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.
Hi Robin,
Yes, I’ve noticed, as well, how the horrible “tipping point” is always “right around the corner” (your 892).
A management consultant who once worked for me had a bizarre theory that managers were “at their peak performance” at around age 45-50, after which time this started to drop off. He even had a chart depicting the slow rise, as the individual gained knowledge and experience, and the rather rapid decline, once age 50 was reached.
A few years later we had the same consultant in, and, sure enough, he had the same curve in his folder of overhead slides. In the meantime he had passed the age of fifty himself. I noticed that on his slide the rapid decline in performance now began at age 55.
After his presentation I asked him about the shift, and he sheepishly told me, “you have to keep up-to-date with your clients’ needs”.
In Hansen’s case I think I have it figured out. Before the U.S. Congress he testified in April 2007 that “the dangerous level of CO2 is at most 450 ppm, and it is probably less”, continuing with “The low limit on CO2 forces us to move promptly to the next phase of the industrial revolution”, and concluding the paragraph with “Science provides a clear outline for what must be done…”
Hansen warns that “For humanity itself, the greatest threat is the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet”, continuing with, “sea level rise this century may be measured in meters if we follow business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions”.
This is worded extremely cleverly.
At the time CO2 levels were at around 380 ppm and rising by 2 ppm per year, so there were to be exactly 35 years (at most) until (as Hansen predicts later in his testimony) we have “a different planet, with eventual chaos for much of humanity as well as the other creatures on the planet”.
Then he cleverly (if a bit arrogantly) equates himself with “science” (but after all, his audience are just congressmen, so what do they know?).
Hansen was 66 years old at the time of his impassioned testimony, so he would be 101 (at the latest) when the dangerous “tipping point” is reached and the world, as we know it, would cease to exist. So he, personally, will not have to face this horrible fate.
But most congressmen have shorter interest spans. Members of the House serve a two-year term. Senators have six years in office, with the last six months focused on getting re-elected.
For this reason the wording “at most 450 ppm, and it is probably less” is crucial. Could the end of the world already happen at 400 ppm (i.e. in 10 years or less?).
No guarantee, of course, but something to think seriously about as a lawmaker.
When I think of Hansen’s “tipping point”, the picture of a dump truck, loaded with manure, comes to mind.
As the bed of the truck is slowly tilted, nothing happens at first.
Then a critical “tipping point” is reached, and the whole load of manure comes rushing out to the ground.
We are being inundated, not by the “meters” of water from the “demise” of the WAIS, but from the manure from Hansen’s dump truck.
Regards,
Max
Brute,
I think it has previously been mentioned that millions of years ago that CO2 was much higher than it is now. So where did it go?
Part of it went in the ‘white cliffs of Dover’ as mentioned by Bob. They are made of chalk , a form of limestone, which is calcium carbonate. Each molecule locking up one carbon atom. This is formed from the microscopic shells and skeletal structures of animals that lived millions of years ago. Not a source of energy though.
Much of it is locked up as coal and peat. Now I know that is not abiotic in origin as I’ve see leaf fossils in coal and you can see the plant structure in peat. Coal is essentially fossilised wood, contains long hydrocarbon molecules and is a source of energy.
Oil is generally thought to be of biological origin too. But, and contrary to Tony’s argument, it is no surprise that you’ve quickly makes up your mind that it isn’t. But, while the possibility that a small fraction of methane and other simple hydrocarbons may have an inorganic origin cannot be ruled out , you’ve got to be seriously delusional if you think that there is some magical process deep inside the earth’s crust that will replenish the oil as it is extracted.
All the evidence is to the contrary. Oil is a finite resource and all oilfield production follow Hubbert’s bell curve. As he correctly predicted in the 1950’s the USA oilfields peaked in production around 1970.
I think you are going to have to get used to the high price of petrol.
I had a bit of a swipe at the US government and maybe yourself yesterday but I don’t want to blame the economic shambles that is the state of the USA today on individuals like yourself. I’m not saying its your fault.
However, the USA is so deeply into debt with the rest of the world and so unable to ever repay, that it does make me wonder how the world, and the USA is ever going to sort out the economic mess. If the USA were a limited public or private company, it would be declared bankrupt and its assets sold off to repay the creditors. The creditors of the USA are the holders of trillions of dollars of unspendable dollar treasury bonds. China alone holds over a trillion dollars worth, but fortunately for you, they may be somewhat reluctant to call in the bailiffs given that the USA possesses quite a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons!
In any case, I do think the party is over for the US. The next world reserve currency of the world for the 21st century is likely to be the Euro. Once this is established, the value of the US dollar will fall even further and the USA will have to either accept rampant inflation or tackle the problem of spending a half trillion dollars more per year than is raised in taxes.
Either way, if you think petrol is expensive now, just give it a few years and you’ll see what expensive really means.
Peter: you say (post 900), “the temperature is about 0.7deg C higher now because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions” and that “This is the scientific consensus”. Not so. First, the 0.7 deg C increase (about which there is, I think, a general consensus) is the overall figure since around 1850 – the IPCC report was concerned with “global average temperatures since the mid-20th century“. As has been well debated here (I hope we don’t have to go into that yet again), temperature increases before the mid-20th century were greater than those afterwards; one of the biggest problems for the alarmists is that the reasons for those earlier warmings (when CO2 concentrations were far lower than today) have not been established – and, therefore, have not been shown not to apply to the later warming.
But, in any case, my reference to heatwaves was simply one example. The table I referred to covered also “warmer and fewer cold days and nights“, “warmer and more frequent hot days and nights“, “warmer spells” (not just heatwaves), “heavy precipitation events“, “droughts increases“, “intense tropical cyclone activity” and “increased incidence of extreme high sea level“.
I suggest you think again.
Abiotic oil hypothesis, versus biotic oil hypothesis
PeterM 902, you wrote in part to Brute, but quoted me maybe ambiguously? …. Dunno your intentions!
BTW Peter, I had a nice Sunday lunch, was nicely relaxed, and then strolled and had conversations with diverse species of numerous ducks on the Upper Yarra river at Warburton….. We asked those duckies if they were concerned about a hypothetical human contribution to GW, and I think, as best I could interpret, that their attitude was: bring it on! How would you humans like to stick your feet in this f—ing cold water? People popularly bring their dogs of all sizes there, just like us, but I saw not nary a dog that went for a swim!. Yet, it was relatively hot and sunny for a while, with 15C forecast in the city. But then the rain and wind came with a feel as if it came blasting from “the snow” So here I am back home earlier than expected!
Sorry, I digress, oh that’s right, you wrote:
Response [1] As an un-researched response, (I can’t remember everything from decades ago), but the very chalk purity of the limestone in the stunning White Cliffs of Dover, suggests that it comprises largely of the solid remains of zooplankton foraminifera species which are notable in having calcium carbonate skeletons in their living form. Some other zooplankton (animal) and phytoplankton (vegetable, or photosynthetic) species have siliceous, and/or much lesser to nil skeletal structures.
The issue I have with those white cliffs is not what they ARE made of, (skeletons), but what they are DEVOID of.
Zooplankton cannot survive without phytoplankton to feed on. Their diet (mainly) of phytoplankton generally has little or no skeletal structure, and of course, zooplankton itself has lots of squishy stuff other than its skeleton. Both zoo & phyto-forms die other than by predation, and decompose and it is known that skeletal ooze sediments eventually form lime stones of various qualities. So the question I have, is where did all the squishy stuff go? Where is the evidence of sedimentary hydrocarbon or animal/vegetable material bottom ooze that might one-day become oil?
Response [2] Yep, there is absolutely NO doubt that coal IS vegetable in origin. The only question is: How did such vast (massive) amounts of vegetation, piled upon vegetation, piled upon vegetation, piled upon vegetation, (recurring), without any intervening detritus take place?
That’s a tricky one, what? But, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH: Where did oil come from!
Response [3] Peter, to repeat what you wrote in part:
Oil is generally thought to be of biological origin too.
Would you care to expand on that, including any conditionals?
I think you implied earlier of you having some acceptance of abiotic origins?
There’s an interesting piece in Science Daily. A quote:
Amen to that.
I’ve mentioned many times that any hope that mankind will really reduce its CO2 emissions depends on the actions of the economies that will matter most over the coming decades. This graph from today’s Sunday Telegraph shows plainly which they are: China, USA, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia. Not one of these (yes, not even the US under a President Obama) seems at all likely to make radical emission reduction a genuine priority.
Remember the quote from Hamish McRae in the Independent (post 415):
I’ll say it again:
Another current story is about the “thousands of activists at this year’s ‘climate camp'” protesting against a new coal-fired power station”: the Guardian (Friday). Interviewed on TV this morning, one activist said that an important reason for opposing this construction was the message it would give, for example, to China. What makes her think that mighty China gives a damn about us? Perhaps she should be referred to the quotation I posted (843) on Thursday:
Apologies for boring everyone with so many posts today, but here’s another interesting article. It is relevant to all three of my earlier posts today – 903: IPCC uncertainty about the impact of GW (especially re extreme climatic events); 905: global climate system not well understood; and 906: the attitudes of the developing economies to AGW alarm. (The author is Will Alexander who is a long-time expert on supplying civilisation with clean and adequate water supplies. He is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria and Honorary Fellow of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering.)
This, I believe, is typical of the scientific advice being given to the governments of the major developing economies. And to the Russian government (another of the big six) – see this from (interestingly) an Indian newspaper. It refers to “western nations [stepping] up pressure on India and China to curb the emission of greenhouse gases”. But they have other priorities (such as lifting their people out of poverty) and prefer to listen to the Russian Academy of Sciences than to Western alarmist claims.
Robin,
Not boring…..I read every one of your posts/links, (as time permits). Please, continue.
Peter,
What percentage of the surface of the Earth has been surveyed for oil deposits and at what depths?
Air Compressor
All kinds of great Air Compressor information and resources
Brute,
What percentage of the surface of the Earth has been surveyed for oil deposits and at what depths?
I’ll have to pass on that one. Maybe you can tell me?
I can tell you that carbon dating only works on materials that were once living in the last 50,000 years, and therefore that method is out as far as determining the age of oil deposits.
Religious fundamentalists do have a problem with carbon dating as in their book, literally, the maximum age of anything is 8000 years. I’ve seen that number quoted a lot recently but previously I thought they’d calculated 4004BC as being the creation year. So, I’m not sure if they’ve been given some divine advice on that point.
Anyway, naturally they’ll have a lot of trouble with any biological theory for the formation of oil. So, once again it seems that the climate sceptics have lined up with, and in many cases, are one and the same as, the religious fundamentalists.
Anyway to borrow one of Robin’s phrases, you must be living in dreamland if you expect that the oil prospectors have been so inept as to fail to find these deposits, and now you’ve told them that oil is of abiotic origin, they’ll now realise that they just have to drill a bit deeper to find billions of barrels of new oil supplies.
PeterM,
Once again you either do not understand something quite simple, or misrepresent the issue. You wrote in part:
Carbon dating relies on the surviving proportion of C14, which has a short half-life. If tested against biotic material that is millions of years old, the theory of its application requires that the C14 should have decayed to C12, and ZERO C14 could be measureable. However, there are reports of substantial amounts of C14 being found in oil, giving it a theoretical surprisingly young age.
The question then remains as to whether the result was accurate, or if the dating theory is reliable.
To imply that doubts about the accuracy of carbon dating comes only from religious fundamentalists is also irrelevant nonsense. Such doubts are widely evident in broad science and history etc.
Peter,
I read your comment; I’m not certain what religion has to do with oil but, it’s your comment and your right to post whatever you’d like.
Hi Robin,
Re your #907. Not boring at all, keep the information flowing.
I found the South African writer’s reaction to G8 pressure to curb emissions interesting and apparently well in line with that of China, India and (in a more subdued fashion, so as to avoid being non-PC) the USA.
The author’s last sentence sums it up pretty well:
“Now the developed countries have the audacity to expect African countries to bow to their pressure based on corrupt science and broken promises of aid, in order to save the world from their imaginary doomsday scenarios. We are not that stupid.”
The AGW alarmists in the currently “developed industrial world” are indeed dreaming when they believe they can strongarm the economic powerhouses of the future into curbing their economic development because of some highly speculative computer model outputs that predict a man-made disaster.
Like you have said many times, “it will not happen”.
I find it reassuring that there is still some common sense among the people and leaders of these nations. They do, indeed represent the future, and they will not let it be taken from them by a group of confused G8 politicians backed by corrupt, agenda-driven pseudoscience.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
Wiki says 60,000 years rather than 50,000 so maybe I should stand corrected. And it only works on organic material not abiotic material. No-one is saying that it is perfectly accurate. If you get a report back from a laboratory they will state their error margins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Yes, you are right in saying that the C14 in oil should be close to zero. I would be pleased to see any scientific references that you may have which would indicate otherwise.
Robin and Max,
There has been a lot of talk about the importance of getting China , India, Brazil etc on board , in terms of carbon emissions, and pessimistic talk about how “it will not happen” and we are “living in dreamland” etc.
This is how it will go. First of all the western countries will set up their carbon trading schemes. The EU countries have been working on theirs for longest. Australia, Japan, the USA are following along. Other countries will be persuaded to join by a carrot and stick approach. The carrot will be the opportunity to gain economic benefit from participating in carbon emissions trading.
Hopefully there will be no need for a stick. But should it be necessary, countries who do refuse to participate in carbon reduction schemes will be excluded from trade , or subject to heavy tariffs, with countries who do participate in the scheme.
The first step , though, is to get the schemes in place in all the ‘enlightened’ countries.
Brute,
I’m not certain what religion has to do with oil
If you are religious, you should read your Bible. Look no further than the first chapter of Genesis. “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Therefore it follows, that oil must be abiotic, just like the rocks around it.
Tony,
Another posting got zapped! Can you rescue again? Thanks. Peter
Hi Peter,
Sorry to cut in to your exchange with Robin (900), but you wrote: “Its not the same thing as the example you have quoted about heatwaves, where the IPCC has assigned a probablity figure of 50%. I’m sure that just means that they don’t know!”
You are probably more than correct when you write that you are sure that IPCC does not know whether or not heat waves have increased in the late 20th century, whether or not this (if it did occur) had anything to do with AGW and whether or not an increase is to be expected in these phenomena in the 21st century due to human impact.
I could readily accept this statement by IPCC.
Unfortunately, they have not made this statement.
IPCC 2007 SPM (Table SMM.2., p.8) states that “frequency increases over most land areas” of “warm spells/heat waves” “likely [>66% probability] occurred in late 20th century”, and that “a human contribution to the observed trend” is “more likely than not [>50%], with footnotes that “magnitude of anthropogenic contribution not assessed” and “attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rateher than formal attribution studies”.
IPCC then goes on to project for the future that these phenomena are “very likely [>90%]” to increase “based on projections for 21st century using SRES scenarios”.
So let’s translate this from IPCC double-talk to English.
IPCC tells us there is a >66% chance that heat waves increased in frequency in the late 20th century, with a >50% probability of a human contribution of some undefined magnitude to this increase, adding that this is based on guesswork by “experts” rather than hard data.
(This does indeed, come pretty close to your statement, “I’m sure that just means that they don’t know!”)
Yet, based on this very doubtful assessment of the past record, IPCC goes on to confidently predict (oops!, pardon me, “project”) that this trend has a 90+% probability of increasing in the 21st century.
It would certainly have been more honest to word it the way you did (I take the liberty of paraphrasing):
“We don’t really know if there has been an increase in heat waves lately, which could possibly be blamed at least in part on AGW, because we have no real studies on this and would only be guessing, and, as a result, we really don’t know whether or not there will be more heat waves in the 21st century due to AGW.”
Now that would have been an honest statement (but those are hard to find in IPCC 2007 SPM).
Regards,
Max
Max,
You must live a strange life if you get up at 5 am in the morning, I think that’s the right time in Switzerland, to shoot off these blogs. You sure you aren’t in the USA?
Whether or not AGW contributes to increased hurricane and cyclone frequencies, or increased heatwaves, is a much less important issue that the melting that it causes at the Poles or the possibility that it will cause droughts, which is what is thought to be happening in Australia right now.
Peter: it really would save a lot of trouble if you read others’ posts. In post 915, you say, “Whether or not AGW contributes to increased hurricane and cyclone frequencies, or increased heatwaves, is a much less important issue [than] … the possibility that it will cause droughts”. Yet, in my post 903, I spelled out that the IPCC table covered also “warmer and fewer cold days and nights“, “warmer and more frequent hot days and nights“, “warmer spells” (not just heatwaves), “heavy precipitation events“, “droughts increases“, “intense tropical cyclone activity” and “increased incidence of extreme high sea level“. In other words, a lot more than hurricanes, cyclones and heatwaves. And please note that it specifically includes “droughts increases” – where “a human contribution” (that’s all) is said to be “more likely than not”, i.e. >50%. Also re droughts you might take the trouble to read Will Alexander’s article linked at post 907.
Hi Peter,
Not to worry, as a matter of fact, I am not in Switzerland at the moment, so my life is not really that “strange”.
But you seem to be missing the point here, Peter, with your interesting diversion about “melting that it (AGW) causes at the Poles or the possibility that it will cause droughts, which is what is thought to be happening in Australia right now”.
The point is that IPCC makes “high probability” projections of certain events (in the case in discussion, heat waves), which will be caused by AGW in the future based on rather iffy “low probability” “expert guesses” of the occurrence of these events in the late 20th century.
You said it very succinctly when you pointed out, “I’m sure that just means that they don’t know”, which very likely also applies to “the possibility that it will cause droughts, which is what is thought to be happening in Australia right now”.
Something is always happening somewhere, Peter. Always has. Even in Australia. But it sounds good, anyway.
In Italian there is the expression, “si non é vero, é ben’ trovato”. (If it isn’t true it’s at least well thought out.)
Regards,
Max
There was an article in yesterday’s Sunday Times reporting on research that could produce some interesting data. Subtitled “Records kept by Nelson and Cook are shedding light on climate change”, here are its opening paragraphs:
The full article is here.
One commentator says, “I think that these log books should be destroyed as they are not politically correct”.
Max,
On the contrary I think that I’m seeing the point more clearly than I did before.
Contrary to Tony’s theory, it does seem that I was right in predicting that many of those who can find more than enough scepticsm to apply to AGW theories can’t find any at all to apply to the theory of abiotic oil, especially if it can be stretched to promise everlasting energy supplies too.
It does follow that the sceptics aren’t as sceptical as they might like to think. In fact they may not be sceptical at all. They are so gullible that they’ve allowed themselves to become delusional. They’ve become sufferers of what might be called “Fool’s Paradise Syndrome”. Any theory that supports the ‘Fool’s Paradise’ is eagerly accepted, any theory which might discredit it, is to be opposed and dismissed as a conspiracy or hoax.
There’s an excellent article by D K Johnston (adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada) here. It’s headed “What are the odds that we’re baking the planet?” and subtitled, “Eco-campaigners claim that climate catastrophe is a virtual certainty. A little bit of maths and logic suggests otherwise”. Querying that claim he says, “All we need to do is consult the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), along with an elementary logic textbook”. He goes on to do just that – with results that will not surprise most contributors to this thread.
PeterM, 917,
I don’t know if it is because you have an ignorance of the history of drought in Australia or what, but part of your following comment is blatantly FACILE:
There has been a long history of droughts in Australia, such as is recorded in a famous photo of a very dry Murray river in 1913, way before water-greedy cotton and rice farming, and a quadrupling of the human population etc. Of couse, they didn’t have TV and “The Media” back then! The Murray river currently looks a lot healthier than it did back then, even though it (and the feeding Darling system) is without question a lot less healthy than we would wish.
Could you please explain why it was clearly a lot worse in 1913, and whether it was AGW (CO2) that was the cause back then, in the days of the horse and buggy?
Robin 920;
Hmmmm. Nice link: this extract particularly caught my eye:
How totally profound! How can you be a true scientist in this field and still secure future funding?
Hi Peter,
You opined (914):
“This is how it will go. First of all the western countries will set up their carbon trading schemes. The EU countries have been working on theirs for longest. Australia, Japan, the USA are following along. Other countries will be persuaded to join by a carrot and stick approach. The carrot will be the opportunity to gain economic benefit from participating in carbon emissions trading.
Hopefully there will be no need for a stick. But should it be necessary, countries who do refuse to participate in carbon reduction schemes will be excluded from trade, or subject to heavy tariffs, with countries who do participate in the scheme.
The first step , though, is to get the schemes in place in all the ‘enlightened’ countries.”
Hmmm..
This is how it will (or maybe will not) go.
The “enlightened countries” (whodat?) are going to wield the “stick” on China, Brazil, India and the “Asian Tigers” to get them to take action that will slow down their economic growth and their concurrent escape from poverty? Because of some computer model outputs that tell us it may warm by 0.6C to 2C over the next 100 years?
Get serious, Peter. You have already seen the response from South Africa (Robin’s link).
I believe that it is highly unlikely that the USA will participate in such a “stick” policy with China, India, Mexico or Brazil, from whom they imported $580 billion and to whom they exported $250 billion in 2007.
It is even less likely that these countries will respond to such a “stick”. They may even have a suggestion for the “enlightened’ countries” as to where they should stick their “stick”.
To your statement, “The carrot will be the opportunity to gain economic benefit from participating in carbon emissions trading”.
What benefit, Peter?
And at what cost?
Regards,
Max