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 M
Let me point out the basic flaw in your logic (9091), as TonyN and JamesP have already done.
When you write (concerning the sinking of the Titanic):
You reveal your basic ignorance of how things work.
First of all, Titanic is not the first ship to sink after collision with an iceberg, so there was plenty of empirical data based on past physical observations supporting the premise that ships can sink from iceberg collision when sailing in northern waters.
But why did the Titanic sink? Didn’t you see the movie? In case you missed it, see:
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Titanic/blame.htm
The Captain ignored several iceberg warnings and was steaming too fast, possibly because the ship owner wanted to set a crossing record and was pushing the Captain to steam faster, poor quality rivets were used in the ship’s hull, the watertight compartments (like compartments in an ice tray) did not go all the way to the bulkhead, so when the ship reached a critical angle of tilt, they were no longer watertight and water flowed over the walls into the next compartment, there were not enough lifeboats to carry all the passengers and finally a nearby ship stopped for the night rather than rushing to Titanic’s rescue.
So there was a series of causes, including two “design” flaws.
The poor quality rivets may have caused the hull to rip open more rapidly on impact with the iceberg, but the more serious flaw was the design of the watertight compartments. This was a basic design screw-up, compounded by the fact that Titanic was much larger than any ship before it. A good ship architect would not have made this easily avoidable and stupid mistake.
Interestingly, the inquiries into the sinking
So an outside bystander was blamed for what happened! (Sounds like a “cover-up” to me.)
But leaving that aside, to compare this with the premise that AGW is a threat is ludicrous.
Bring the empirical data based on actual physical observations that support this premise if you can, Peter.
Max
In my experience, public sector hydrologists have a tendency to “go along” with the importance of AGW. The political pressures are simply too great. Even in the private sector we end up rolling over to a certain extent as we have clients in the public sector. To give you one example, a community wanted a water supply study carried out to investigate the reliability of their current sources and to identify new sources. The only way they could get senior government funding was to couch the request for proposal as a “climate change study” with terms of reference that included some pointless components. So what do we do as consultants in the water supply field? We have to stay in business so generally speaking we would submit a proposal- though in this particular case I became so irritated that I withdrew our proposal when they wanted to add climate change impacts related to infectious disease by water-borne insects to the scope!
So despite our scepticism, we are also guilty of perpetuating the AGW concern! It is easy to see how difficult it is to rid society of a notion that has become so well entrenched. We can console ourselves that eventually fads do pass.
James:
You’re right about Brunel but wrong about ‘you guys’.
We don’t live in the age of Brunel, and although bridge design is obviously still a highly skilled and complex process, it doesn’t pose the same mysteries that existed in his time. When bridges fail it generally seems to be the result of negligence or human error, not because of ignorance. Our understanding of bridge construction is of a very different order from our understanding of how the vast chaotic system of climate works. Any analogy between bridges and climate seems pointless to me.
I can’t remember anyone on this blog suggesting that ‘we don’t know what happens in the atmosphere but just pump as much CO2 as you like. She’ll be right!’ On the other hand, if Co2 emissions are to be cut it would be nice to have some convincing reasons for doing so.
PeterM
Further to my earlier post 9101 on the sinking of the Titanic, see the attached record:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16842176/DATABASE-OF-SHIP-COLLISIONS-WITH-ICEBERGS
As you can see, prior to the sinking of the Titanic there were a total of 72 ships sinking after collision with icebergs (plus hundreds that struck icebergs but did not sink), so there was plenty of empirical evidence based on physical observations that ships can sink after collision with icebergs.
Just for the record.
Max
Potentilla, (CC TonyN)
I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve linked and commented briefly on several of your posts here over at:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-1704
I think your comments are rather potent regarding some of the recent exchanges there on climate modelling. (their comprehension or acceptance may be another matter!)
It’s an interesting site in that it allows AGW sceptical comments that typically may not be allowed on many other alarmist sites, and that is why I go there.
Max,
Nice try! But those other ships were of a different design. There was no empirical evidence, at the time, that ships built like the Titanic were anything but unsinkable.
Potentilla,
Yes you’re right, I’m sure politicians do blame AGW when its convenient. They blame the the current world financial crisis when its convenient too. It doesn’t mean that neither exist though.
You say that no-one has the expertise to model climate change. I presume you mean a computer model? In your company you’ll hear all sorts of ‘GIGO’ dismissals of any and every model, so even if we had them refined to near perfection, they wouldn’t settle any arguments.
Its seems to me that your argument is, mainly, along the lines of ‘because we don’t know everything, we therefore know nothing, and so we shouldn’t make a decision to slow down’.
That sounds like same logic used by the Titanic’s captain. Where’s your sense of engineering caution?
More ’empirical evidence’:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/#more-2743
Evidence that we should have appreciated the danger of CO2 build up much sooner:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/
Peter M (9096)
But we know how they apply to ships and bridges – a few people only think they know how they apply to AGW, and that knowledge relies on models that are inadequate, as potentilla has eloquently described.
Just be thankful that the designers of the next boat/car/train/plane you travel in have done a bit more practical testing (which is still necessary, even though a computer crunched all the numbers).
TonyN (9103) – I’m not Peter! :-)
JamesP,
I’m sure that there is much we still don’t know about ships and bridges. But, you’re probably right, the level of uncertainty about the behaviour of the atmosphere and climate as GHGs such as CO2 and CH4 increase will be greater.
But, isn’t that an argument for more caution, not less?
In that case, reductio ad absurdam, the more uncertain we are about something, the more notice we should take of it!
The caution we should be applying is to the pronouncements of the IPCC, which seem to be more dubious with every passing day.
As for “much we still don’t know about ships and bridges”, I hope we know most of it…
Millau Bridge
JamesP,
You’re nearly right. A better way of putting it would be to say that the more uncertain we are the more we should stick to what we know to be safe. That’s the underlying principle of engineering caution.
We know that 350 ppmv of CO2 hasn’t caused us any problems in the past. The level of CO2 is now 385ppmv and rising fast. Lets do what we can to bring CO2 and CH4 levels under control get back to what we know works for us.
PS The French bridge shows that fixing CO2 levels doesn’t have to mean closing down the economy and reverting to a medieval lifestyle. CO2 emissions in France, per person, are half those of the UK and Germany and quarter of those of the USA and Australia.
If the French can do it…..
James, #9107:
Sorry, it was getting late and I remember thinking that it didn’t really sound like you.
Peter M
You’re nearly right.
You do know what ‘reductio ad absurdam’ means, I take it?
Interesting piece just now on Radio 4 about BBC bias in climate reporting, no less! James Delingpole spoke for the sceptics and two BBC apologists insisted (of course) that there was no bias. JD is a good writer, but lacks the killer instinct when interviewed, unfortunately, but I guess it’s progress of a sort. All they need to do now is sack Harrabin and Shukman.. :-)
Only two cheers, though – I notice that the afternoon play that follows is about a green activist who gets knocked off his bike by a 4×4. Order must be restored!
The original item is here:
Media Show,[TonyN: That links to last weeks edition. I’ll update the link as soon as the new file is available. This is well worth listening to for the amount of bluster that the BBC’s spokesperson had to use to avoid questions and keep the initiative. She sounds as though she is under a lot of pressure.
Update: Media Show Link starts1min 50secs in.]
JamesP
The JD item was quite good although the BBC typically brought on two apologists. As you say they blustered.
The aftenoon play was actually quite good-I thought it was going to be preachy at first-in the end the activist was subverted by modern comforts.
Tonyb
This is the link to the BBC R4 Media show item on the reporting of science which James P mentined in #9114:
Media Show Link starts1min 50secs in.
Thanks, tony. I posted that before the play had finished! Sorry about the link.
JamesP,
I was being more than slightly over-generous in saying you were nearly right. It was a tactic I remember being suggested at a sales course, I once attended, to avoid getting the customers back up when he was talking a load of crap, basically. Obviously, it didn’t work with you.
To continue with my ‘Captain of the Titanic’ analogy: it could well be he thought along similar lines to yourself. He may well have asked the lookout if he could see anything on the horizon and if it was safe to go ahead at maximum speed. “I think I can see an iceberg” may have been the reply.
“Are you sure” asks the captain.
“Well I’m 90% sure” would have been the reply.
“I’ve just spoken to Captain Lindzen on the radio and he assures me that there is nothing to worry about”
“I must admit that I am somewhat uncertain, but I do feel you should take my advice and slow down. Better to be safe than sorry”, says the lookout.
“Captain Lindzen sounds much more certain than you. Therefore he is the one to listen to”.
PeterM
You wrote:
We know for certain that 385 ppmv of CO2 are not causing us any problems in the present.
We also know (except for a few AGW-activist die-hards like James E. Hansen) that 560 ppmv of CO2 will not cause us any problems in the future.
We know that all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves on this planet will not get atmospheric CO2 as high as 1,000 ppmv.
We know it has stopped warming after 2000, despite all-time record CO2 levels.
We know that higher atmospheric CO2 levels increase photosynthesis and growth rates of many crops plus forests.
We know from past history that a slightly warmer climate will bring higher crop yields, less climate-related deaths and many more benefits to mankind and other species than a slightly cooler climate.
And, finally, we know that there have been no actionable proposals that would result in either a significant reduction of future atmospheric CO2 or a significant change in future temperature, least of all the proposed direct or indirect carbon taxes, which we know would have a serious negative impact on the world’s already shaky economy.
Let’s worry about real problems, Peter, not virtual computer-generated hobgoblins.
Max
PeterM
You keep bringing up the absurd analogy between the sinking of the Titanic and AGW.
First you tried the trial balloon that, just as there is no empirical data based on physical evidence supporting the premise of alarming AGW, there was also no empirical data based on physical evidence supporting the premise that ships could sink from iceberg collision.
When I demonstrated to you that this was not true at all, you switch tactics to the Titanic‘s Captain.
The true story is, Peter, that the Captain of the California, the nearby ship that stopped for the night in heavy ice rather than rushing to help Titanic survivors (for which he was later blamed), had previously warned the Titanic of the iceberg danger.
Any good seaman who sails in northern waters, should know that icebergs constitute a real and major threat, i.e. they can be deadly. Prior to Titanic, there were 72 recorded cases of ships that sunk after iceberg collisions and hundreds more that were damaged but did not sink.
The Titanic‘s captain, possibly under pressure from the ship owner to set a new crossing record, and maybe also fooled into thinking his ship was invincible because of its sheer size and the supposedly water-tight compartments (which turned out not to be), kept sailing ahead at full steam, despite these warnings.
To compare this with AGW, where there are no empirical data based on physical observations in support of the premise that AGW is a real danger, is absurd.
You might as well compare it with spending trillions to install a worldwide defense system to stop the otherwise inevitable invasion by little green extraterrestrial aliens, just in case. BTW, there are also no empirical data based on physical observations that this is a real danger, despite the Roswell, NM incident over 60 years ago.
Drop this silly analogy, Peter, and get back on topic.
Max
Tempterrain commented:
Actually we use models all the time to make decisions and “settle arguments” if you like. The key to avoiding GIGO is to make sure the model is calibrated and verified before the model is used for investigating scenarios. Most of our clients require that we demonstrate model verification before proceeding. Models are best used for scenarios that basically involve interpolation. In hydrological engineering there is always great concern about using models for extrapolation as the model may not be valid for conditions for which the model was not calibrated. The greater the extrapolation the larger the uncertainty. That is yet another concern regarding GCMs as they are being used only for extrapolation. So even if GCMs were properly calibrated and verified there would still be considerable uncertainty in using them for predictions for the next 90 years. Hence the valid concern about feedbacks in the climate system. We do not really know how the atmosphere will behave under different conditions.
Where’s my sense of engineering caution? Let me try an example. We design a water supply system for a client based on the recorded flow data. The client always decides the acceptable level of risk and let’s say he wants a design that will provide reliability 99 years out of a 100. We design a dam and distribution system that costs $50 million. Then in reponse to concerns expresed by the Board of Directors who have been reading something about climate change, the client asks us to assess the climate change risks. We take the output from the GCMs as they are “official” and run the year 2100 climate through our computer models. We conclude that, if the GCMs are correct and our hydrological analysis is valid, that the dam may require raising by the year 2100 adding $10 million to the project. What do we advise the client?
Because of my sense of engineering caution I do not advise the client to spend $60 million on the project now primarily because of the uncertainty in the climate projections but also because there are many other uncertainties. Other uncertainties could include the actual final project water use, the potential for reducing water use and uncertainties in the actual operation of the system. So even if flows into the reservoir reduce in 100 years from now it may not matter as water use could be less or other measures could be taken during the design drought. So my advice to the client is Do not risk your money now because it is not necessary to risk it now and it is likely that it would be wasted. Instead improve your climate and flow monitoring network to detect any future climate changes and develop contingency plans such as constructing the dam so that raising it later, if required, would be less costly.
There are a few very special circumstances where we do, in fact, make worst case assumptions. These are situations that could involve substantial loss of life and severe economic damages. An example is the design of spillways on large dams. In the early part of the last century they always designed spillways based on the maximum recorded flood. However as records got longer the maximum recorded flood kept getting exceeeded and dams failed by overtopping. So in the 1930s they came up with the concept of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) which would result from the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). The PMP is basically the largest rainstorm possible at a given location. However economists do not like the PMF concept and would prefer dam spillways to be based on risk analysis. Nevertheless PMF design is now required for large dams by most governments around the world despite the increased costs and the lack of economic rationality. This is because it is known that if the dam fails, loss of life is extremely likely.
So where does that leave us. As an engineer I am cautious and would tend to apply the precautionary principle. But I would apply the precautionary principle quite differently to Tempterrain. Given the future climate known unknowns and the unknown unknowns (UNK UNKS) it makes no sense to reorganise our economies based on inadequate models and speculation of what the climate might be in the future. Our efforts to reduce carbon emissions could be entirely useless in the sense that carbon reductions could make no significant difference to the climate because of feedbacks and other factors not included in the GCMs. There are so many known problems in the world such as inadequate water and sanitation in poverty stricken areas. We should be dealing with these known problems first before worrying about the speculative additional impacts from climate change. We cannot afford as a society to design all flood control works for the PMF or even design all water supplies for the probable maximum drought even though they are known knowns. As a society we have to be economically efficient to progress and economics is all about effective allocation of resources. There is only so much to go around and the distribution should be rational, not based on speculation.
PeterM
Your post 9111 on the “French solution” makes sense as a move away from costly imported fossil fuels for countries that do not have these, such as Switzerland. It is the path, which the Swiss government has proposed, with a small token effort on “renewables” to keep the “greenies” happy.
France has very little coal, petroleum or natural gas, so nuclear is a logical choice. They also do not have a vociferous “anti-nuke green movement” (as does Germany, for example).
I have no notion how this stacks up in the UK, which does have domestic coal plus North Sea oil and natural gas.
It could make sense for the USA to convert transportation to natural gas fired hybrid vehicles and switching power generation away from natural gas (as T. Boone Pickens proposed). Since the USA has plenty of domestic coal, the decision whether to go nuclear or install new coal-fired capacity (with stack gases cleaned up of all really harmful pollutants) would depend on economics. Currently new clean coal-fired generation costs around half the investment cost as new nuclear capacity. The USA should also develop the huge oil shale deposits, which (together with switching vehicles to natural gas for the shorter term) could make it energy independent longer term.
Each country should do what makes most sense, without worrying about the CO2/AGW hobgoblin.
It is my personal opinion that this “virtual problem” is very likely to disappear as an issue within the next few years, in any case, as the current cooling plus Climategate and revelations of other IPCC screw-ups and data fudging take their toll.
Max
Potentilla,
I’m not sure to whom you are addressing your remarks to when you say ” Actually, we use models all the time to make decisions and ‘settle arguments’…..” I’m not in disagreement at all. You might want to discuss computer models with Max. I doubt they’d settle any arguments with him. He hates them with a passion and thinks they generate “virtual.. hobgoblins.” He might want to think about upping his medication if that’s really the case:-)
More seriously, you seem to be equating AGW too much with hydrology. I haven’t seen any real evidence that rainfall, worldwide, is directly linked to CO2 or other GHG concentrations. Although I do know that isn’t the popular perception in Australia where widespread and long term drought conditions are thought to be the consequence of increasing levels. They could be, but its far from clear just why. The only observation that I would make is that the level of rainfall is only one factor. In Australia the rate of evaporation is the other major factor. Lakes literally can and do dry up during one hot dry summer. The hotter it is, the higher is the rate of evaporation.
It could well be that AGW will bring more rainfall to some regions and less to others. If that and maybe the loss of many glaciers, are the only consequences, you may well be right, climate change will be tolerable.
However, I’m sure you don’t need me to remind you of other major consequences. Melting icecaps, rising sea levels, melting tundra which will release yet more CH4 into the atmosphere, warming seas which will firstly inhibit their ability to absorb CO2 and then later cause them to become CO2 sources. I could go on with displacement of entire ecosystems, loss of coral reefs etc
So, what about the broader picture away from your professional niche?
Potentilla
Your approach to “engineering caution”, as you explained to tempterrain in your 9121 makes perfect sense to me.
It is the practical approach one would expect from an engineer or applied scientist.
The same principles are true in petrochemical plant design, for example, where one makes lengthy formal assessments of known risks and builds in fail-safe systems to minimize these risks and their potential impacts.
What I see in the AGW movement is the less practical, more theoretical “head in the clouds” approach more often seen in pure scientists and computer programmers than in applied scientists or engineers.
In addition this is all combined with the hidden agendas of bureaucrats and politicians, environmental activist lobbying groups, industrialists and money-shufflers who smell a potential profit, all driven by hundreds of billions of (tax-payer funded) dollars.
On top of it all, there have been no actionable “mitigation” proposals, which would have any perceptible impact on either atmospheric CO2 concentrations or future temperatures.
The talk has been of “reducing emissions to the levels of year X”, but this is not an actionable proposal, it is only a hoped-for “policy” result.
And the proposed carbon taxes (direct or indirect) will, of course, have zero impact on CO2 levels or temperatures, but will only add more strain to an already hurting economy.
Somehow this is difficult for tempterrain to see although it is quite obvious to me.
Max
Tempterrain commented:
Well I can try but you are still going to get the perspective of a practical engineer.
Not knowing much about your long-list of consequences they still sound speculative to me. Regarding melting ice caps, for example, I have trouble believing that small changes in air temperature would make that much difference. I suspect that it is changes in ocean currents related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and other similar phenomena, that cause cycles in the extent of the Arctic ice cap.
I do know something about sea levels as I have been involved in design of coastal flood protection works. First let’s set aside known unknowns such as the degree of isostatic depression in the earth’s crust from adding water to the oceans and take estimates of sea level rise to 2100 at face value say 0.5 m. Many coastal communities are already living in a hazard zone. Storm surges can be up to 5 m above high tide level to which can be added atmospheric pressure changes and wave runup to give a potential design flood level of about 5 to 8 m. In this context a potential sea level rise of 0.5 m over 100 years is relatively insignificant. Average sea levels and small increments in average sea levels are not the problem. As with floods and droughts, extreme events are the design issue. Most coastal flood protection works, if they exist, are already underdesigned for known sea level extremes.
The Maldives have been successful in getting press coverage for their “plight” lately. However if I lived in the Maldives I would be much more worried about a potential 10 m high tsunami arriving without warning than a 0.5 m rise in sea level over 100 years. If the Maldives designed coastal flood protection works for a tsunami they would not really have to worry about sea level rise.