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.
Peter and Robin
Not to but in on your discussion on “probabilities of risks”, but Peter opined:
Let us define “mainstream science being wrong on the AGW issue”.
Nobody worries too much about a forecast that temperatures could rise by around 0.6° to 1°C over the next century, as they did in the last one. If the current cooling continues for a while longer, this may be a high estimate, but it is reasonable.
But “mainstream science” (IPCC) told us two and a half years ago that the theoretical greenhouse warming impact of CO2 should be multiplied by a factor of 3:1, due to “positive feedbacks”, primarily from water vapor and clouds, as assumed by the climate model outputs.
Since that time empirical observations have shown that the cloud feedback with warming is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed earlier by IPCC, albeit with a disclaimer that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
Now that this large source of “IPCC uncertainty” has been removed, we can remove the 3:1 multiplier assumed by the models (the observed negative cloud feedback essentially cancels out the positive water vapor feedback).
In addition, IPCC has created several “scenarios” and “storylines” for estimating future atmospheric CO2 concentration, based on human fossil fuel combustion. The two cases with the highest projected CO2 and temperature increase are physically impossible, since there is not enough carbon in all the remaining and hopefully discovered fossil fuels on this planet to reach these levels (1250 and 1540 ppmv, respectively). These are the cases showing projected temperature increases by 2100 of 5.4° and 6.4°C, while other theoretically possible CO2 cases show temperature increase of 0.6° to 3.8°C (including the erroneous 3:1 multiplier).
So if the “mainstream science” is predicting an anthropogenic temperature increase of 5.4° to 6.4°C, I would say that “the chances of mainstream science being wrong” are above 99.9999% (certain in IPCC parlance).
If the “mainstream science” is predicting an anthropogenic temperature increase of at least 0.6°C, I would say that “the chances of mainstream science being wrong” are between 10% and 50% (between very unlikely and more unlikely than not in IPCC parlance) and if the “mainstream science” is predicting an anthropogenic temperature increase of greater than 1.8°C, I would say that “the chances of mainstream science being wrong” are above 90% (very likely in IPCC talk).
What would be your estimate of “the chances of mainstream science being wrong” with a year 2100 predicted anthropogenic temperature increase of (multiple choice test):
1. 0.6°C or less
a) 10% or less
b) between 10% and 50%
c) between 50% and 90%
d) between 90% and 99.99999%
e) over 99.99999%
2. above 0.6°, but no more than 1.8°C (same choices as for 1.)
3. above 1.8°, but no more than 5.4°C (same choices as for 1.)
4. 5.4 °C or higher (same choices as for 1.)
Let me give you my answers as a guideline:
1. b
2. c
3. d
4. e
Looking forward to your test results (read the questions and choices carefully; there are no “trick questions”).
Max
Max: you really should know by now that I do not presume to make temperature predictions. In this interesting paper, this thread’s original inspiration, Dr David Whitehouse, says “The main conclusion … to be drawn about what will happen to global temperatures is that nobody knows“. That’s good enough for me.
Robin,
I would say that the average household would spend, at the very least, a few % of their income on insurance. Maybe 2 or 3 %? It would be a lot more in the US, where the citizens have to pay out for medical insurance.
From my experience over the years I would have been better off not paying any at all. My house has never burnt down. I’ve never been involved in a serious car accident. My health has been pretty good. Never been unemployed. But that may change in future so I still pay out every month.
We can’t foresee the future. So, its about assessing the possible risks. You seem reluctant to answer the question of how you’ve assessed the risks of dangerous climate change caused by increasing CO2 emissions.
I’m sure that even you wouldn’t put it below 5%. So what’s the problem with taking out insurance by devoting 1% of world GDP to CO2 mitigation?
Peter: yawn – it seems you haven’t bothered to read my 7644 and 7650. I suggest you do so.
Robin,
Are you feeling OK? You’re not ill are you? Sleeping sickness maybe? Yes I have read your posts; but, either I’m not intelligent enough to understand what you are getting at or you aren’t explaining yourself very well.
I noticed that Brute has again demanded ‘proof’. I’ve often said that Science is about evidence rather than proof. Evidence can only indicate the balance of probabilities or the theory most likely to be correct.
Fermat’s last theorem, which states that:
no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.
is an interesting case which illustrates the difference between the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem
Initially you might try it out with a calculator. You’d wouldn’t find any values that invalidated the theorem. Is this proof? No. Because there would be an upper limit beyond which you couldn’t check. Naturally you could check it out to a higher level using a PC or even a Kray supercomputer. That would be certainly provide good evidence and a legal person ( Robin maybe?) may well declare ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ if no solution could be found after every digit up to an enormous number had been checked.
It’s still not absolute proof though. The legal concept of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ really means nothing more than ‘we think he did it’ !
Is the theorem proven? Yes. Andrew Wiles of Cambridge University cracked it in the mid 90’s with nothing more than a pencils, paper and a lot of brainpower. No computers were involved at all.
I thought the point about insurance was that it covered things that were unlikely to happen..?
No computers were involved at all.
Useful lesson there!
Robin,
I think you should write out 500 times:
” A unreviewed magazine article is NOT the same thing as as a scientific paper”.
If DW had submitted a scientific paper he may well have had trouble with his statement “…and Keenlyside et al (2008) predicting cooling.”
What Keenlyside did in fact say was “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
‘Temporarily’ means not permanent. Keenlyside is talking only about the next decade. ‘Offset’ means that AGW is still occurring underneath it all.
So if nobody knows exactly what will happen that’s ‘good enough for you’ is it?
Its good that you were never elevated to the bench. I can imagine the situation where a hardened criminal was being sentenced for some violent offence. The prosecution is asking for a lengthy sentence to protect the public and argues that there should be no early release due to the likelihood of repeat behaviour. Naturally the defence points out that ‘no-one knows exactly what would happen’ in that eventuality and argues for a light sentence.
“That’s good enough for me” says M’lud Justice Guenier before freeing the prisoner on a good behaviour bond.
Peter ~7659
Sorry Peter, I suggest you read the item you quoted and put in into context, as Keenlyside and et al) did indeed predict cooling over the next decade.
This prediction (another new model) was made only after the last decade of unexpected cooling. It is, as the authors say, using a ‘very simple model’ as the complex models (used by the IPCC) were constructed with ‘incomplete knowledge of the ocean state.’
The letter to which you refer was reported in Nature in May 2008 and reads as follows:
“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America, Europe and northern Africa. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known, the lack of subsurface ocean observations that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
This is very much a matter of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and an attempt to explain away the unexpected. Co author of this piece of work (one of the ‘et als’)was Prof. Mojib Latif who is of course one of the leading climate modellers in the world, lead author for the IPCC and a major contributor to their last two reports who at the UN’s World Climate Conference, also agreed the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and raised the possibility of “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”
Now that is Keenlyside AND Latif saying that (so by now they are covering ALL eventualities)
Latif admits that most modellers had based their AGW theory on the belief that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the ‘greenhouse warming’ caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide which would subsequently expel that heat and warm the oceans and land, but now concedes the Atlantic has been cooling instead.
The Met office and agencies in general know nothing about the periodic cycles of the great ocean currents-they also nothing of the Jet stream, but that is another story.
Computer mnodels are unable to predict such a chaotic state as the climate-they are a simulated world not the real world.
According to the IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis “The set of available models may share fundamental inadequacies, the effects of which cannot be quantified.”
Perhaps Groucho Marx ought to have the last word. As he nearly memorably said, ‘Who do you want to believe, the IPCC or your own lying eyes?’
tonyb
Peter Martin
Insurance is a great thing. Swiss Re, Swiss Life, Zurich and others are getting rich from it (so we Swiss obviously love it).
As with any insurance policy, one has to spell out exactly (a) which specific eventuality (or risk) one wants to ensure against, (b) what the odds are of this eventuality actually taking place and (c) what the cost is of insuring against this eventuality.
Example: I would pay $400 a year extra to insure my house against earthquake damage in California; I would not do so in Mississippi. Conversely, I would pay $400 a year extra to insure my house against hurricane and resulting water damage in Mississippi, which I would not do in New Mexico, for example.
The eventualities are listed below. Continued global cooling and its impacts are specifically excluded, as this is a “global warming insurance policy”. My idea of the “bookie odds” on the described eventualities as well as the cost of the insurance policy are shown after the description.
1. A return to the underlying long-term warming trend of 0.04°C per decade on average, with a superimposed 60-year warming/cooling cycles, as we have seen since the modern record started in 1850, resulting in a temperature increase by year 2100 of less than 0.6°C
Odds: 50% or greater; no insurance needed
2. A return to warming, enhanced by human GHGs, with a long-term increase in temperature by year 2100 of between 1.0° to 1.8°C
Odds: Between 10% and 50%; no insurance needed
3. A shift to rapid warming, enhanced by human GHGs from fossil fuels further increased by assumed positive feedbacks, with a long-term increase in temperature by year 2100 of between 1.8° to 3.4°C
Odds: less than 10%; some adaption measures probably needed if and when the need becomes evident
4. A shift to very rapid warming, greatly enhanced by human GHGs from fossil fuels exceeding the total amount that even exist on our planet with assumed strongly positive feedbacks further exaggerating the GH warming, with a long-term increase in temperature by year 2100 of between 5.4° to 6.4°C
Odds: less than 0.0001%; draconian mitigation measures needed resulting in major extra costs for every human on Earth plus an upheaval of the worlds’ economy.
IPCC is trying to sell us insurance policy #5, but we would obviously be very silly to buy this policy.
The odds tell us that no insurance policy is really needed, but if we are the very cautious and fearful types (as you appear to be), we could go for policy #4, if and when it becomes certain that it is required.
Any thoughts on this, Peter?
Max
Peter Martin
There were some errors in the last paragraphs of my last message, so am sending corrected version. Please ignore earlier version.
Insurance is a great thing. Swiss Re, Swiss Life, Zurich and others are getting rich from it (so we Swiss obviously love it).
As with any insurance policy, one has to spell out exactly (a) which specific eventuality (or risk) one wants to insure against, (b) what the odds are of this eventuality actually taking place and (c) what the cost is of insuring against this eventuality.
Example: I would pay $400 a year extra to insure my house against earthquake damage in California; I would not do so in Mississippi. Conversely, I would pay $400 a year extra to insure my house against hurricane and resulting water damage in Mississippi, which I would not do in New Mexico, for example.
The eventualities are listed below. Continued global cooling and its impacts are specifically excluded, as this is a “global warming insurance policy”. My idea of the “bookie odds” on the described eventualities as well as the cost of the insurance policy are shown after the description.
1. A return to the underlying long-term warming trend of 0.04°C per decade on average, with a superimposed 60-year warming/cooling cycles, as we have seen since the modern record started in 1850, resulting in a temperature increase by year 2100 of less than 0.6°C
Odds: 50% or greater; no insurance needed
2. A return to warming, enhanced by human GHGs, with a long-term increase in temperature by year 2100 of between 1.0° to 1.8°C
Odds: Between 10% and 50%; no insurance needed
3. A shift to rapid warming, enhanced by human GHGs from fossil fuels further increased by assumed positive feedbacks, with a long-term increase in temperature by year 2100 of between 1.8° to 3.4°C
Odds: less than 10%; some adaption measures probably needed if and when the need becomes evident
4. A shift to very rapid warming, greatly enhanced by human GHGs from fossil fuels exceeding the total amount that even exist on our planet with assumed strongly positive feedbacks further exaggerating the GH warming, with a long-term increase in temperature by year 2100 of between 5.4° to 6.4°C
Odds: less than 0.0001%; draconian mitigation measures needed resulting in major extra costs for every human on Earth plus an upheaval of the worlds’ economy.
IPCC is trying to sell us insurance policy #4, but we would obviously be very silly to buy this policy.
The odds tell us that no insurance policy is really needed, but if we are the very cautious and fearful types (as you appear to be), we could go for policy #3, if and when it becomes certain that it is required.
Any thoughts on this, Peter?
Max
Peter:
Re your 7655 and your (as usual) poor insurance analogy – yes, it does rather seem that you’re “not intelligent enough to understand it”. Try harder.
As to 7659, I think it both arrogant and absurd for anyone to claim that they know what will happen to global temperatures. Your criminal trial analogy is yet another example of you picking a hopeless analogy. You’ve done it again already!
The obverse of my earlier remark (7657) is that things that are likely to happen are rather difficult/expensive to insure against, so there isn’t much point.
I notice that insurers’ initial enthusiasm for knowledge of their clients’ genetic predispositions has cooled somewhat with the realisation that removal of uncertainty is not in their favour. Those likely to succumb to illness won’t be able to afford insurance, while those whose makeup suggests a long and healthy life may choose not to bother!
If natural variation alters the climate, then no amount of expenditure will prevent it.
Peter Martin
To paraphrase your 7659 to Robin
I think you should write out 500 times:
” A computer model output is NOT the same thing as as an empirical scientific fact”.
Max
Hey Pete,
How’s this for “evidence”. Don’t like this type of “evidence” do you.
More “evidence” Pete…….why do you ignore this evidence?
Brute,
The only piece of evidence which is from a reliable source is the last one which is actually pointing to the continuation of the warming trend that we’ve seen in the Arctic ever since satellite monitoring started in 1979. The result for 2009 was almost exactly on the 30 year trend line which shows a decline of sea ice of approx 10% per decade as measured at the summer minimum point.
You could be right about hurricanes. And even if you weren’t I’m sure that the world would survive perfectly well with an increased rate of storms. However they aren’t the main danger from AGW.
Max,
You seem to have shifted your percentages in your last post. You are now saying that its “less than 10%” that we’ll see a temperature increase of between 1.8degC and 3.4 degC by the end of the century.
Leaving aside your assessment of risk, for the moment, I’m just wondering how you’ve come to your conclusion that, if we do see these sort of increases, that “some adaption measures probably [would be] needed”. That does seem to be either something or an understatement, or an indication that you , yourself, have underestimated the seriousness of this degree of warming.
Peter Martin
The whole point (which you may have missed) is that the “insurance analogy” (which you brought up in the first place in your exchange with Robin) depends on what eventuality (or risk) you are “insuring” against, at what cost you are doing so and what the odds are that this eventuality will occur.
The high estimates by IPCC (5.4C to 6.4C temperature increase by 2100) are physically impossible, so not worth insuring against.
The medium-range estimates by IPCC (1.8C to 3.4C) are possible but unlikely and the associated risks are relatively small, so an insurance involving draconian measures at extremely high costs is not justified.
The low estimates (below 1.8C) are more likely to occur, but will have no real impact on our society, so are not worth insuring against.
What could be justified to placate some of the more fearful or pessimistic individuals is to develop adaptation plans for the case that the medium case might actually occur, which could be implemented if and when it looks likely that they may occur within 10 years or so, giving time for the implementation.
At the same time, it would be good to also develop adaptation plans for the case that our planet continues the most recent cooling trend, as some solar scientists are predicting (with as good a crystal ball as the AGW crowd is using) and which would have a far more disruptive effect on our society than an equivalent amount of warming.
That way we would be prepared for either eventuality without wrecking the global economy in the process.
What do you think of this approach?
Max
Max,
You’re wrong.
I just took out insurance last week in the event a meteor hits me in the head………The precautionary principle you know.
There was a guy that was standing on the street corner with a sign that read “the end is near” selling the stuff………He said that he worked for the bureau of astrology and that the odds of a meter hitting people squarely in the head is quite high among people of my height. Further, he had a notebook with signatures of thousands of “smart guys” that verified the authenticity of his assertions.
Al Gore also quite recently announced the opening of a meteor mercantile exchange where you buy and sell futures of this necessary piece of mind. I also understand that Al has cornered the market on meteor kettles which, when worn on your head, will deflect incoming meteors.
Of course, Barack Obama wants to protect us from this “imminent threat” and has proposed legislation that will require every man woman and child to buy government backed meteor insurance or face fines and/or imprisonment.
The week before that I bought volcano insurance (although the nearest volcano is 2,000 miles from here), the salesman said “you can never be too sure”.
I feel it was money well spent.
A queer footnote: I’ve tried to call the telephone number on the insurance certificate several times and no one answers. I’ve concluded that this is a certain indication that all of the meteor insurance agents are busy assisting other customers.
Well, Max, re your 7670 observation that the IPCC’s 1.8C to 3.4 C by 2100 is “possible but unlikely”, the BBC’s headline to this story is “Four degrees of warming ‘likely’” – seemingly “as early as 2060. This comes from a new report by the (highly reliable – great track record) Met Office. It seems “Their computer models [have] factored in new findings on how carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans and forests”. Phew – I thought for a moment it might have been based on some empirical evidence.
The Met Office’s Dr Betts “described himself as “shocked” that so much warming could occur within the lifetimes of people alive today”. He said “If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon then we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes.”
Hmm – scary. But (at the end of the article which many won’t read) it is reported that he commented that he “and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle. But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.” Well done, Dr Betts – that seems to cover most of the angles.
Pete,
Only in the mind of a self deluded eco-fanatic is a ONE MILLION square kilometer increase in arctic sea ice extent viewed as a “decrease”.
You should have your head examined.
By the way, I just received a truck load of shredded car tires for the winter heating season to shovel into the Brute Wood/Tire Heating Stove®.
Max,
What is a scientific ‘fact’? The word suggests something completely incontrovertible which leads me to think – the evidence points that way :-) – that you still haven’t quite grasped the message I have been trying to convey.
JamesP,
“I thought the point about insurance was that it covered things that were unlikely to happen..?”
Yes my point exactly. Even if you would put the chances of a 3 deg C warming at something less than 10%, then it would make sense to take out some insurance if it was only going to cost 1%.
Especially as the 1% would be money well spent in any case with additional benefits such as weaning the developed countries off an over-dependence on Middle Eastern oil supplies.
You’ve probably seen this before but its well worth another look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Brute,
If you ever found yourself in a hospital bed, maybe you were having your head examined :-), you may very well find a chart on the end of your bed that looked superficially like:
Of course the scales would different and instead of ‘years’ on the bottom scale it would be probably be more like ‘days’.
Now, in your case it could be a good thing that the trend line was downward. Blood pressure maybe? I’m sure that the doctors, and maybe your relatives, would have noticed that the last two points on the graph were going in the other direction, but I doubt that there would be any serious thoughts of changing your medication.
They would understand that the downward ‘2007’ spike was just a bit of noise on the graph.
Robin,
Yes. Yes. I know you’ll think that this is yet another “hopeless” analogy. I’ll save you the bother of saying so yourself as I know you aren’t well.