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.
Brute:
Your cheerful comment has been fished out of the spam filter. If this happens again then don’t re-post immediately but wait a bit. Frequent posting from the same address is one of the characteristics of spam and the filter recognises this. There were three copies of your comment in the filter.
With my #8103 I cited some new research by Ernst Beck and today comes this news from Bristol regarding co2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/#comments
Comments?
tonyb
Killer Quote for this new study
I can hardly stand up. I wonder what Gavin will make of this. Of course in time we will fine wholes in this study perhaps as a result of other improvements, but it is interesting that nearly all real science such as this tends not to support the climate models.
I think that this quote from Knorr et al’s conclusions may be even more lethal:
This identifies a yawning gap in our understanding of the carbon cycle and suggests that predictive models are unlikely to be useful until that gap is closed. That is unlikely to happen any time soon.
I apologize Tony. I thought I was doing something incorrectly on my end.
Thanks.
[TonyN: Not your fault Brute. It probably happened because just when you sent the comment a lot of spam was originating at your ISP which was then briefly blacklisted. Not your ISP’s fault either;they will do everything they can to stop spammers hijacking their bandwidth]
TonyN I’m sure you have been asked this before but is there an edit function? Careless types like me may get the spelling correct but often at the expense of putting in the wrong word aaarrrrrrrrrr
[TonyN: Sadly there isn’t for anyone other than the administrator (me) for obvious reasons. Some bloging software does allow corrections for a few minutes after a comment is posted, but not WordPress]
Don’t forget about me… I’m still here… been too busy to comment…
I have asked the researchers at Bristol as to whether they will review their understanding of historic levels of co2 towards the ones that the old pre Keeling scientists recorded.
tonyb
Greetings JZ!
PeterGeany, TonyN, Peter Martin
To your posts on “peak oil”, I have done some checking around.
Proven oil reserves in the USA are around 20 billion barrels. World reserves are around 1.3 trillion barrels, with Saudi Arabia leading at around 250 billion barrels and Canada second at around 170 billion barrels.
The un-tapped oil reserves of the USA are huge. These are located in the outer offshore continental shelf, Alaska ANWR, the Arctic O/S and the vast oil shale deposits in North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Excluding the shale deposits these add around 100 billion barrels. The oil shale deposits are immense; they are estimated to contain 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil (more than the entire proven world reserves today).
The problems of recovering this oil in the USA have been economic and political.
The current Obama administration is not a friend of oil exploration and development. Environmental activist groups have blocked new drilling in Alaska and several offshore locations. Corporate lobbyists are pushing in the direction of promoting other energy solutions.
Early experimental oil shale recovery processes were environmentally unfriendly, requiring mining operations and subsequent recovery. Oil can be recovered in situ from shale in new environmentally friendly processes, but this requires an oil price of around $80 per barrel to be economically viable.
So as long as it is cheaper to import oil, difficult to get permits to drill and the government push to become energy independent is sidetracked by imaginary “green energy” solutions, nothing will happen to tap this enormous potential.
But there is no question that it will eventually be tapped, as oil prices rise, US energy independence takes on a stronger political urgency and the “green energy” bubble bursts in the USA.
“Peak oil” is still a long way in the future.
But the fossil fuels in this world (petroleum, coal, natural gas) are finite. They will eventually become scarce and even more expensive, gradually restricting their use for higher added value end uses as they are replaced by other sources of basic energy and transportation fuel.
And when they have all been consumed, they will have caused an estimated increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to around 1,000 ppmv (from today’s 386 ppmv), and, according to the latest physical observations on climate sensitivity, a theoretical increase in global greenhouse warming of 0.7° to 1.0°C above today’s temperature.
Max
TonyB
I’m curious what the researchers at Bristol will reply to your request.
Keep us all posted.
Max
PeterM
You’ve brought up a point on the “advert” thread, which probably belongs over here, so I’ll comment here.
You wrote:
That’s out-dated stuff, Peter, based on old model simulations using some erroneous assumptions.
Latest empirical observations show us that the real “likely warming” from a doubling of CO2 is closer to 0.5° to 0.7°C (see my 8114).
Peter, it takes just one study based on actual physical observations of empirical data to invalidate all the old model outputs based on erroneous assumptions, and that is what has happened. IPCC TAR is out-of-date.
As TonyN has pointed out (and I have also stated), the numbers of scientists or scientific organizations agreeing on the AGW paradigm do not matter; it is the empirical data, based on actual physical observations that count. And they do not support the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potentially serious threat.
Get up-to-date on what’s going on out there, Peter.
Max
Peter
Correction
I should have written : IPCC AR4 is out-of-date (as is the earlier TAR report).
Max
PeterG and PeterM
The recent study by Lindzen and Choi (8114) shows us that there is no real threat from greenhouse warming caused by human CO2 emissions.
The logic here is really very simple.
The greenhouse theory tells us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 should cause a theoretical greenhouse warming of around 1°C.
Prior to the latest study based on satellite observations, the IPCC models all assumed that there were “positive feedbacks” as our planet warmed (from GH effect of the added CO2). These simulations were based on the assumption that as the surface of Earth warms the net outgoing radiation into space decreases because of an assumed added greenhouse effect from more water vapor and high altitude clouds, which traps more of this outgoing radiation. The model simulations showed that these feedbacks would increase the 2xCO2 GH warming from 1°C to around 3.2°C.
From this, IPCC models projected GH warming by year 2100 of 1.8° to 4.0°C, with an upper-range projection of 6.4°C!
The actual ERBE satellite readings show that as the surface of the Earth warms, the net radiation going out into space increases rather than decreases, providing a negative feedback and a natural dampening of the GH warming. As a result the theoretical 2xCO2 GH warming including the impact of these feedbacks should be around 0.5° to 0.7°C.
From these actual empirical data we can correct the IPCC temperature forecasts for year 2100. These should now be in the range of 0.3° to 0.5°C higher than today.
In other words, the empirical data from actual physical observations have invalidated the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potentially serious threat.
It will undoubtedly take a while for the politicians and AGW-believers (like PeterM) to get the word and realize that the paradigm has shifted, but it will undoubtedly happen.
Max
Max: re your 8114 and 8139, did you see this extraordinary article by the splendid Joanne Nova attacking a speech by Australia’s PM, Kevin Rudd in which he tells Australians why it’s necessary “to subscribe to a new financial market larger than any commodity” because it’s “based on science”? Here’s the relevant quotation:
Joanne’s article is a great polemic. For example, I loved this:
Further to my 8140, here are two more attacks on Rudd’s advocacy of carbon trading – link1 and link2.
Cue ad hominems by Peter M.
Hi Robin
Thanks for link to great article by Joanne Nova.
Looks like the tide is turning against the AGW bubble down in Australia as well.
Lindzen and Choi (2009) tells it all, as Nova points out.
Empirical data are hard to beat, and they clearly show that there is no threat from AGW.
But a few Aussies haven’t gotten the word yet (including PM Rudd and our Peter Martin).
But I think that it is just a matter of time now.
AGW has an enormous amount of political and economic momentum, due to the obscene sums of taxpayer money involved, but without the support of the “science” (plus an extended period of cooling, as we are now witnessing) the bubble will soon burst and the AGW scare will have been exposed as a scam.
Max
Max: I think you’re being optimistic in saying, “the bubble will soon burst and the AGW scare will have been exposed as a scam”.
Referring back to the first paragraph of my 8105, two days ago (because of the “community growing” project I am leading) I was invited to a “green drinks” occasion in a local pub – excellent beer BTW. The organisers were the “Transition Town” organisation whose objective is to “respond to the challenges, and opportunities, of Peak Oil and Climate Change“. Attendees included Friends of the Earth and the Green party, including the local parliamentary candidate. I was, I suppose, a viper in the nest of some nice well-meaning middle class people. Unsurprisingly, we discussed AGW (and, to a lesser extent, “peak oil”). Two things struck me: (1) they are all completely certain they are right and that the science wholly supports their position and (2) they know surprisingly little about the subject – indeed, it seemed as if they had never before been exposed to anyone calmly challenging their position with some authority.They looked distinctly uncomfortable about it. But I doubt if I changed anyone’s mind – although I may have planted one or two tiny seeds of doubt.
My point, Max, is that there are huge numbers of people throughout the West who think like my new friends – most of the media, for example – and I suggest it will be a long time before they are ready even to admit they might be wrong. And that will only be the first step towards the bubble bursting.
Robin #8143
You are (unfortunately) exactly right. I come across these people with completely closed minds running all sorts of Govt and voluntary organisations.
Unlike Peter Martin these people often know very little of the subject. Like Peter they think they are completely right and are astounded there is an alternative viewpoint with history and observations on its side.
Precedent through history I have found to be the most potent weapon and one which warmists rarely engage on.
As I wrote in the Peter Taylor thread they have a position to defend as regards their pay pension and status and it is not in their interest to listen to another viewpoint.
Tonyb
Max,
Isn’t the next IPCC report out next year? Are you going to “get up-to-date” when it appears?
Thye IPCC don’t just listen to those who give them the “right answer” of course. I do have a slight suspicion that you guys might not be quite as receptive to all the available evidence as you might be.
I did take a look at Lindzen’s paper and of course it gives the “right answer” as far as you’re concerned so you are more than happy to accept it. However, if it is right, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Or, what I think you’d like to think it means:-) It only applies to tropical regions where the additional warming effect from GHGs is generally acknowledged to be lower anyway.
Robin,
Correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to remember that previously you’d been keen to distance yourself from those who use words like “hoax” or “scam”.
You are quite right , of course, it’s just a nonsense to think the scientific community are engaged in a big con trick. It is possible that they may be wrong but to engage in such insults effectively excludes you all from the scientific process, and you are just dismissed as a bunch of right wing nutters.
So, why then do you say that Max is being “optimistic” in saying “the bubble will soon burst and the AGW scare will have been exposed as a scam”.
Peter: according to Nature, IPCC AR5 is due in 2014. It should be interesting: by then, we will have passed various “tipping points” and, if Gore is right, they’ll be no more summer sea ice in the Arctic.
Good point, Peter (8147). Were I Max, I would not have used the word “scam”. But I would have used his bubble bursting analogy. In any case, my observation about his prediction is unaffected. OK?
BTW, if insults mean exclusion from “the scientific process”, where does that leave RC, Joe Romm etc?
And how about your Prime Minister who, in his recent speech, referred to “climate science deniers” who “invariably are driven by vested interests”, provoke “fear campaigns”, “happily play with our children’s future”, are “intellectually dishonest” and “laughable” and are attempting “to twist the agreed science in the direction of a predetermined political agenda”. They “form [he said] the comfortable bedfellows of the global conspiracy theorists in total bald-faced denial of global scientific, economic and environmental reality”, using arguments that “have zero basis in evidence” and being “prepared to destroy our children’s future” by exhibiting “absolute cowardice” and “absolute failure of logic”. He continued that they are “driven by a narrowly defined self interest of the present and are utterly contemptuous towards our children’s interest in the future” – being driven by “their own personal intuitions, their own personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices” and using logic that “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”.
Er … Peter: where does all that place Mr Rudd in your “scientific process”?
Re my 8148, if anyone’s interested in reading Kevin Rudd’s unwise and foolish speech it’s here.
Max,
They refuse to acknowledge the evidence……it would hamstring the impetus for their cause which goes far beyond “saving the planet”.