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.
Max,
I think you mentioned recently that AGW sceptics were in a majority in the USA. Also in a majority, in the USA, were believers in creationism. So my comments about “anti-scientific non-believers in the Darwin theory of evolution” were directed mainly towards American contributors on this blog.
Are the two groups the same? I’m assuming they pretty much are but must admit I can’t prove it. You are more familiar with American opinion. Would you say there are many atheistic Americans who reject AGW theory, or even creationist Americans who might think the IPCC is being too conservative on the issue?
However, I would say that the main objection to AGW is political, rather than scientific; and this is starting to be shown in the way right wing parties in the USA and Australia have moved towards more overtly sceptical stances on the issue. The position in the UK Tory party is more interesting but it strikes me that the leadership is well out of step on the issue with their supporters. And, yes I’m sure Tory supporters have read all the IPCC reports, as you have, and, like you, have decided, in their wisdom, that the evidence isn’t quite strong enough at present:-)
Peter
the evidence isn’t quite strong enough at present
I’m sure Max (who lives in Switzerland, I believe) will reply for himself, but exactly what evidence do you have in mind?
Peter M
You opined (a repeat from earlier posts):
Let me straighten you out on this. I can assure you that my principal objection to AGW (i.e. the premise that AGW, caused largely by human CO2 emissions, is a potentially serious threat) is scientific.
The premise is based on computer simulations with questionable inputs, skewed to give alarming projections, rather than empirical data derived from actual physical observations.
Since AGW is based on doubtful science, I also oppose the political proposals being made to “mitigate” against it, as these will only place a large tax burden on humanity without changing our planet’s climate one iota.
It is truly “a tempest in a teapot” and a total waste of time and money. There are many more important and worthy causes to spend our efforts and resources on.
But my underlying objection to the AGW premise is scientific and the political/economic objection is secondary.
Not only are many educated people outside climate science rationally skeptical of the AGW premuse, but those opposing the AGW premise also include hundreds of highly educated scientists, who see the weakness of the science supporting it.
Many of these are in the USA and have nothing to do with creationism, right wing politics or any of the other silly things you throw out to try to discredit their opinion.
Face it, Peter, there is no consensus among scientists, despite enormous political and financial pressure on many scientists to cow-tow to the party line, as much as you would like for it to be so.
Max
Bob_FJ
Today’s “global warming” is “out of sync” globally, as well.
In Switzerland it has gotten colder over the past several months, while I supposed that the opposite is true for you in Melbourne.
Max
Robin
The open letter from a few hundred scientists to the UN Secretary General underscores once more that the idea of a scientific consensus on AGW is a myth.
I believe the key sentence is:
This is, truly, the Achilles Heel of the AGW premise, which ardent supporters, such as Peter M, are unable (or unwilling) to grasp.
Armies of bureaucrats, politicians and climatologists have descended on Copenhagen to promote the AGW cause, in the firm belief that “the science is settled”, as Robert Watson, IPCC Clair (1997-2002) is quoted as having said at a 1997 Kyoto conference:
But the list of scientists who openly do not support the AGW premise keeps growing.
Max
Here we go; from the ABC;
Aussies warned plastic Christmas trees environmentally bad
“…On the eve of his visit to Copenhagen, Victoria’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Gavin Jennings spoke to Alison Caldwell.
GAVIN JENNINGS: We’ve found, quite surprisingly perhaps, that a natural tree has less greenhouse gas emissions associated with it.
We estimate that due to the combination of manufacture and transport and disposal for a plastic tree, they generate somewhere in the order of 48 kilograms of carbon dioxide associated with each tree and on average people, we’ve discovered, keep these plastic trees about six years. So that means that they’re annual contribution to greenhouse gases is somewhere in the order of eight kilograms per tree…”
Further my 8556, another popular Copenhagen thing here at the moment from various sources, is that forest logging and clearing is responsible for 20% of GHG emissions. (18% in one report)
Whilst I’m VERY saddened at the destruction of old growth forest I don’t think this claim is quite right!
For instance, a study a year or so ago in Queensland showed; shock-horror; that mature rainforest was a net emitter of GHG, mostly the more serious methane, and NOT a sink as widely claimed.
Other studies have shown that young forests have rapid growth rates and are thus a good net sink of CO2. BTW, that QQ person here (Querulous Queenslander) has also mentioned that growth rate in trees (CO2 absorption) slows down with age, so it must be correct.
Thus, would not palm-oil and timber plantations etc be a major positive against that claim????
BTW, here in Victoria, a year or two after clear felling of eucalyptus forest, natural regeneration acceleration is remarkably fast and very dense . (if not converted to plantations of radiata pine or eucalyptus)
Also of course, a goodly proportion of the forest loss is for captive carbon essential long-term use in wood-chipping, building, and furniture.
Further still on my 8556,
“…The CSIRO helped develop the world’s first polymer banknote, creating the most secure currency in the world… …First circulated in Australia in 1988…” http://www.csiro.au/science/ps7i.html
Since hearing about plastic Christmas trees, I’ve become rather distressed about plastic banknotes, and am thinking about writing to our environment and climate change federal ministers.
Is that partly why the USA still uses those pathetically poor captive carbon banknotes that are so easy to make passable forgeries of?
My next project will be plastic address windows in mail envelopes.
Bob_FJ
In your quest for non-harmful plastic Christmas trees (8558) have you checked out Metabolix?
They apparently produce an experimental “bio-plastic” called “Mirel”
Here is an extract from their website:
http://www.metabolix.com/company/contact.aspx
.
Biobased chemicals allow us to address the global market demand for products and processing that reduce fossil energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The process:
Grow plants (of some rapidly growing genus), preferably in a tropical (low labor cost) country (providing gainful employment, at minimum wage, for the poor devils that have to live there)
Dry plants to drive off water (85% of mass)
Ship dried plants to Massachusetts.
Using their patented process, Metabolix converts these to a “bio-plastic”
Bio-plastic is shipped to Hong Kong, for transshipment to Pearl River Delta contract manufacturing facility, where it is converted to “Holiday trees” (new PC name), providing gainful employment, at minimum wage, to young Chinese women from impoverished rural northern provinces)
“Holiday trees” are shipped via Hong Kong port to central warehousing/distribution/sales locations in USA, Australia and Europe (avoiding Somali coast, where possible)
During “holiday season” trees are sold and shipped worldwide to delighted customers located in countries where “holiday” is celebrated
Trees biodegrade by themselves over time, but are guaranteed to last for six “holiday” seasons.
Optional accessories: brightly colored “holiday” balls and ornaments made of “bio-plastic”.
Carbon footprint (per de-balled “holiday tree”):
Raw plants (net negative footprint = 3 kg CO2 per kg plant, dry weight)
Plant drying (3 kg CO2 per kg dry plant)
Shipment to Metabolix (1 kg CO2 per kg of dry plant shipped)
Conversion to bioplastic (10 kg CO2 per kg bioplastic; 2 kg dry plant required)
Ship bioplastic to China plant (1 kg CO2 per kg bioplastic shipped)
Convert bioplastic to “holiday tree” (5 kg CO2 per “holiday tree”, containing 2 kg bioplastic)
Shipment to warehouse/distribution centers (2 kg CO2 per h.t.shipped)
Storage/warehouse heating, lighting, etc. (1 kg CO2 per h.t.)
Shipment to end customers (1 kg CO2per h.t.)
Biodegradation process: 3 kg CO2 per kilogram h.t. = 6kg CO2 per h.t.
Total CO2 per h.t.
= 6 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 1*2 + 10*2 + 1*2*2 + 3*2*2 – 3*2*2 = 31 kg CO2 per h.t.
Tree lasts 6 years maximum, but some get discarded before full biodegradation, as they begin to look tired after a few seasons, so average life = 5 years.
Annual CO2 footprint of biodegradable bio-based “holiday tree” = 6 kg CO2
Alternate (polyethylene h.t.)
Polyethylene production (6 kg CO2 per kg PE)
(Assume rest of process is the same and tree is incinerated after useful life)
Total CO2 per PE h.t. is identical to bio-plastic h.t.
But cost of bio-plastic tree = 3 times cost of PE tree, due to higher material cost.
Chopping one down in the woods behind your house (and planting a new one) costs only the seedling investment and has no net carbon footprint, once the tree has been burned or allowed to biodegrade after use.
Looks like it’s back to Nature, Bob.
Max
Max, Reur 8559:
Well that is ameliorating news about the new biodegradable plastic Xmas trees @6KG/year CO2 over 5 years, compared with the regular plastic species @8Kg/year CO2 over 6 years.
However, it still looks rather serious to me!
Let’s guess perhaps over-generously that 1,000,000,000 purchasers around the world all convert to your more environmentally sensitive species, (those hypothetical buyers being responsibly contemptuous of the 3x cost factor etc), over a five-year period, then I think that would be 200,000,000 x 5 Kg/year of CO2, or, if I’m not too fogged from 2 glasses of Shiraz Cabernet, 1,000,000,000 Kg of CO2/year. So, if we divide that by 28,431,741,000,000*, then per 100%, we get 0.003517195% (at 2006 values)
Sheez, I could still have one of my irritable days tomorrow, if I thresh around over this tonight, despite your good news!
*According to Wikepedia, (accurate to eight figures?!) the annual HUMAN caused GROSS emission equivalent of CO2 in 2006 from ONLY the burning of fossil fuels, was: 28,431,741,000,000 Kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Erh, just one little question; what happens to the carbon therein when either natural Xmas trees are thrown out each year, or your biodegradable plastic trees are thrown out after 5 years?
Help me through my vino-fog please Max! I’m confused/distressed!
Lord Turnbull (Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary 2002 – 2005) made an important speech in the House of Lords on 8th December. Here’s an extract:
Our politicians should be paying attention – but I don’t suppose they are.
Bob_FJ
As I have just had a glass or two of California Merlot (where I am currently visiting), I can fully understand your dilemma.
In a wonderful natural process, the fully biodegradable bio-plastic “holiday trees” slowly release their carbon as CO2, to act as plant food for the next generation of plants, which will be grown to produce the bio-plastic to produce new trees for the next five year manufacturing/marketing cycle. As this process is exothermic, however, the environmental impact of the resulting warming is now being studied to see if a threat to humanity could result.
The natural trees can do the same, but since this is “nature”, no environmental impact study will be made.
It is only the PE trees, which need to be incinerated in a highly exothermic reaction in order to release their carbon as CO2. Here a double environmental impact study is underway to investigate the possibility of a “fossil fuel based holiday tree tax” to be levied on the manufacturers (for passing on to their environmentally unfriendly customers, thereby “leveling the playing field” by reducing the cost disadvantage of the fully biodegradable bio-plastic trees and helping to create millions of “green jobs”).
Cheers!
Max
Max,
You may be right in suggesting that here are some extreme “green” environmental groups who are politicising the AGW issue in the way you describe. They’d switch the world to zero CO2 emissions tomorrow and at the same time close down nuclear power stations for no good scientific reason.
You climate sceptics, or whatever you want to call yourselves, are just their political mirror images. You’ve both allowed your political prejudices to trump any process of rational and scientific thought.
All,
I notice that there seems to be a slight disagreement between you guys on this blog. Robin’s view seems to be that the world is indeed warming. He’s lost a little of his usual composure in asking me this question:
“Are you so foolish that you cannot understand the simple point that the key question is not whether the world is warming but why it is warming?”
I’m fairly thick skinned, and can take this sort of thing but its possible he’s offended Peter Geany. Peter is “so foolish” as to think that its “nonsensical AGW propaganda” to believe all that stuff about receding glaciers, melting ice caps, rising temperature records, etc. I guess if Peter were being generous he’d be saying that it could all be accounted for by better inclusion of the UHI effect, but he could well be of the opinion that its all part of the hoax and conspiracy to lead to a single world government under the control of the United Nations.
So there seems to be a clash of ‘expert opinion’ here. What do the rest you think? Is the world warming , even if the cause is mainly natural, or isn’t it?
PS I know you guys can get very passionate about your politics, sorry I mean science. So I’d just ask you to conduct your debate on this point in a more “grown up” way than the debate on the point about anthropogenic influences.
Max, Reur 8562,
On the cusp of Friday midnight here, many thanks for your advice, which may well have eased the tension in my mind. Hopefully I’ll not toss and turn quite so much tonight as might I otherwise.
It has been claimed that dreams can resolve mighty issues in the dawn. If that is actually realized to me overnight, I will let you know!
Peter #8563
As you seem so reluctant to tackle scietific questions and attempt to refute the statements I made in my #8419 and repeated in #8444, perhaps you can amuse me by telling me what you believe my politcal motivations are for questioning the IPCC version of climate science?
I certainly didn’t know I was politically motivated, but you obviously think you know better. So what is it?
Tonyb
TonyB,
I certainly didn’t know I was politically motivated, but you obviously think you know better. So what is it?
Yes I know better:-). The English newspapers who are playing down climate change, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Spectator are all Tory papers. Is that a coincidence? Which one do you read?
OK, to prove me wrong, you are going to tell me the Guardian or the Independent. You may even go on to tell me that you are a Labor or a Lib Dem voter, or even a member of the Socialist Workers party. Maybe even a member of the NUM too? They’d have an obvious vested interest in being on your side if they still existed.
I’m not sure I’d believe you though.
PS “scietific questions ?” I’m always happy to oblige with an answer if there are clearly defined, non loaded, non rhetorical questions being asked. Can you more put them more simply, so I work out what you want to know?
Peter M
In an impressive bit of fast footwork that would rival Fred Astaire in his heyday, you wrote in 8563 (of Robin and myself):
No, Peter, you are wrong yet once again.
Robin has consistently asked you to no avail, in a “rational and scientific” way, to provide empirical data, based on actual physical observations, to support the premise that (a) the observed 20th century warming has been caused largely by human CO2 emissions and (b) that this represents a potential threat for the future.
Then you elaborate on what you perceive “to be a slight disagreement between you guys on this blog” (without, however showing any evidence of this alleged “disagreement”).
The temperature record (even all those thermometers located near AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots in the midst of recently expanding urban sprawl), with all its ex post facto “corrections”, “variance adjustments”, etc. shows warming of 0.04°C per decade since 1850 [see the many posts from TonyB about the unreliability of this record].
The warming has come in several warming/cooling cycles (each total cycle around 60 years), with the most recent late 20th century warming cycle starting around 1976, followed by a period of cooling starting in 2001. The late 20th century warming cycle is the poster period for the IPCC, while earlier warming/cooling cycles are not given much attention. The current cooling has only recently been acknowledged (IPCC Chairman, Met Office), with the Met Office attributing this cooling to “natural variability” (a.k.a. natural forcing factors), which have more than offset all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
So let’s say we accept this record, with all its warts and blemishes at face value, because it is all we have prior to satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures in 1979. [Interestingly these show a slower warming rate than the surface measurements, despite the fact that the greenhouse theory tells us that the troposphere should warm more rapidly than the surface, if the warming is due to the GHE.]
Whether Peter Geany accepts the surface temperature record at face value or not, I cannot answer. Can you?
Atmospheric CO2 has been measured at Mauna Loa since the late 1950s; this record shows a steady increase (with no cycles, such as seen in the temperature record, and poor correlation except for the IPCC “poster period”). As TonyB has pointed out, CO2 data prior to Mauna Loa are a bit more sketchy.
With all the cyclical ups and downs of the temperature record and the steady increase in CO2, it takes a leap of faith to discern anything resembling a robust correlation between CO2 and temperature, let alone any indication of causation.
Both Robin and I have stated that, while the GH theory itself sounds plausible, there is no empirical evidence supporting the premise that the past warming was caused largely by anthropogenic greenhouse warming. You have been unable to provide such evidence despite repeated requests from both Robin and myself.
Robin has put it fairly succinctly in his question to you, asking whether you are able to understand
“the simple point that the key question is not whether the world is warming but why it is warming?”
I believe that all of those here whom you have labeled “contrarians” also agree that there are no empirical data based on actual physical observations, which support the premise that AGW is a potentially serious problem for the future. Again, you have been unable to provide such evidence.
Peter, the ball is in your court to provide empirical evidence to support your AGW premise rather than just rhetoric, fancy footwork and unsubstantiated claims that other posters on this site do not agree with one another.
Max
Max,
Its a straightforward question. Do you guys think the climate is warming or don’t you? Yes/No
You and Robin seem to think it is. Peter Geany doesn’t. He thinks its all propaganda. Is that a disagreement or is that a disagreement?
Look, just sort this out between you and then I’ll try to work out what the empirical evidence that you are asking for might look like.
Peter M
It is the poor science that motivates me. Is that plain enough for you? I share this view with Max, Robin, TonyB, Brute TonyN and just about everyone else who is sceptical because the science does not add up. Whether I look at the temperature record, the sea ice, the CO2 record, or any other measure that we are expected to accept at face value it is all too easy to find fault. Now that there is more corroborating evidence that scientists appear to have attempted to make the data fit the premise that the majority of the warming in the late 20th century was man made, the public are increasingly becoming sceptical of man’s role in climate change, and disillusioned with their political leaders who seem to have boots of lead at a time when they need to be fleet of foot.
Peter you have been asked the same question about providing data so many times it’s embarrassing, so it’s about time you fronted up with it or admit like most people are admitting that they have been misled.
Peter M
Arr the old splitting tactic! My mother in law did this all the time, but guess what it doesn’t work.
Temperature. Has the world warmed since the depths of the little ice age, Of course it has and only a fool would say it hasn’t? Is it currently warming, I don’t think so, and I don’t think any of the data sets show that it is. Now I would be very interested to hear if you disagree with this. You see to answer your question always requires you to specify the starting point, something that would have a huge bearing on the answer.
Peter
As you seem to be making a career out of dancing on the heads of pins, let’s ask a simple and sraightforward scientific question.
Do you believe the Giss and Hadley/Cru land temperature sets represent an accurate record of a global temperature back to 1850/80 that is reliable enough to be parsed to fractions of a degree?
A straightforward Yes or no will be fine.
Tonyb
Peter M (8568)
You asked: Is the climate warming?
My answer: Yes.
The climate has had an underlying warming trend since the record started in 1850 (and we have emerged from a cooler period called the LIA), with several multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles along the way (approx. 60 years per entire cycle).
Currently, we are in a short-term cooling blip, which may or may not be the start of a new multi-decadal cooling cycle.
But even though the climate has been cooling since the end of 2000, I would agree that it has warmed long-term.
The first time I posted the answer to this question on this thread was in post #149 on 26 June 2008, in response to a similar question from J.Z. Smith. Since then, I have repeated this answer at least five times.
I would have no disagreement with Peter Geany, if he is talking about the past nine years, which have obviously cooled as both Pachauri and Vicky Pope have agreed.
All this is based on the validity of the HadCRUT record of the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly”. TonyB has expressed his concerns whether or not this record is meaningful to the accuracy required to measure the relatively minor changes in tenths of a degree C, which have occurred.
Several scientific studies indicate that the urban heat island (UHI) effect may have produced a significant distortion to the record that might even cancel out most of the observed warming once removed.
The fact that the satellite record (since 1979) shows a slower rate of warming than the surface record (approx. 0.03°C less per decade), even though GH warming should occur more rapidly in the troposphere than at the surface, raises a dilemma: either the warming is not likely to have been caused by the GHE or the surface record has an upward distortion, possibly resulting from the UHI effect
But, leaving all these concerns aside, my answer remains “yes”.
Explicit enough for you, Peter?
Max
Looks like Peter Geany’s 8570 clears up your confusion about a disagreement on whether or not it has warmed.
Looks like we are all on the same page and this brief diversionary ruse has been laid to rest.
We are now eagerly awaiting your empirical data based on physical observations, which supports your AGW premise, i.e. that (a) the observed warming has been caused largely by human CO2 emissions, and (b) that AGW represents a serious threat.
Ball’s in your court, Peter.
Max
So, can I take it that you all accept the scientific record of CO2 concentrations gradually increasing from 280ppmv, about 150 years ago to its current level of about 385 ppmv?
Similarly you accept the Hadcrut and GISTEMP records as being genuine? They are independent measurements of the earth’s temperature, using somewhat different approaches so you wouldn’t expect agreement to very small fractions of a degree but nevertheless they do tell the same story.
Its important to know what you do understand to be true, or likely to be true, as well as what think is untrue. There is no point in giving you any explanation at all if you are deliberately going to muddy the waters, later on, by bringing in those dodgy CO2 graphs from the 19th century, for instance.
Furthermore, I’d just ask you to clarify what you mean by “unambiguous demonstration from empirical evidence” which is a phrase I seem to remember being used last time we went down this track. The IPCC has used a figure of “90% likely”. Its seems that this figure was highly contested at the time and was arrived at after some political arm twisting to avoid phrases like ‘virtually certain’.
Nevertheless, even ‘virtually certain’ isn’t the same as ‘unambiguous’. The word implies absolute certainty. Its not a word used in legal circles either where the phrase is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Anyone who has any experience of the jury system would probably know that this translates into ‘we think he probably did it’ so the verdict is guilty.
So what level of probability would you accept as making it reasonable to act? I’d say that if there were even a 10% chance of all your houses being flooded you’d be taking out as much insurance as you could get!