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.
Here’s a lower bar for you Pete……..
How will we know when we (as a species) have averted the apocalyptic manmade climate crisis?
Brute,
When atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs have firstly stabilised, and, secondly, start to fall towards a level which is not going to cause appreciable long term warming.
We’ll probably never be able get back to less than 300ppmv of CO2 which is what it was before 1850. We certainly won’t be able to stop it exceeding 400ppmv but something like 350ppmv or 400ppmv should be a longer term objective.
PeterM
You wrote:
Of course not, Peter, as I am sure you would not deny that there is also a politically ideological connection to the premise that AGW is a potentially serious problem.
But politics aside, there is also a scientific argument as to whether this premise is valid.
At present, it looks like the latest scientific argument favors the concept that AGW is not a potentially serious problem despite a lot of noise from the political side in trying to keep the AGW premise alive.
I am sure that you can’t bring yourself to insult my intelligence by actually denying that this is the case. Right?
Max
PeterM
You wrote to Brute (9753):
From the above statement, you apparently feel that controlling atmospheric CO2 to something like 350ppmv or 400ppmv should be a longer term objective.
This is puzzling.
Why should this be a “longer term objective” per se?
Isn’t it more important that we control the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (rather than atmospheric CO2)?
And, if this is the objective we want to achieve, what temperature would be ideal?
Please choose the “ideal temperature” for our planet from the list below:
Year: Temperature
2008: 15.3°C
1998: 15.5°C
1976: 14.8°C
1944: 15.1°C
1850: 14.6°C
1700: 14.0°C
900: 16.0°C
(Some other value – please specify)
Once you have picked the “ideal temperature”, we can work backwards to identify our “longer term objective” for the ideal atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Thanks for your valued input.
Max
PeterM
To make it easier for you to identify the ideal temperature we should establish as our longer term objective, I have also shown the atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the past temperatures I listed. Maybe this will make it easier for you to pick the ideal global average temperature and CO2 level:
Year Temp CO2
2008 15.3°C 386 ppm
1998 15.5°C 366 ppm
1976 14.8°C 331 ppm
1944 15.1°C 309 ppm
1850 14.6°C 281 ppm
1700 14.0°C 280 ppm
900 16.0°C 280 ppm
Please pick the ideal global average temperature and CO2 level we should set as our “longer term objective”.
Thanks.
Max
Hi Max #9756
Let’s leave aside the highly dubious CO2 figures- I am still inclined to believe the genuinely talented Nobel winners who measured CO2 in the 19th Century than AL Gore and the rest of the IPCC crew-and look at the global temperatures.
Let us give ourselvesa once again a reality check on Global temperatures and note that they are;
A) A Nonsensical artefact in the first place
B) Hotly disputed
C) Start from the last two dips in the LIA (1850 and 1880)A measurement from immediately before or after these dates would show a different picture.
Sorry to repost this, but this chart below shows the actual gentle rise over the last 350 years looking at proper records. As I don’t like the concept of ‘global temperatures I tend to use national temperature data sets-the older the better. The Dutch ones go back (sporadically) about as far as CET. (Hubert Lamb –first director of CRU-stated that CET was a very good indicator for ‘global’ temperatures.)
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to try and smooth out the short term temperature trends that will make someone in their 30’s today say-‘it’s got warmer in my lifetime’- a point which their great grandparents might disagree with, having lived through the 1920’s and 30’s
Consequently I decided to see what temperature a person living a three score year and ten life span in England would experience (using CET to 1660)
This table is based on the average annual mean temperature enjoyed by the ‘British Everyman’ through each year of each decade. This assumed he was born at the start of a decade and died the last year of the decade seventy years later. These are the calculations;
Someone born in Britain in 1660 and living to 70- Average annual temp 8.87c
Someone born in 1670 and living to 70 Average annual temp 8.98
1680 9.01
1690 9.05
1700 9.19
1710 9.21
1720 9.17
1730 9.14
1740 9.04
1750 9.03
1760 9.08
1770 9.10
1780 9.07
1790 9.12
1800 9.15
1810 9.13
1820 9.14
1830 9.12
1840 9.10
1850 9.14 (Start of the famously reliable Hadley global temperatures)
1860 9.17
1870 9.21
1880 9.30 Official end of the Little Ice Age-Start of GISS
1890 9.39
1900 9.40
1910 9.46
1920 9.497
1930 9.60
1940 9.70 (projected to 2009)
1950 9.76 Extrapolating current trends (our favourite phrase)
1960 9.79 Using advanced modelling techniques to create a robust scenario.
I called the people born in the period from 1660 to 1880 ‘LIA Everyman’ in as much the person lived part or all of their lives during the little ice age. Those born born from 1890 to the present day I have termed ‘UHI Everyman’ for obvious reasons. No adjustments have been made to correct UHI, poor siting, change of instruments etc.
The depths of the LIA can be clearly seen, but what I find interesting is that temperatures have risen only some 0.6 degree C since the warmest period of the LIA, which does not suggest a runaway climate change scenario to me.
(The slightly cooler average temperatures in the LIA are primarily due to colder winters – summers were pretty similar)
Of course, were it possible, it would be most interesting to extrapolate this back to the MWP (your 900AD figure)and Roman optimums, as it would put today’s very modest rises into a proper perspective.
tonyb
PeterM (# 9751):
First a reminder. My request was that you “refer us to empirical evidence that (a) man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of late 20th century warming; and (b) [assuming you could provide (a)] that further such emissions will cause dangerous climate change”. In other words, I requested that you show us that the hypothesis has been verified by standard scientific practice.
Yet you tell us that, for the dangerous AGW hypothesis, standard scientific practice amounts to a barrier that is “impossibly high”. That says it all. The barrier – easily overcome when verifying, say, the link between smoking and cancer (to take one of myriads of examples) – is too high for AGW. The reality, of course, is that there is no such evidence, despite the billions that have been spent trying to establish it. There’s no reference to it in IPCC AR4 chapter 9. Nor is there anywhere else.
So, unable to meet the requirement needed to verify a hypothesis, the dangerous AGW hypothesis continues to be no more than that – an interesting hypothesis. And, like for example the believers in creationism, its proponents have to resort to pseudoscience.
(In case you don’t understand, pseudoscience is defined as “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method”.)
TonyB:
I suggest that this illustrates your point (# 9757) quite nicely.
PeterM: I daresay you may not be happy at my comment (#9758) that the proponents of dangerous AGW are resorting to pseudoscience. So perhaps I could help you by going back to one of the fundamentals.
How did the IPCC come to its conclusion that it is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s GHG emissions?
Well, the answer is in IPCC AR4 WG1, chapter 9. What it did was take several models that, in reality, were unable to simulate some known (but poorly understood) patterns of natural climatic behaviour (such as ENSO and the PDO) and assert that, nonetheless, they did replicate natural variability. Then, by showing that these models did not replicate empirically established global warming that had occurred at the end of the last century, they claimed that “forcing” must be necessary to explain the warming and simply asserted that that forcing must have been man’s GHG emissions.
Peter, please explain how that line of reasoning complies with rigorous scientific good practice and why it is in any way superior to the “reasoning” of creationists.
Incidentally, the fact that, as confirmed by your erstwhile hero Professor Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 (again established by empirical evidence) illustrates how the IPCC’s models did not replicate natural climatic behaviour.
But perhaps you don’t have to worry, Peter: the Goracle has spoken.
Robin #9759
I think the question we ought to be asking ourselves is why the Temperature has ONLY increased by 0.6C since the Litle Ice ages.
Why we should think such a tiny rise demonstrates runaway warming could be a secondary question. A good third one would be what sort of hysteria will there be if we should ever approach MWP or Roman Optimum levels?
Looking at your recent posts I think you are being very unreasonable in asking Peter for real scientific evidence of this extraordinary (but hidden) warming. Surely you should know by now that climate science operates by ‘post normasl’ criteria, not the scientific method?
Tonyb
TonyB (#9762):
To be fair (although why we should be, I don’t know), I don’t think anyone is claiming that runaway warming has yet occurred. The scare (we are told) is that it will if we don’t change our wicked ways.
Pete Re: 9753
I see.
When we (as a species) lower measured CO2 emissions (measured at the caldera of a Hawaiian volcano) then global temperatures will fall (by .6 degrees) to a level equivalent with a date somewhere during the timeline of the Little Ice Age………when the average life expectancy was +/- 40 years.
All droughts, floods, hurricanes, thunderstorms, blizzards, heat waves, cold snaps, windstorms, tornados and various other extreme weather events will cease………got it.
Sounds like a Utopian Paradise replete with lollipop trees, rainbows and fuzzy white unicorns…………
In other words, you have no idea how lower CO2 levels will affect the planet’s weather……I mean “climate”.
Coincidentally Pete, Mrs. Brute and I had dinner last night with a UFO “activist”. After discussing the topic for about 20 minutes I was labeled as a “skeptic” and a UFO “denier”. Tell me Pete, do you believe in hostile green men from outer space also? If so, then you should possibly refocus your efforts to alert the world to the impending threat of alien invasion. The threat from the intergalactic menace would seem to be more immediate than attempting to starve plants and outlaw soda pop gas.
No need to be embarrassed about it though……John Podesta, Chief of Staff to President Clinton and “Science” advisor to Barack Obumbler is also ringing the bell of impending alien invasion. Mr Podesta also happens to be president and CEO of Center for American Progress with Joe Romm’s Climate Progress being an offshoot………(funded by George Soros).
Your expectation that humankind will collectively curtail fossil fuel energy use is rather optimistic. You’d better travel extensively to visit the centers of government in Russia, China, India, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and South America demanding that they immediately cull their exploding population and energy consumption.
Try that and get back to us………let us know how you are received.
Speaking of insanity, I’ve been enlisted by Mrs. Brute (yet again) to “clean” the Brute mansion ahead of the bi-weekly visit tomorrow of our cleaning woman……Do you guys experience this illogical routine also or is this strictly an American female quirk?
Pete,
To jump into your discussion regarding “sound scientific practices”, it seems that the IPCC is questioning the science behind their own proclamations. Your view, that the IPCC “science” is beyond reproach, is the outlier…………outside the “mainstream”……………which would make your position a “denialist position”…………would it not?
Climate Panel to Appoint Committee to Review Its Procedures
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575092090924140342.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Just a suggestion Pete………you should reexamine the motivation behind your self-righteous climate crusade.
Is the impetus for denying humankind the means to elevate their condition, (in particular third world developing countries), a result of altruistic concern………or a selfish desire to force the world’s population to adhere to your bizarre lifestyle preferences?
Only you can answer that question…………however, perception is reality and in this case, the Eco-Evangelists are perceived as being elitist, pontificating, hypocrites (let them eat cake).
Brute
Sadly, I must confess that the “pre-cleaning-lady cleanup” syndrome is not limited to North American wives.
This compulsive disorder has probably reached a psycho-neurotic peak in Switzerland, where frantic housewives rush about with dustmops, etc. just before the official “Putzfrau” (or “femme de ménage”) arrives.
Husbands seem to get less involved in this process in Switzerland than they do in the USA, but what-the-hell, women only got the right to vote thirty years ago, and these processes move slowly.
We once had a small duplex in the south of France, which we rented out to Swiss vacationers during the summer months. We never had to use a cleaning service; we simply asked that the renters leave the place as clean as it was when they arrived. Needless to say, the Swiss housewives wanted to make sure it was even cleaner after their “watch”, so we got expert cleaning service after each rental.
We later made the mistake of renting it out to some French families and the spell was broken.
(For Tony’s sake) this was all before the end of the Soviet Union and the beginning of the AGW craze; Europeans were still demonstrating against Pershing missiles and praying for warmer weather, oblivious to the impending disaster from AGW.
Max
Brute #9764
No, Mrs Brute is not exhibiting a strictly American quirk. She is simply applying the Precautionary Principle. The day she tells you to tidy up because of the imminent arrival of aliens (or of Mr Podesta) then you should start worrying.
Robin (9761)
Al Gore still suffers from the “Christmas turkey” (or “Strasbourg goose”) syndrome.
But, after all, he has to defend his Nobel Peace Prize.
I really liked Gore’s reference to:
The best line was when Gore put on his “savior of the planet” mantle with:
Human redemption? Beak out the shovels!
Max
Max/Geoff,
Whew……..I thought it was just me.
Yep, women are cool……
Our cleaning woman is an immigrant from Latvia, (or Lithuania, I can’t remember which), and is built like a Soviet/East German Female Olympic Weight Lifter……Darling soul.
By the way, she thinks AGW is a load of bunk also……..(I don’t contest anything she says).
In contrast, Mrs. Brute dresses out at 104 pounds soaking wet. What a pair they make.
Better that I’m not here when she cleans as I’ve witnessed her whirlwind cleaning onslaught on occasion…….bashing the vacuum cleaner into my furniture creating dents and scuff marks on the delicate woodwork.
I’ve now been admonished for failing to wash the dishes before placing them in the automatic dishwasher…….another curious aspect of feminine logic……next we’re going to the super market together……ought to be interesting.
Maybe Mrs. Brute and I could launch one of those reality TV shows.
I’m curious as to the breakdown of AGW “believers” vs. “skeptics” between the sexes. Women seem to be (in my mind) less susceptible to specious logic and indoctrination………being the more wily……less gullible and (in general) able to spot when they are being defrauded/cheated.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of women didn’t buy the global warming ruse.
A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
Guys,
Check out my new snow-thrower machine. Due to the massive amounts of global warming that have wreaked havoc this season, I decided that the lawn mower engine powered snow machines just didn’t get it. Yankee ingenuity at it’s finest!
454 cubic inch big block Chevrolet V8 produces 412 horsepower
Electric start, electric block heater, antifreeze heater and eight cylinders, it has no drive belts to freeze up and you’ll never get bored with the job as the 454 cubic inch big block Chevrolet V8 produces 412 horsepower, 430 foot pounds of torque and can throw snow 50 feet at just 3500 rpm.
Nor will you get cold as the machine has been ingeniously designed to route the engine coolant through the handle bars, with the rear mounted, enclosed radiator keeping the operator nice and cozy.
Maneuvering the massive beast (it has a total wet weight of 912 lbs) is a breeze thanks to the hydraulic-drive 4WD skid steer on independent walking beams which offers a zero turning radius. It’s also as fast as you like, with an infinitely adjustable speed range on the drive wheels via dash mounted flow control. At the opposite end of the scale, it has more than enough torque to pull your car out of the ditch before the hydraulic motors stall!
Adding to the well-balanced feel of the unit, just 15 pounds of down force on the handlebars will lift the auger blade off the ground in order to climb stairs/walkways for ease of snow removal. Safety has and continues to be paramount with spring return to center “fail safe” type directional controls with emergency stop and tether cords.
Safety is one of the key themes, with a flashing blue light (as required by law in many areas) being the least of the safety features. No-one will fail to hear you with those twin throaty exhausts, which come standard with 92 decibels at the controls, though if the rumble of a V8 exhaust is music to your ears, you can obviously go much louder. Even at the standard baffling, hearing protection is strongly suggested.
The powerful yard machine lights and a dashboard with backlit gauges complete the package to ease the burden of this normally reviled task. The custom 42 inch, two stage auger has a Chevrolet 10 bolt truck differential with spool and a centrifugal auger clutch with shear pin protection, further adding to the image of this “automotive theme blower.” As each unit is custom-built, optional extras for the snow blower are both diverse and outrageous as the base unit – there are unlimited auger choices from single to multi stage designs and various motor combinations to suit the religious preferences of the customer (Chevy, Dodge Hemi, Ford) and such exotica as a V-10 or a diesel engine or remote starting can be accommodated. And if, after a while, you feel you’ve outgrown the 400 horses, this particular engine is well catered for in the performance modification area, with Lunati camshaft, Milodon Gear drive, Holley and Edelbrock components to name a few, and there’s always the fuel injection option too, if you feel you need to throw the snow out of the county or ensure your seat in the “neighborhood blower hall of fame.”
Brute
Nice snow machine you’ve got there.
But for Peter’s sake, I thought I’d figure out the carbon footprint and temperature impact this behemoth is going to have on our already shaky planet’s climate.
The V8 engine produces 412 horsepower.
You get 12 hp-hours per gallon of gasoline on average.
Say you run the machine for 100 hours/year (now that AGW has caused increased snowfall and assuming you’ll also help out your neighbors), and say you use it for the next 20 years.
That makes 41,200 hp-hours per year and you will have used 3,433 gallons of gasoline per year.
This generates 20 lbs CO2 per gallon = 68,667 lbs or 31.2 metric tons CO2 per year.
Over the 20-year lifetime that equals 623 metric tons of CO2!
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 billion metric tons, so your CO2 generator will increase the CO2 concentration by 0.000000623 ppm (mass) or 0.000000427 ppmv.
Using the GH theory and IPCC’s high estimate of 3.2°C temperature rise for 2xCO2, we get:
C1 (concentration before Brute’s machine) = 390 ppmv
C2 (concentration including Brute’s machine) = 390.000000427 ppmv
ln(C2/C1) = 0.000000001095
ln(2) = 0.6931
dT (2xCO2) = 3.2°C
dT (Brute’s machine) = 3.2*0.000000001095/0.6931 = 0.0000000051°C = 0.000000009°F
Now let’s assume every fifth resident of the US East Coast north of Richmond, VA had a Brute machine. That’s about 13.6 million machines.
If they all run 100 hours per year, that would increase the temperature in 20 years by:
0.0000000051*13,600,000 = 0.065°C.
This may be alarming to Peter, but unfortunately, that’s not enough to melt all that snow.
Max
According to the BBC, England has just had its coldest winter in 31 years whilst Scotland and Northern Ireland has had their coldest since 1962/63, which in itself is the third coldest in the entire 350 year CET record.
This table was from Max;
2008 15.3°C 386 ppm
1998 15.5°C 366 ppm
1976 14.8°C 331 ppm
1944 15.1°C 309 ppm
1850 14.6°C 281 ppm
1700 14.0°C 280 ppm
900 16.0°C 280 ppm
So it looks as if natural variabilty can counter 50 ppm CO2 increase since the late 1970’s for England whilst natural variability in Scotland is able to counter an even more impressive 65 ppm increase since 1962/3.
So either natural variability is much greater than had previously been admitted, or perhaps Co2 is not as powerful a climate driver as is believed?
Looking at the huge variations in temperature throughout the CET record with temperatures as warm as today despite CO2 at only 280ppm, perhaps we need to re evaluate the relative potency of CO2?
(Yes I do know the difference between climate and weather, but the coldest winter for nearly 50 years-how can that be?)
Brute-besides your snow machine efforts I look a positive green disciple of Al Gore. :)
Tonyb
Last year I wrote an article that described the politics behind AGW and the push for Global governance. The subject is still live despite Copenhagen. This is a good detailed summary of what is proposed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html
Tonyb
Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Head of ‘Climategate’ research unit admits he hid data – because it was ‘standard practice’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tells-MPs.html