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.
I will answer my own question posed in #7598
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Shows figures to August 2009. Can’t see ant decline myself, just the usual rather too regular uplift. Can anyone else determine a trend?
tonyb
Curioser and curioser.
The BBC no less has just reported a drop in co2. Can anyone see it?
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
tonyb
I fully expect to see a drop in CO2 concentration if we see and can detect a change in sea temperature, and even then it may take some years to kick in. It’s a complete nonsense reading anything into any figures from Mauna Loa as they simply cannot reflect what is happening on earth. It would be wishful thinking on the part of the warmists to suggest that the reduction in industrial output has reduced atmospheric CO2 concentrations, almost in a reverse way proving their hypothesis.
We can never underestimate the opportunism of warmists, but they simply don’t understand the atmosphere at all and neither should we accept the figures from Mauna Loa as being in any way representative.
TonyB, Peter Geany, the BBC report and similar articles are (as I think is usual with the media and climate change stories) blurring what is happening now and what they think is about to happen. (Italics in the following comments are all mine.)
The BBC’s Richard Black: “The global recession and a range of government policies are likely to bring the biggest annual fall in the world’s carbon dioxide emissions in 40 years.”
And: “The anticipated fall in emissions is larger than that seen during the recession of the early 1980s.”
Strangely, I can’t find anything about this on the IEA website. It all seems to stem from an interview on Monday with Fatih Birol, who is IEA’s chief economist.
According to Reuters: “”The biggest fall (in about 40 years) was in 1981, at 1.3 percent, after oil price shocks and economic troubles,” Birol said. “We estimate this year the fall will be around twice that.””
There doesn’t seem to be much information about how CO2 levels are actually behaving at the moment.
I think that for the warmists, CO2 is now effectively a measure of GW – they are so convinced of the direct link that they hardly bother with temperature measurement, especially since that hasn’t been co-operating lately.
Now that the warming bandwagon seems to be running out of steam, they will doubtless seize on any measured or imaginary reduction in CO2 as confirmation of its powerful effects, even if it means accepting that global temperatures might have stopped rising (for a bit).
Of course, there is still the problem that China is putting new coal-fired power stations on line all the time, and that even more CO2 will be emitted to make all those solar panels, electric car batteries and ‘energy saving’ lightbulbs, but I’m sure such facts won’t get in the way of a few good news stories.
TonyB, Peter Geany, Alex Cull
A picture is always worth 1000 words, and the graph below (Mauna Loa) shows that the linear rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 was around 1.6 ppmv/year in the 1990s; this grew to 2.05 ppmv/year over the period 2001-2009, with no discernable slowdown and certainly no reversal.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2422/3943725495_4c18c4375b_b.jpg
Yet despite this all-time record increase in atmospheric CO2, temperatures have dropped.
This presents a real dilemma for those, such as Peter Martin, who believe in AGW as a principal driver of our climate.
Max
I have a hunch that when all is said and done, when we have come to our senses and those that have staked their reputations on the line for the cause, have lost their influence, we will come to realise that our emissions of CO2 have little or no effect on the concentration in the atmosphere, and zero effect on climate. It was a nice try but it failed, with a lot of carnage left behind.
I am sure there is more than an element of truth in what Plimer writes about the undersea volcanoes, and that we have no idea how much they emit or anything about quantifying it. We are also poor at understanding the rest of the carbon cycle and I don’t see any coherent line on how much CO2 goes in and out of the atmosphere each year. With all this uncertainty and with the warmists just ignoring what we don’t know and pretending it doesn’t exist, we have this absurd situation where they think a down turn in the world economy is somehow going to put a dent what’s happening with world CO2 concentrations.
And with a monopoly measurement from one location with no attempt at any corroborating data, both in terms of location and measurement method, all anyone with any common sense could state is “we don’t know”
And with the initial data from the satellite hinting at a completely different picture than the one we thought I think a number of myths are about to be busted.
Max
Logically, with the temperature falling for a decade now, the co2 outgassing from the oceans will now be reabsorbed. The big question is whether that takes 8 months 8 years or 800 years.
However, I have always found the regular structure of the Keeling curve strange. When all is said and done mans emissions are puny compared to natures. The natural emission would not be constant each year, but would vary say between 90-110% to create the average.
Now that variation is in itself far greater than mans emissions, so it should be reflected in the Mauna Loa figures, with mans fingerprint a tiny impression on top of it.
So how mans emissions continually trump Natural emmissions in sending the Keeling curve ever upwards has always been a source of curiosity to me.
It is rate to say that I agree 100% with anything Peter has said, but as this time I am talking of Geany #7607 rather than Martin, I can be forgiven
tonyb
Alex Cull
You wrote in 7604 (quoting an interview on Monday with Fatih Birol, who is IEA’s chief economist):
Birol should go check the data. I just did.
There was no reversal of the increase of CO2 in 1981; there was not even a discernable slowdown in the rate of increase.
1979-1983 linear average annual increase = 1.29 ppmv/year
1981/1980 increase = 1.35 ppmv
1982/1981 increase = 1.50 ppmv
So the “oil price shocks and economic troubles” had zero effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase at Mauna Loa, as Birol has claimed.
So far, the 2008/2009 economic slowdown has also had zero effect.
Whether the figures for the rest of 2009 and 2010 will show an effect is anyone’s guess. But I would certainly not believe a forecast made by Birol, who can’t even get his past facts right.
My guess is that the Mauna Loa reading has little to do with human activities.
Max
TonyB
After looking at the Mauna Loa record in more detail, I have to agree with you and Peter Geany that it looks like humans have little to do with the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels at Mauna Loa.
Certainly the statements by Fatih Birol, who is IEA’s chief economist (as quoted by Alex Cull), are totally screwy, so I must assume that his prediction for the next few years is just as crazy.
Max
TonyB
Yes. A warmer upper ocean should theoretically release some of its dissolved CO2, and a cooler ocean should absorb more CO2 than it releases at equilibrium.
The temperature gradient from equator to the poles probably plays a role here, since the whole ocean/CO2 exchange appears to be a very dynamic cycle, depending on ocean currents, latitudes, etc.
It’s true that the oceans have been cooling on average (at least since the Argo measurements started in 2003), much to the amazement (and chagrin) of some NASA scientists, so that there should be a net absorption of CO2 on average at equilibrium.
At the same time, globally and annually averaged land and sea surface (air) temperatures as reported by Hadley have cooled off since 2001, which should again lead to higher net CO2 absorption.
But you raise the critical question: how many years does it take to reach some sort of equilibrium, and how important is the temperature gradient from equator to the poles?
I have never believed that a single reading at Mauna Loa can give us a representative idea of global atmospheric CO2 concentration, and recent studies mentioned on WUWT seem to confirm this.
It is just another example of oversimplified observations being used to support the myopic anthropocentric fixation on anthropogenic CO2 as the all-important driver of climate (in other words, “bad, agenda-driven science”).
Max
Max, re your 7609, I think what Fatih Birol is talking about, basically, is the IEA’s estimate of global CO2 emissions from burning coal, oil and gas, etc. – it appears purely to be a measurement of economic activity, therefore, rather than any actual measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As you point out, there appears to be no obvious relationship between what he is saying and atmospheric CO2 levels – I’ve had a look at the Mauna Loa annual averages myself, and can’t see any slowdown either.
What interests me is the question of whether anyone in the media will pick up on the discrepancy. I’m guessing they won’t – but someone should. It would be interesting to see a graph showing both global man-made CO2 output and atmospheric CO2 levels. Man-made CO2 would presumably have fluctuated with the state of the world’s economies and I would have thought this fluctuation would leave a definite “fingerprint” on atmospheric CO2 measurements, if man-made CO2 was the main reason for the rise to 385 ppm.
Alex Cull
Re ur 7612
If Fatih Birol is referring to CO2 emissions (rather than atmospheric CO2 concentration), he may have a point that 2009 will be below 2008.
There was no such major change in the 1980s, though, as was remarked in the statement you quoted:
The world total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (excl. around 5% for cement production and up to 10% for deforestation) was (GtCO2 per year):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
1980: 18.3
1981: 18.1
1982: 18.0
1983: 18.1
1984: 18.9
So there was no significant “fall in emissions” in the early 1980s.
This compares with around 31.5 GtCO2 in 2008 (last year for which data available), and estimates for 2009 are down by around 5% to 30 GtCO2. Let’s see what happens.
At any rate there is no apparent correlation between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 content.
Max
I’m going to break my own rule and predict the future.
The “Warmists” will say that due to the economic downturn, (slowing of industrial activity) the C02 levels have dropped (or are dropping/have ceased to rise).
This, coinciding with the recent drop, (or lull in an increase) in temperature is proof positive that industrial activity (burning fossil fuels) contributes to increased atmospheric C02 and increased temperature.
The lull in economic/industrial activity has decreased the amount of C02 emissions which has caused the recent “cooling”.
At least, that’s how the media will report it.
There’s too much money involved in “green” industry for them to abandon their doctrine.
Global warming = more tornadoes | Not happening this year
22 09 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-tornadoes-not-happening-this-year/
Global Warming = more hurricanes | Still not happening
22 09 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/
TonyN,
Would you be upset if I posted a link to your website on a greenie comment site?
Do you think it would ruin our pleasant discussions?
Brute (7614)
I agree entirely, but someone should remind any warmists taking that line that they have previously insisted that we needed to act now, because there was at least a 50-year lag between CO2 emission and climatic effects.
Now, of course, it will be instant!
JamesP
In my opinion we should gather together all the papers that confirm this 50 year lag before they get removed!
I can’t remember if it was actually in the IPCC AR4 -I haven’t the time to check today.
tonyb
tonyb
That sounds a wise precaution! There must be loads of warmist stuff out there that is a potential embarrassment.
Still, the internet’s on our side, as it’s pretty difficult to remove all traces of anything published electronically.
I particularly look forward to seeing the insufferable G Monbiot hoist on a truckload of his own petards!
Alex Cull, TonyB and others
We have blogged back and forth about the alleged human cause for the increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and the more one looks at the facts, the less obvious such a causation becomes.
Roy Spencer makes a good case for a 80% natural and 20% anthropogenic root cause for increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
In his paper Dr. Spencer refers to another study, which refutes the standard counterargument that C13 isotope ratio provides the “fingerprint” for fossil fuel emissions as the cause of the atmospheric CO2 increase..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/
This paper shows that the lack of C13 marker could just as well have come from natural causes as from fossil fuels, thereby invalidating the C13 marker argument as proof of anthropogenic cause from fossil fuels.
This would also explain the wide differences between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 content. I once plotted the two together and found that the fraction of the emitted anthropogenic CO2 “going to the atmosphere” varied between 18% and 98% on an annual basis, so there is obviously something else at work here, as Spencer’s study demonstrates.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/3056843022_d1d107fb78_b.jpg
Max
TonyB
To the “time lag”, I could only find a sentence in IPCC SPM 2007 (p.17) referring me to chapters 7 and 10 of the AR4 WG1 report with the sentence:
Checking out the references I found:
Chapter 7 (p.514)
Chaper 10 (p.790) alludes to the postulated “climate-carbon cycle feedback”, whereby the warmer ocean (which has presumably warmed due to AGW, and not solar radiation) will (in the distant future) release absorbed CO2 to cause even more atmospheric warming. Time scales of 0.1k to 1k years are suggested.
Chapter 10 (p.762)
Shows the model projections (to year 2300, believe it or not!!!) for surface warming assuming no further increase in atmospheric CO2 beyond 2000 (“constant composition commitment” scenario). This projects added warming of 0.4°C by 2100.
On the same page we read:
But, hey, despite this “close agreement of warming for the early century” we actually saw a cooling of 0.1°C over the first decade (8+ years, actually), instead of warming of 0.2°C per decade as the models projected. Ouch!
It is really tiring to wade through all of this pseudo-scientific gobbledygook, all of which keeps pounding out the message that AGW is causing alarming warming and changes in our climate.
Very unscientific.
Max
I suggested at 7589 that The Great Gordo the superhero was saving the world. Well, it’s been acknowledged by no less an authority than that well-known organisation, “Appeal of Conscience”. I arrived the US last night and, on opening my computer this morning, learned that the great man is here too to receive (from fellow hero Bono) the ultimate accolade of “Statesman of the Year”. See this. All Brits should be proud.
Sorry, it seems I misstated the Great Gordo’s award. According to this, the accolade was entitled “World Statesman of the Year”. Now that’s more like it.
Here’s an extract from a recent Bloomberg poll (of 1004 US citizens):
Hmm … judging by his speech this week at the UN climate conference, it seems, Brute, that your President has other priorities. Any comment?
Robin,
God knows……..the man is incoherent.