any opposition from various lobbies.
So is it 100 years? Is it 150 years? Or is it only 75 years? Who knows?
But what we do know is that all the fossil fuels on this planet will not get atmospheric CO2 levels to much above 1,000 ppmv, and that is the key point here.
Max
Comments by Dr Richard Pike mentioned in this post would seem to be relevant to your discussion of oil reserves:
Kyoto, climate change, and the price of oil
He is Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry but was previoulsy employed in the oil industry.
Robin,
I’ll pick up Taylor’s book.
There’s an interesting article here in New Scientist, about global cooling and the NAO.
Some choice quotes –
Vicky Pope from the Met Office: “In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year.”
From the article itself: “This is bad timing.”
And my favourite: “In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however.”
Alex: many thanks for your reference to the New Scientist article about the UN’s “World Climate Conference” and current global cooling. Yes, it’s certainly interesting and I loved your choice of quotations – especially Vicky Pope’s. They even lifted the gloom that followed my reading Peter Taylor’s book.
Something remarkable seems to have happened: for years, the New Scientist has been a purveyor of alarmist material – relentless in ridiculing “deniers”. And now this article that allows actual questioning of the orthodoxy! How about this comment from Mojib Latif (Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences)? He said,
Hmm, “nasty” – that’s an odd word to choose. I thought global warming was bad. Of course, he insists that this inconvenient cooling is caused by “cyclical changes” temporarily masking “warming caused by humans”. But, amazingly, he allowed himself to go further by saying that such cycles “were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades”. Then James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office referred to the oceans as “key to decadal variability”.
Damn it – who allowed these deniers into a UN climate conference?
Then how about this beauty?
On top of all that, the comments are almost entirely anti-alarmist. Two examples:
And:
Great stuff.
Have we discussed this yet?
It seems that the United States (and Australia) use energy much more efficiently than the United Kingdom and European countries based on production. That is, produce more goods and services at a lower rate of emission. The Greens sanctimoniously vilify the United States and put forth Europe as the epitome of “green” technology. This doesn’t seem to be the case.
Sorry Max, Switzerland didn’t do very well.
Discussion?
List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Brute,
Sorry, but you are reading this the wrong way up.
Switzerland is 8.9 (thousand $ per tonne) whereas the USA and Australia are about 1.95 (thousand $ per metric tonne).
So Max does more than 4 times better than us!
Really? Let me look at it again……..You and me Pete? I guess everyone else is asleep.
Brute and Peter
Just woke up.
You are right. Switzerland has a very high “carbon efficiency” GDP per mt CO2.
But there are some unique reasons for that, which would not apply to the USA, Canada or Australia.
It is a small country, with a relatively high population density and a dense (electrically driven) railroad system for transport of goods.
It has a lot of hydroelectric power (exports some power to neighbors), with a bit of nuclear, some natural gas peak power production and essentially no coal fired power stations. There is a bit of domestic solar power. Recently they are introducing wood-fired municipal stations that also deliver waste heat steam for commercial and domestic heating in winter.
Switzerland does not have much high power consuming heavy industry.
The RR system also provides a good public transportaion system over the short distances involved.
You’ll notice that there are some extremely poor countries, which are also on “top” of the list.
I’m sure their inhabitants wouldn’t mind moving down the scale on carbon efficiency but up the scale on standard of living.
I once put together a similar table as the Wiki one (which I posted here), and Switzerland was also on top of the list.
Max
Three interesting comments on computer models and climate science:
1. New Scientist, 16 May 2007 – rebutting the “discredited argument” of “climate change deniers” that “We can’t trust computer models”:
2. Peter Martin, 14 January 2008 – on the original New Statesman thread:
(Perhaps that’s why he now hides behind the nom de blog, tempterrain.)
3. Tim Stockdale (one of the “world’s top climate modellers”), 1 September 2009 – at the UN World Climate Conference in Geneva:
Yep, I stand corrected, misread the chart. I should have known better seeing France near the top (with +/- 70% nuclear power).
Thinking about this……do transportation costs factor in? Nations such as New Zealand…….would their number be better if they did not have to ship their products over such long distances? I would think that the majority of products produced there (for export) must be shipped very long distances eroding their efficiency rating.
I was surprised that the US GDP was so high compared with other nations. I would have thought that China would be at least close in terms of goods/services produced……such a great disparity, about 5 times the GDP. Of course, this chart is 5 years old……..but still.
Brute 7421
Transportation costs are a factor in the whole New Zealand economy, and the price of oil can have a knock-on effect much greater than in other countries. So the answer to your question is a major yes.
The 2 major earners for New Zealand are agriculture/forestry and Tourism both of which will be hard hit by Carbon Trading, and the cost of which would go a long way to nullifying the unique advantage New Zealand has with its agricultural production.
Robin,
Have you checked the monthly figures so far this year? I haven’t but I would expect it to be a warmer year globally than 2008, which was the coolest so far this century but still one of the warmest years on record. El Nino is starting up again in the Pacific.
But on the other hand Solar cycle 24 is later than generally expected. So, we’ll see. You could be right. 2009 could be cooler, but its too early to start crowing just yet.
Peter: I have no view about whether or not 2009 will be warmer or cooler than 2008. As you should know by now, I don’t make predictions. You, in contrast, said (in January 2008) “If the models are correct … GW will kick in with a vengeance in 2009.” That’s rather more than merely being warmer than 2008 and seems – shall we say? – somewhat unlikely. If it doesn’t happen, by your test, the models are wrong.
Thanks you Peter (7404) and Max (7408)
I’m pleased to hear that diesels are capable of such low emissions – their exhaust (and occasional fuel spillages) is something I am acutely aware of when motorcycling, so I admit to a certain bias!
I agree about the trains, though – the infrastructure required for electrification seem disproportionate to the benefits if clean self-contained power is available. I rather liked the old ‘Deltic’ locos with their extraordinary 18-cylinder (and 36-piston) 2-stroke diesels, although I’m not sure they were terribly clean.
Shipping seems to get the worst press for pollution, and I have read that commercial vessels release more SO2 than all of the world’s cars, trucks and buses combined (!) although that may be because they run them on more or less anything that will burn…