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.
JamesP
From memory it was 3000ppm but it was the ventilation aspect they were most concerned with-co2 in enclosed spaces being a problem.
Florence Nightingale was well aware of this and called it ‘miasma’ and was one of those campaigning for legal limits to be set.
Curiously the Romans also knew of the ventilation problems associated with co2 and erected fans to ensure through put of air at their mines.
So Co2 wasnt invented by Charles Keeling in 1957 as Peter seems to think.
Tonyb
Barelysane and PeterM
Pardon me for entering your dialogue on relative changes in CO2 and solar activity.
Peter points out that the current CO2 level of 385 ppmv is 38% over the putative (but not physically measured, except by ice cores) pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv.
This is true, if we ignore some of the caveats mentioned on this site by TonyB on the validity of the “Keeling curve”.
Solar activity has also changed over this same period. A good measure of solar activity is the peak Wolf (sunspot) number of each cycle. Accurate records on this exist back into the 19th century.
We have seen that this has increased markedly since the mid 19th century.
The average for the five solar cycles 10 through 14 (1858-1902) was 87.6, while the average for the latest five cycles 19 through 23 (1955-2008) was 147.2, or 68% higher. The level of solar activity in the 20th century was stated by solar scientists to have been the highest in several thousand years.
To put it in another frame: since the start of solar cycle 10 (1858) we have seen a linear increase in solar activity of 80%, or around 0.4% per year, while atmospheric CO2 has increased by 0.2% per year over the same period.
And temperature? Well, TonyB would say I’m crazy for even mentioning this, but temperature (specifically the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” – whazzat?) has shown a linear increase of 0.65K over this period, from around 287.15K to 287.8K.
This is a whopping increase of 0.23% over 150 years.
Ouch!
Max
Record snow brings misery to Asia
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/record-snow-brings-misery-to-asia/story-e6frfq80-1225816056311
GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT AS BRITAIN SHIVERS
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/149760
Brute, re the record snowfall, this evening I watched a TV interview with Rob Varley, director of our highly esteemed Met Office here in the UK. He “stressed that headlines suggesting that the world had succumbed to an unusual period of heavy snow were incorrect.” And (I’m paraphrasing) that somewhere or other in the world in January it always snows, so nothing special or unusual is occurring, etc.
If I go to Google, however, and type in “2010” (or “2009”) and “record snow”, a rather different picture starts to emerge.
Barelysane and PeterM
Sorry, guys. There’s a typo in the Wolf numbers I cited. It is off by a factor of ten, i.e. average for the five solar cycles 10 through 14 (1858-1902) was 8.76, while the average for the latest five cycles 19 through 23 (1955-2008) was 14.72, or 68% higher.
The growth rates and everything else are OK.
Sorry ’bout that.
Brute and Alex Cull
OK. The wise Met Office director tells us it’s always snowing somewhere (8879).
But, wait a minute. No one (except a few sailors) really care if it snows over the ocean. What counts is when it snows over land, especially land that is inhabited by people (i.e. Chinese, Britons, Americans, etc.).
The northern hemisphere has roughly 102 million sq. km. land and 153 msk ocean and sea. A lot of this land lies between around 38 and 60 degrees north latitude, where it is habitable and does snow.
The southern hemisphere has only around 47 msk land, with very little inhabited land lying between 35 and 60 degrees south latitude.
So “heavy snowfall” is hardly ever a major problem for a lot of humans in the southern hemisphere.
Now the Met Office director is either unaware of the above facts or (more likely) trying to avoid an inconvenient subject by switching to a diversionary smoke screen.
Incidentally, NSIDC (formerly Rutgers) keeps record of northern hemisphere snow cover. This has shown no decrease since around 1980, contrary to IPCC claims in its SPM 2007 report. It has also shown major increase in the past 2 years (after IPCC published the report).
The good Met Office director is probably aware of this, as well (at least, he should be).
But, as usual, when Met Office representatives or other AGW proponents start to talk about snow, it’s time to break out the shovels.
Max
Barelysane and PeterM
Forget my 8880. Wolf numbers were right first time around (no change in rates of change or conclusions).
Max
Here’s the thing……..according to the global warming theory headlines as the one listed below are impossible.
Also, the “global warming causes blizzards and record cold temperatures” statements strain credibility and, candidly, makes the Alarmists look silly in the eyes of the general (voting) public.
No one believes these eco-mystics anymore.
Britain braced for heaviest snowfall in 50-years
The heaviest snowfall in almost 50 years is hitting parts of Britain as Arctic weather brought nationwide chaos.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6937854/Britain-braced-for-heaviest-snowfall-in-50-years.html
The internet is not the friend of the global warming apostles…………..
Major snowbound train rescue, ChinaReuters
– 9 hours 42 mins ago
More than 1,400 people are rescued from a stranded train in China’s Inner Mongolia after spending 25 freezing hours aboard the snowbound rolling stock.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100105/video/vwl-major-snowbound-train-rescue-china-d7f4ae7.html
Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years
Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.
“It’ll be like the great winters of the ’60s and ’70s,” said AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?partner=&traveler=0&date=2010-01-04_1701&month=1&year=2010
‘Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade…..
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI140206/
Brute
On 29 September 2009 the Met Office told us it would be a milder than average winter in Europe (incl. the UK)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/winter.html
So I’m sure that the Telegraph report of record cold and snow must be wrong, because Met Office forecasts are within an accuracy of 0.06degC, as they have told us.
And they can forecast 100 years in advance, too!
Where is Vicky Pope, now that her nation needs her most?
Max
TonyB and JamesP
3,000 ppmv CO2 is a lot.
But has our atmosphere ever had this amount and could we ever get there again?
On the RC site, one of the “faithful” recommended watching this lecture by an ardent AGW-believer, Richard B. Alley, given at an AGU meeting entitled
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
It’s a sales pitch (by a rather abrasive individual) for CO2 being the principal driver of climate (based on paleo-climate studies) and for the premise that a doubling of CO2 would result in 3°C temperature increase (or more).
It started out with the Vostok curves of CO2 and temperature going back 450,000 years (made famous by Al Gore), where someone asked Alley why the CO2 changes followed the temperature changes by several centuries, if CO2 was supposed to be the driver.
Alley skirted around this question, but made several other claims.
Alley claimed Cretaceous temperature average was 37°C (most estimates put this at 20°-25°C). At that time atmospheric CO2 was over 1,500 ppmv, due to breakup of Pangea and volcanic mid-ocean ridges emitting massive amounts of CO2 (and SO2).
Claimed we could reach this level if all fossil fuels were consumed (this is incorrect; there are not enough optimistically estimated fossil fuels on Earth to reach even 1,000 ppmv, or 615 ppmv over today’s level, let alone 1,500 ppmv, or 1115 ppmv over today’s level).
Alley did not attempt to explain the long-term temperature decline, which began at the end of the Cretaceous despite very high starting CO2 level, and which played a significant role in ensuing mass extinctions due to extreme cold.
Alley cited the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum interval as proof of CO2 as cause for rapid temperature increase estimated at around 6°C, during which period an estimated 6,800 Gigatons of carbon were released into the ocean and atmosphere as CO2 (roughly five times the amount contained in all fossil fuels on Earth today), but he was unable to explain why temperatures began to drop again as atmospheric CO2 levels had reached their highest levels.
By the way, the PETM does not really support Alley’s claim of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C upon closer examination. Atmospheric CO2 rose by a factor of around 9 (by 2,400 ppmv), assuming all of the carbon released was CO2, while temperature rose by 6°C. This would translate into a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of below 2°C, all other things being equal. Since the carbon release is also estimated to have occurred largely in the form of methane (from clathrates), which has a much higher GH impact than CO2, the calculated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is probably even lower, and the reconstructed CO2 and temperature estimates are pretty dicey, in any case.
At any rate, it appears we have only seen 2,500+ ppm CO2 in the atmosphere quite rarely, except in the very early life of our planet, when the atmosphere was primarily CO2, and tiny marine organisms were slowly creating the oxygen, which would some day become a major atmospheric component and the basis for all animal life (including us).
So, unless we have another series of massive submarine volcanic eruptions caused by breakup of continents we’ll never get to 1,000 let alone 3,000 ppmv CO2.
So you can relax.
Max
Just so the children don’t get the wrong idea about global warming with all the snow in the UK, the BBC is doing it’s bit to make sure the children remember to panic.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/newsround-thought-police.html
Enjoy the snow while you can i guess kids.
Max and JamesP
Re my earlier comment about Co2 levels in factories.Just been delving into my records
Co2 was not discovered by Charles Keeling in 1958 nor measured by him for the first time then. It was discovered as far back as 1756 by Joseph Black at the start of a huge increase of knowledge in chemistry matters that laid the foundations for our modern understanding of the subject. The nature of co2 and its effects were well understood by the late 1700’s.
The first measurements were carried out around that time and became increasingly accurate and were routinely undertaken in various fields including medical and employment.
During the middle part of the 1800’s it was becoming increasingly recognised that in several industries- including cotton- various processes were being carried out that were possibly injurious to the operatives. This effect was written about by Florence Nightingale and the novelist Mary Gaskell in 1859 in ‘North and South’ where she described the manufacturing processes in the cotton industry. This coincided with a study by Lethbridge in 1862 who looked at the problems of carbon monoxide and dioxide.
The reason there are some 90000 samples of co2 recorded (see my posts re Beck) is that it was a common procedure taken to observe levels and ensure action where they contravened agreed measurements in factories or those laid down in local byelaws-mostly as a ventilation issue.
The cotton cloth factories act of 1889 set actual limits for Co2 at 900 ppm (modern commercial greenhouses operate at up to 1100ppm) This subject had been debated in Parliament for some 20 years prior to this and its relative success – observed in Hansard -was subsequently debated
Paste ‘cotton cloth factories act 1889 carbon dioxide levels’ into google-it will lead to Hansard and other references where they specifically talk about infringements of the agreed co2 levels.
The local agreements and subsequent legislation led to a rash of increasingly sophisticated methods for measuring co2 including a patent around 1895, although throughout the 19th century the methods used were accurate to plus or minus 3 % or so-not surprising as the basic principles of chemistry were so well understood.
The reference to the social elements is here-of particular relevance is the section entitled ‘The first limits’. The various references are worth following up.
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/299
In the following book more of the background that led to the parliamentary act can be read (page 154 onwards) which makes considerable mention of carbon dioxide in factories and how measurements should be controlled-by-for example- taking into account the gas lighting
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:yoxDE4U_T94J:www.victorianlondon.org/publications/westlondon-
2.htm+cotton+industry+carbonic+acide+levels+victorian+era&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk
A complete bibliography of the cotton industry and the activities of the Roscoe commission -who investigated the effects of the carbon dioxide levels for Parliament- can be found here
http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk/web/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=257
Tonyb
Max,
The IPCC have forecast a 3 deg C increase of temperatures from a doubling of CO2 levels.
3 deg C is also the same as 3 deg K increase. And, as you are keen on % comparisons, you’ll have probably already worked out for yourself that it’s only a 1% increase in surface temperature as measured on the Kelvin scale. Real scientists always use Kelvin so that must be OK.
So, why do you fight against their conclusions so much? What’s a 1% temperature increase? Surely that’s neither here nor there?
Not sure where to post this but rumblings in the Labour party here and 2 senior MP’s are calling for a secret ballot on the leadership. This will further shift focus off Climate Change in the election and may prompt an early election.
Max,
Where did you get this from?
“Claimed we could reach this level if all fossil fuels were consumed (this is incorrect; there are not enough optimistically estimated fossil fuels on Earth to reach even 1,000 ppmv, or 615 ppmv over today’s level, let alone 1,500 ppmv, or 1115 ppmv over today’s level).”
I wish you wouldn’t just make this stuff up. And you know your maths isn’t good enough to trust any answers that you’ve worked out for yourself. If you must, you might just take a look at what Richard Lindzen has to say on the topic:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
<em>”More germane perhaps is the expectation that the burning of all known fossil fuels will only (sic) quadruple present concentrations of CO2″
There are large known reserves coal, coal tar, and oil shale etc. So much so that it isn’t really worth exploring the more difficult regions. So we can reasonably expect there to be large unknown reserves too.
Peter
Where did you get this from?
Even I can remember Max describing this in some detail (including the maths) not long ago.
It’s hard not to conclude from some of your posts that you simply don’t read other people’s comments.
JamesP,
Well, yes I have been trying to tell myself that I shouldn’t bother even looking at this blog , let alone read the comments.
But there is such a lot of rubbish on here that does need correcting, and, unfortunately, I do have to read the comments to be able to do that.
Pete,
This statement would seem to contradict your previous prophecies regarding “peak oil”…….wouldn’t it?
Pete,
Please explain to me how CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere can cause RECORD low temperatures……..
The frigid hit parade – over 1200 new cold and snow records set in the last week in the USA, more in progress
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/the-frigid-hit-parade-over-1200-new-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-last-week-in-the-usa-more-in-progress/
PeterM
To my statement (8887) that there is not enough carbon in all the fossil fuels left on this planet to reach more than 1,000 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere, you opined (8892)
Peter, as JamesP has pointed out, you apparently suffer from short-term memory loss, as we have gone through all this once before.
BTW, the paper by Lindzen does not provide estimates of fossil fuel reserves, so Lindzen has nothing to say on this topic.
There are quite a few reliable estimates of the amount of proven fossil fuel reserves on our planet, but it is more difficult to get estimates of the amount of as yet unproven reserves, which are hidden very deep below continental shelves, in oil shales and tar sands, etc.
For your benefit I will repeat what I posted earlier on fossil fuel reserves and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, with some up-dated estimates on reserves.
In an article by Andrew Dessler on another site the question of fossil fuel reserves limiting the total atmospheric CO2 concentration to a maximum of 500 ppmv was raised. This article raised some interesting questions regarding the limitations of anthropogenic CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/6/10545/14025
I believe that the best estimates of fossil fuel reserves show that the 500 ppmv maximum CO2 concentration is on the low side, because it is based on a very low estimate of proven reserves only.
There are a lot of estimates out there, but the Oil + Gas Journal estimates:
Proven oil reserves word-wide are 1,317 billion bbl (2007).
Not included is estimated oil that could be recovered from existing depleted reservoirs with future enhanced recovery techniques, new reserves in ANWR, new North America OCS, new Brazil OCS, additional tar sand, Arctic O/S, Greenland, worldwide oil shale. These total 3,031 billion bbl, bringing the total to 4,348 billion bbl or 569 billion mt.
At today’s consumption of 75 million bbl/day, this equals enough oil to last 159 years.
The USEIA tells us that proven world coal reserves are 840 billion mt; it also gives a pessimistic estimate of new recoverable finds of another 160 billion mt, but other, more optimistic estimates put this at 3 times this amount or 480 billion mt, bringing the total to 1,320 billion mt.
At today’s consumption of 6.2 billion mt per year, this equals enough coal to last 213 years.
The O+GJ tells us that proven world natural gas reserves are 176 trillion cubic meters, and optimistic estimates believe that there could be another 200 trillion cubic meters, a lot of which is associated with the as yet undiscovered oil reservoirs (see above), for a total of 376 trillion cubic meters.
At today’s consumption of 2.8 trillion cubic meters per year, this equals enough natural gas to last 134 years.
How much CO2 will this all generate?
It is anticipated that, as oil and natural gas reserves become more scarce and costlier to exploit, less will be used as fuel and more will be shifted into higher added-value non-combustion end uses, such as petrochemicals, fertilizers, plastics, etc. But for purposes of this rough estimate, it is assumed that the current use breakdown will continue.
Oil is 85% carbon, so 1 ton oil generates 3.12 tons CO2
25% is used for non-combustion
75% of world reserves generate: .75*569*3.12 = 1,330 billion tons (Gt) CO2
Coal is 91% carbon, so 1 ton coal generates 3.34 tons CO2
World reserves generate: 1,320*3.34 = 4,404 Gt CO2
1 cubic meter natural gas generates 2.0 kg CO2
20% is used for non-combustion
80% of world reserves generate: 0.8*376*2.0 = 603 Gt CO2
Total, all fossil fuels, generate 1,330 + 4,404 + 603 = 6,337 GtCO2
Mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
Currently around 50% of CO2 emitted “stays” in atmosphere, but let’s assume that this portion increases to 70%.
Increase in atmosphere = 1,000,000*.7*6,337/5,140,000 = 863 ppm(mass)
Adjusting for different molecular weight, air vs. CO2 = 863*29/44 = 568 ppmv
Current level = 385 ppmv
Level after all fossil fuels consumed = 385 + 568 = 953 ppmv (slightly below 1,000 ppmv).
Voila! There you have it, Peter. (And it wasn’t “made up”, after all.)
Max
Brute,
No, I’m making a distinction between conventional supplies of oil, which are at or very close to peak production, and other fossil fuels.
Coal production may well peak at some time in the future but I’m not sure if there are any reliable estimates of when that will be.
PeterM
You might be interested in an estimate of the CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans since the Industrial Revolution started the major use of fossil fuels and, more importantly, how much of this has “stayed” in the atmosphere.
Sources, such as Wiki, usually tell us that around 50% of the CO2 emitted by humans shows up as increased atmospheric CO2, with the assumption that the remainder is largely absorbed by world oceans plus dissipated out into space.
But let’s do some quick arithmetic on this.
There are several sources of data on past consumption of fossil fuels, but the study below gives some early figures, which can be expanded to include more recent consumption estimates.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_from_Fossil_Fuels_(historical)
Taking these data we see that the cumulated consumption of fossil fuels through year 2005 were approximately:
Oil: 142 billion tons (Gt)
Coal: 294 Gt
Natural gas: 106 trillion cubic meters
These generated the following rough amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (see earlier post for calculation):
Oil: 333 GtCO2
Coal: 981 GtCO2
Gas: 171 GtCO2
Total from fossil fuels: 1,485 GtCO2
Add in from cement, deforestation: 250 GtCO2
Total human origin: 1,735 GtCO2
Mass of atmosphere: 5,140,000 Gt
Increase from human emissions: 338 ppm(mass) = 222 ppmv
Observed/estimated increase to 2005: 379 – 280 = 99 ppmv
% of emitted CO2 “staying” in atmosphere = 99/222 = 45%
So Wiki appears to be pretty close.
Max
PeterM
BTW, the estimated long-term fossil fuel reserves I cited are much more optimistic than many “peak oil” or other doomsayers predict.
The figures I cited tell us that we have only consumed, to date, the following percentages of the total amounts originally on our planet: Oil: 20%, Coal: 18%, Natural gas: 22%.
This means that 80% of the oil, 82% of the coal and 78% of the gas are still in the ground, available for mankind.
I don’t think you’ll find a lot of estimates that go any higher than that, Peter, but, hey, that’s not to stop you from looking in order to prove me wrong.
Max