THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max
Not really that hard, just consider the effect of temperature down there on men. I would expand but TonyN would quite rightly snip :)
(sorry, just couldn’t resist the cheap innuendos)
Max,
Its interesting you should say “the worst possible outcome would be that their findings are ‘blindly swallowed’ and subsequent actions are taken that destroy the already fragile world economy even though they are substantially incorrect.”
The cost of WW2, at the time, was enormous. The worst of the Depression was over by the late 1930’s and with signs of a delicate recovery getting underway. According to your argument, the war should have destroyed a ‘fragile’ world economy. Of course, many things were destroyed during the war but the world economy wasn’t. In fact, it emerged stronger than ever, bringing unprecedented growth and prosperity for 30 years or more afterwards.
Moving away from fossil fuels will bring a host of additional benefits including: Less particulate pollution, leading to much cleaner and healthier cities, and energy security. It will create a whole new economy in itself and will have to happen sooner or later anyway.
I’m not sure that the cost of fixing the CO2 problem can be compared with a war, but even if that is the case, the risks of getting it wrong are much higher by doing nothing than by doing something.
Looks like the Institute of Physics (UK) is launching a “Climategate” enquiry.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978080296
Max
PeterM
I agree that reducing the dependence on imported petroleum will be a boon for the industrialized world, whether this comes from increased use of domestic coal, nuclear power, domestic natural gas, domestic oil including oil shale, competitive renewable sources, etc.
Reducing human atmospheric CO2 emissions per se will not have much of an effect on anything, as has been pointed out here previously.
Implementing a (direct or indirect) carbon tax will have zero effect on our climate, but a major negative effect on our economy.
War itself does not have any positive effects (except for those who fear overpopulation).
So you see that I totally disagree with your last sentence:
Max
I’d think that world would be a much different place had not World War II been fought……. particularly Western Europe, China and Southeast Asia.
Britain and Australia would look much differently also………..
I don’t support war, but in many instances it is a necessary evil.
Record rain fills heart of Australia
Pete,
You live in Australia, correct?
I heard on the news tonight that as a result of the rainfall the water reservoirs are filled to their limit. So much for the endless global warming drought………right Mate?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/01/2833393.htm
15-Year-Old Outsmarts U.N. Climate Panel, Predicts End of Australian Drought
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/133123-15-Year-Old-Outsmarts-U-N-Climate-Panel-Predicts-End-of-Australian-Drought
Max,
A by-product of the energy “conservation” movement………It seems that due to widespread decreases in energy consumption, energy related revenues to government (and utilities) are dropping precipitously (as I predicted) prompting local, state and the federal government to suddenly scurry for “creative” new surcharges and surtaxes targeting energy to fund their grotesquely bloated budgets.
Of course, businesses are passing along these costs to consumers in the form of higher prices for essentials (milk/butter/eggs). The average consumer is taking a second hit in the form of higher utility bills as well as higher gasoline/food/services costs, etc.
It’ll be difficult during the next election to justify “green” innovation on the backs of the (increasingly) poor.
Businesses are in turn purging their payrolls to make up the difference compounding the unemployment problem.
I believe that this is what Obama and company are refering to when they coin the term “unsustainable”.
Should be interesting come November……………
PeterM
I should have been more specific when I said I disagreed with your last sentence (9806):
“Doing nothing” long term is never an option, because something will always be done.
Doing the right thing would be to move away from imported petroleum, to continue improvements in energy and fuel efficiency, reduce waste and real pollution, develop new competitive renewable energy sources, etc.
Doing the wrong thing would be to “fixate” on carbon dioxide and implement crippling carbon taxes that will have no impact on our environment whatsoever.
If we do the right things there will be no “risks of getting it wrong”.
Max
Brute
I agree that WWII was a necessary war that changed the world in a positive sense (by ridding the world of the Nazi/Fascist/Japanese Imperial oppression), as was the “Cold War” that followed (by ridding the world of the Communist/Soviet oppression).
But I do not believe that war in itself is positive even though it may be the only (and last) resort for stamping out evil.
So maybe we are saying the same thing.
I also believe that the current “war on carbon” is silly and will achieve nothing positive.
Max
9809
Brute Reur 9809:
“15-Year-Old Outsmarts U.N. Climate Panel, Predicts End of Australian Drought”
Gee, I enjoyed that!
By coincidence I’ve been having lengthy intercourse over at RC about the spurious claim that recent drought in Oz is unprecedented. Here is my recent post to Ray Ladbury (of NASA) to which he has not responded, in typical style, when the questions/facts are too “inconvenient”
The debate has been more rational with one named Sou, and here is my latest to her, which is still sitting in moderation at this time:
Max,
A better way of putting it would be to say that either too little or too much can be done to mitigate AGW. There is more than just a risk of getting it wrong, its absolutely certain that we will! However the risks and consequences are higher by allowing CO2 levels to become too high. Its impossible, just about, for them to ever to be too low.
Brute,
I don’t think there is any real evidence that AGW affects global rainfall, in total, but it may affect rainfall patterns. In Australia the change in pattern, in recent decades, has been for the South and West to receive less rainfall, whereas the Northern parts have been wetter.
The recent rains have mainly been in Queensland, the NE corner of Australia. So, whilst I agree it wouldn’t be scientific to jump to the conclusion that this is all AGW related, it doesn’t provide any evidence that rainfall patterns have suddenly changed back to what they were 30 or 40 years ago either.
Max and Brute,
Saying that “war itself has no positive effects” sounds good and in a way I would agree. But, nevertheless, WW2 did end mass unemployment in western countries and bring about a social revolution in its wake. The thinking at the end of the war was that it should be just as possible to divert the “war effort” into a “peace effort”.
Keynes, in the 1930’s, speculated on the benefits of governments hiring people to dig holes and refill them. See: http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/02/stimulus_keynes.html
Its not a reasonable approach however, but probably much better than hiring workers to shoot and kill each other. Economic growth in the post war period was nevertheless built on socially useless arms spending, you’ll be familiar with the military industrial complex’ See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_war_economy
It would make much better sense, and at the same time stabilise western capitalism, to substitute a program of lowering CO2 emissions for armaments spending.
Max, Reur 9801
Well yes, but that is only one point that made me say:
“I’m speechless”
And for instance, The group’s zoo expert, Frank Albrecht ….. I wonder how much he is remunerated for uttering such profound wisdoms.
Sheez…. Experts!!!!!!!?????
A BBC Today programme report on new Met Office claims that the evidence for AGW is even stronger now than when AR4 was published in 2007 is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8550000/8550997.stm
Tom Fielden manages a remarkably well balanced report and reveals that the man behind the science is Peter Stott. Long-time readers of this thread may remember how he earned the nickname of ‘Dotty Stotty’ as a result of some of his more extravagant claims that he has been able to ‘detected the human fingerprint’ in any unusual weather that happens to be making the headlines.
TonyN #9814
The Met offce is of course so credible and unbiased that I fear they have delivered the knockout blow to us sceptics.
So what do we all do now? Perhaps we can have an annual reunion somewhere congenial where we can talk about the good old days :)
tonyb
1,000 trapped on ferry stuck in Baltic Sea ice
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100304/ap_on_re_eu/eu_baltic_ferries_stuck_5
I thought this paper, although obviously not conclusive, nonetheless interesting. It shows that there is evidence that, at the end of the last interglacial, the Eemian, there were warming events that “could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages”. As it is likely that we are now at the end of the current interglacial, the Holocene, this raises the possibility that we are experiencing another such transitional warming – pending the glaciers’ return.
PeterM
You wrote (9812):
Unfortunately, your supposition raises the old “Goldilocks” question.
What is the “just right Goldilocks optimum” level of atmospheric CO2?
We have seen that combustion all the fossil fuels extant on our planet will not quite result in a level of 1,000 ppmv when they are all gone, some day in the far distant future.
At this level, CO2 represents no hazard to animal life and it is well known that higher CO2 levels than those of today are beneficial for most plants: forests, crops, etc.
So the “just right Goldilocks optimum” atmospheric CO2 is not determined by its impact on plant and animal life on our planet, but rather on its theoretical ability to modify our temperature according to the greenhouse theory.
If we follow this reasoning one step further, we see that the GH theory tells us that increasing CO2 from today’s 390 ppmv to the absolute maximum ever level of 1,000 ppmv will theoretically cause an increase in temperature of 1.3°C.
So that is the “absolute maximum” temperature resulting from AGW. Period.
But what is the “just right Goldilocks optimum” globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature?
This question has been asked before. But let’s revisit it.
Which of the temperatures below (and corresponding atmospheric CO2 levels) would be the “just right Goldilocks optimum” for our planet?
Year – Temp.°C – CO2 ppmv
1000 – 16.0 – 280
1700 – 14.0 – 280
1850 – 14.6 – 285
1910 – 14.4 – 294
1944 – 15.1 – 309
1976 – 14.9 – 331
1998 – 15.5 – 366
2009 – 15.4 – 390
2100 – 15.9 – 560
???? – 16.7 – 1000
Peter, please pick one and give your rationalization why this choice represents the “just right Goldilocks optimum” temperature and CO2 level in your estimation.
Thanks.
Max
PeterM
You refer to the “military-industrial complex” evoked by US President Eisenhower in the post WWII 1950s and then write:
What you are referring to has been described as the “environmental-industrial complex” (or “climate-industrial complex”).
I believe that “lowering CO2 emissions” is another wild goose chase, which makes less sense than substituting a program of reducing dependence on imported petroleum products, improving energy efficiency, developing viable new energy sources, reducing pollution and waste, at the same time helping the poorest underdeveloped nations build up an energy infrastructure to lift themselves out of abject poverty.
If you believe otherwise, please indicate why, so we can debate our reasons.
Max
Max,
Unless you somehow have access to a time machine and therefore know better than anyone else the figure of 15.9degC for 560ppmv of atmospheric CO2 is just wrong.
CO2 is an important GHG. The natural GHE of 33 degC comes about primarily from the IR absorption of CO2 and H20. The notion that CO2 can be safely doubled is just fanciful. There are no reputable scientific references, for you to call on either. Just your half baked notion of how the S-B ralationship works.
An ideal level of CO2? I’d say anything less than about 1980 levels or 340ppmv. Its now about 390 ppmv and rising at ~3ppmv per year. At present the concern would be more about the rate of increase of CO2 levels rather than the amount itself. The first target to set should be a level at which CO2 levels peak. The next target is to set a rate at which they fall from the peak. The third target is the level they are allowed to fall to.
That’s probably about 100 years away so there is no pressing need to decide right now.
Another example of the law of unintended consequences. Is this what you and your Eco-Crusaders had in mind Pete?
EU’s ‘carbon fat cats’ get rich off trading scheme: study
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6a237570be4660439e371341ae8452d5.a41&show_article=1
Deletions at RC & Tamino’s (= Grant Foster’s) blogs.
In my 9792, I wrote in part to Max:
Well I’m still smiling, because Tamino deleted it. So, I went back to RC and simply reminded Ray Ladbury that he, and not even the usual suspects had responded, (no mention of Tamino), whereupon there was a flurry of stuff. Including one from Hank Roberts to the effect: Don’t ask me…. Ask Tamino.
So, I presented a screen copy to Hank of what Tamino had deleted.
It was gone from RC in less than two hours! I’m still smiling and have had another go with a two-liner to Hank
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ALL, a question:
Andrew Montford Emailed to me advising that there is a dedicated site for such deletes, but he was not sure of its name. From there, I found it, namely: rcrejects
Q Has anyone here used or heard of it before?
I’ve posted 6 deletes there so far, (1 in moderation at this time), starting at:
http://rcrejects.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/post-your-rejected-posts-here-3/#comment-451
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TonyN
I’ve suggested to Andrew that he advertise rcrejects, and I think it would be good if you did too. (and others)
Bob,
Good job!
Very clever…….if the comments are RC are deleted just start a “shadow” website/thread that is free and clear of censorship!
There’s more than one way to skin a cat………
See if you can post a link at RC to the rejects site.
The Carbon Con Game
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=5617
PeterM
In your 9820 you failed to answer my question on your choice for the “just right Goldilocks optimum” globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature for our planet.
Apparently you have no idea what the optimum temperature would be and why, which baffles me, since you are so concerned about AGW. Why worry about something theoretically being other than optimal some day in the distant future when you don’t have a clue what “optimal” really is?
You then opined:
I agree that this is a theoretical number, based on the IPCC estimates for equilibrium radiative forcing of CO2 (Myre et al.), assuming that there is no temperature impact from natural forcing factors between now and year 2100, when atmospheric CO2 is assumed to have risen to 560 ppmv.
It does not take into account the current cooling trend after 2000, which is being attributed by Met Office to natural variability (or natural forcing factors), so may be a bit on the high side.
You then informed me:
I think we have gone through the natural greenhouse effect before. As you know, this is primarily due to the effect of water vapor, with a much smaller part due to CO2. For the temperature impact of doubling CO2 I have used the IPCC radiative forcing estimate (see remark above). I have not factored in any fanciful “positive” or “negative feedbacks”. I did not make reference to the “reputable scientific references” of Lindzen + Choi (or Spencer et al.), which would have reduced the estimated warming by 2100 by a few tenths of a degree.
You then gave your personal opinion, without presenting any substantiation or reasoning:
Peter, without any substantiation that is all pretty empty rhetoric. We are now at almost 390 ppmv with no noticeable negative impact on plant or animal life.
It would be downright silly to “set a target level at which CO2 levels should peak” and even sillier “to set a rate at which they fall from the peak”. The silliest of all would be to set a “target level that CO2 levels are allowed to fall to”.
Your statement further raises the question: who is going to set these targets and enforce them and how will this body do this? We are not living in a non-democratic world with one all-powerful, autocratic “big brother” government, where this would be possible, even if it were not so silly.
So forget it, Peter. It’s not going to happen.
I agree with your last phrase, where you state:
Amen.
Max