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.
Brute,
Oil from shale is an environmental disaster. Its wasteful too, you’d be better off using the natural gas to fuel cars directly, rather than using it to ‘melt out’ oil from shale.
I’ve no problem with nuclear power. The cities of the future will be all electric, and they will very clean too. Electric trains, electric trams, electric cars (plug -in Hybrids probably). Forget burning oil and coal. Much too messy. It will still be used for making plastics etc.
Pete,
Golly you have a warped political view. I DON’T WANT TO LIVE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF WHERE I WORK. Crime, high taxes, lack of services, congestion, the cost of housing…….We have a much nicer home in the countryside 35 miles from downtown. Right now I’m sitting on our back porch, enjoying the flora and fauna……much more preferable to honking horns, the constant din of road noise and screeching tires. I can leave my home and car unlocked without fear of theft.
We carpool to work, Mrs. Brute and I. Takes +/-one hour. We pay for the gasoline, (and the taxes that are tacked on).
I sense that you now advocate that people should be REQUIRED to live a set maximum distance from where they work?
You seem to be capable of prescribing what is best for everyone…..that legislatures should determine how we should conduct our lives…..where we live, what we drive, what we eat, what news sources we shall be permitted to be exposed to, energy we shall be permitted to us…..how Authoritarian.
Do you hear yourself? Do you understand the consequences of placing that much power in the hands of the government? Would you rather live in a society that micromanages your life or a free society that allows you to make decisions for yourself?
If you’d prefer the former than you may want to consider relocating to Communist China or Cuba…… trouble is, if you disagree with ANYTHING the government does there they’ll simply kill you. I’ve noticed in the last several months of “blogging” that there haven’t been any contributors from these countries on any sites…..why is that?
I’ve never been to Australia….I thought that the society was based on individual liberties and freedom from government oppression……but reading your comments, one would think that you have been tutored in the former Soviet Block or one of Chairman Mao’s indoctrination centers.
Bob,
Is that the way things are “Down Under”? The government regulates and controls all aspects of society? Sounds very Orwellian……no thanks.
Via Icecap…..
Sep 07, 2008
UK’s Met Office Blows Another Summer Forecast
By Steven Goddard on Watts Up With That
A Chronology of UK Met Office press releases
The UK Met office is the official UK meteorological agency and is one of the leading promoters of the idea of climate change. Their web site is in fact titled “Met Office: Weather and climate change.”
In 2007, they made several notable predictions, starting with this one on Jan 4. “2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.”
On April 11, 2007 they issued this press release stating “there is a high probability that summer temperature will exceed the 1971-2000 long-term average of 14.1C. there are no indications of an increased risk of a particularly dry or particularly wet summer.” This was interpreted by The Guardian as “Britain set to enjoy another sizzling summer.”
On August 31 The Met announced that summer 2007 was the wettest on record with “normal temperatures,” though his description did not adequately describe the miserable summer – because high temperatures and sunshine were well below normal.
On August 10, The Met Office proudly announced new climate models which included modeling of “the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun?s output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions.” The same press release forecast that “2014 is likely to be 0.3C warmer than 2004.”
Turns out that global temperatures in 2007 dropped nearly 0.8 degrees according to satellite data, one of the sharpest drops on record. In order to hit The Met’s 2014 prediction, there will have to be a large increase over the next few years. So how is The Met doing in 2008 with the new models?
On April 3, 2008 the Met made their annual UK summer forecast – “The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’, according to long-range forecasts issued today. Summer temperatures across the UK are more likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or above average for the three months of summer.”
On August 29, 2008 The Met reported that the summer of 2008 was “one of the wettest on record across the UK.” Here is how the Independent described the UK summer – “It has been a miserable summer for bugs as well as people. The combined effect of low temperatures and rain has presented Britain’s invertebrates with a double whammy.”
Read full post and comments here.
Icecap Note: That is what happens when you combine politics and science. A similar bias has developed at NASA and NOAA in their press releases and even data manipulation. Thankfully we have the remote sensing satellites and independent groups that are interpreting their data.
Also via Icecap….
Sep 05, 2008
Rare Late Winter Snowfall in Southern Brazil
Alexandre Aguiar, MetSul Weather Center
This day will go in our climatic history of the southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul as one of the coldest ever witnessed in September. It was an amazing day. Temperatures below 5 degrees Celsius during afternoon hours are quite rare even in the coldest months of calendar from June to August, but today temperature dropped to 2 degrees in several cities after midday with the lows occurring during the afternoon. What began in the morning as granular snow and sleet quickly became moderate to heavy snow in the afternoon. The city of Pinheiro Machado (450 meters) never could expect to be whitened, despite the snow forecast from MetSul Weather Center, the only public or private weather institution in Brazil to warn on the snow.
See larger image here.
People could not believe the scenes of cars covered by ice and the fields whitened just after three days the region experienced a warm spell that brought highs over 30 degrees Celsius. MetSul surveyed 14 cities with observations of sleet, granular snow and snow. In the cities of Pinheiro Machado, Piratini and Cangu?u the snow accumulated in the ground. Snow events in these areas are rare due to the lower altitudes compared to the mountains of 1.000 to 1.800 meters further north in Southern Brazil, but this time nature gifted the people of Southern Rio Grande do Sul. If snow is rare, to get accumulation is astonishing. It was the most impressive snow event in some areas since the 80?s. Pinheiro Machado was the city to get more snow in this historic day.
Snow mixed with rain was also observed in Northern Uruguay. In the southern areas of Rio Grande do Sul, temperature dropped in the afternoon to 2,5?C in Bag?, 2,7?C in Santana do Livramento, 2,2?C in Cangu?u and 3,1?C em Ca?apava do Sul. MetSul’s chief meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart notes that it was for sure one of the coldest ever recorded afternoons in September in a century. Hackbart explained that the synoptic pattern that favored this Friday snowfall in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) was very similar to the one that produced the first snow in Buenos Aires since 1918 last year. The region was covered by a very cold air mass and a low pressure system advanced from North Argentina, bringing rain that converted to snow under the influence of the frigid polar air.
Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart, a long time declared skeptic on manmade global warming, observed that extreme cold or snowfall events tend to occur during winter with negative PDO, solar minimums and La Nina. The most important snow events in Southern Brazil during the last 50 years, according to him, occurred at or around the 11-year cycle solar minimum. “Of course, it snow in year of heightened solar activity and El Nino, but history tells the most impressive episodes took place in winters either with La Nina or negative PDO in the Pacific or during periods of lowered solar activity”, he says. MetSul’s meteorologist also notes that the return of the colder winters and the major snow events to the area of the Southern Cone of South America may be the result of the ongoing cooling trends observed in the planet this decade. “This is no coincidence”, he says.
See larger image here. See full story and many more photos here.
Hi Peter,
You seem to have a problem with the USA recovering the trillions of barrels of oil in its oil shale deposits. I say more power to them! It will certainly put an end to “peak oil hysteria” and help the US trade balance.
You wrote: “Oil from shale is an environmental disaster. Its wasteful too, you’d be better off using the natural gas to fuel cars directly, rather than using it to ‘melt out’ oil from shale.”
Oil from shale is only “an environmental disaster” if you employ the old (and more costly) mine and surface retort process. Shell plans to use the less costly and environmentally more sound in situ recovery process. Read the study for details. It will clear up your confusion on this.
Whether it is “wasteful” is a pure matter of economics. Shell has been around a while. They are not going to invest heavily in a process that uses as much natural gas to recover oil from shale as there is motor fuel equivalent in the recovered oil. Trust me, Peter, these guys are not idiots, so your statement “you’d be better off using the natural gas to fuel cars directly, rather than using it to ‘melt out’ oil from shale” is, by definition, incorrect.
Now to fuel taxes. I think the US (or Swiss/NZ) system of essentially regarding these as a “user tax” makes very good sense. Outback roads do not have to be built from gasoline burned on the outback roads, but the fuel tax pool covers all federal and state roads. Motorists may grumble, but they know their tax money is going to be spent for giving them better roads.
No need for money-hungry politicians to inflate these fuel taxes so that they can dip into the fuel tax pool for other pet projects on their political agendas. This would really cause motorists to grumble!
Public transportation systems are another issue entirely. Switzerland had a referendum a few years back on extending and modernizing its train system, both as public transportation and to piggyback goods transport across the country. It passed a vote by the people and the improvements / extensions have already partially been installed. Had nothing to do with the fuel tax.
Why should motorists who have to commute a long way to their jobs in those regions where there is no good public transport system be penalized to help subsidize improvements in those areas where there is a good public transport system? Why should trucking companies be penalized to help subsidize the railroads?
The system works OK as it is, Peter. No need to “fix” it (or screw it up completely as many European countries have done).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Back again on your comparison between Mexico City and Hong Kong or Singapore.
Have lived in Hong Kong for 3 years and visited Singapore many times for extended visits. Have only been to Mexico City a few times as a visitor.
In my opinion, Hong Kong (a fairly wealthy and very densely populated metropolis) has the best public transportation system, consisting of a modern underground metro system, ferries, trams, buses and taxicabs. It has a population of 7.2 million. Air pollution is not caused by motor vehicle smog (taxis have been switched from diesel to LPG), but there is coal smog pollution from power generation plants and from mainland China, on dry days when the wind is from the north.
Singapore’s system is almost as good as far as metro coverage is concerned. It is smaller than Hong Kong at only 4.4 million, but also very wealthy and densely populated. I did not notice much air pollution when I was there.
My experience in Mexico City was less positive. Unlike both HK and S’pore, which lie on the coast and are surrounded by water, MC lies in a landlocked dry basin at relatively high altitude (2200m), surrounded by mountains. Greater MC has a population of 23 million. Air pollution is horrible. MC has a natural temperature inversion problem that holds the smog in the basin. Some is caused by motor vehicles, but there is also irritant dust from the city dumps being blown around. It is worse in the dry season. Traffic congestion is a mess. There is a metro system, but its coverage is not nearly as extensive as that of HK. The country is not nearly as wealthy as either HK or S’pore.
You asked me the question, “Who has the right approach? I would say Hong Kong and Singapore. Would you say Mexico City?”
I would say for choosing a site for a very large city, both HK and S’pore had a much better approach (i.e. the Brits) than MC (i.e. the Aztecs and later Spaniards). But you have to live with what you have, I guess.
23 million people inside a dry, high altitude basin where there are many dry months with no rain is hard to compare with 4.4 or 7.2 million along the coast, surrounded by water, where there are frequent showers all year long.
So for population control the good citizens (and governments) of HK and S’pore have also had a better approach than MC.
Putting in metro systems costs money, so relatively wealthy mega-cities with a high level of capitalistic enterprises like HK and S’pore have been able to do much better that relatively poor cities like MC. The Chinese who dominate both HK and (to a lesser extent) S’pore, are known to be hard workers and this is how they have built up their wealth. Mainland China has wisely left the HK capitalistic system in place and the benevolent but autocratic rulers of S’pore have encouraged the same, staying away from socialistic experiments. There is some corruption in both places, but it is minimal as compared to MC, where people are not necessarily famous for their work ethic. So I do not know how much of this really has to do with “approach”, but I think MC has had a harder time putting in a metro system to service a sprawling population of 23 million than either HK or S’pore with their much smaller and denser populations.
Limiting the number of private motor vehicles by high import taxes, registration fees, etc. makes sense in densely populated mega-cities as long as you have provided your citizens with a good public transportation system and both HK and S’pore have done this well, while MC (partially for the reasons I mentioned) has not.
So, all in all, I believe HK and S’pore have had the better approach.
Does this answer your question?
Regards,
Max
Robin,
Yes I do disagree with Dr Akasofu. I disagree with his vague approach to the topic for a start. He claims that there is some unknown factor, which may or may not be the sun, which caused the early 20th century natural warming and needs to be deducted from what is considered to be a late 20th century AGW.
But, of course, if the cause of the two warming periods is quite different then no deduction needs to be made.
Dr A presents no evidence to show that the late 20th century warming has not been accounted for correctly or how it may be linked to earlier warming periods. Rather he just ‘waffles’, as Max would put it, making vague speculations that it may be in some mysterious way.
Brute,
Are you OK? You’ve not been bitten recently by any stray dogs with foaming mouths? I point out that it is possible to get to work, by foot, bike, train , bus, or tram as probably most people in the world do, and suddenly you are ranting on about Cuba, Chairman Mao and Stalinist Russia.
Maybe it’s all just from worrying about the price of fuel, or sitting in gridlock traffic for too long? You probably just need to chill out for a while and you’ll feel better soon.
TonyN,
I’m sorry if you think we have drifted off topic recently.
But, I have think I have finally made up mind on the cause of climate scepticitis. I’m not sure that there is much point discussing climate science itself any further. I’m sure we have said it all. In any case, that is merely attacking the symptoms rather than the root cause of the condition itself. I’ve suspected for a while that there is a strong link between this and an unrealistic attachment to the concept of unrestrained free-market capitalism and the notion that it can be relied upon to be a cure all for all human problems. I’d say that it was an indication of extreme right wing thought, but a kinder term might be ‘libertarian’.
In that sense, it is necessary to directly counter this line of thought.
I had a butchers over at Gristmill, and found that that popular pillock Joseph Romm, has blessed us with another load of codswallop, entitled “The tip of the iceberg“ (1:45 pm Sep5). Already there are 69 responses as of a short while ago, some of which are very interesting and relevant to this blog here. (Ice melt, sea level, Shale oil feasibility, ANWR, Palin, wolf culling to stop the rapid Caribou calf-loss, Al Qaeda etc) Brute and Max may be particularly interested in the posts from Saluki.
Unfortunately, when I composed the following response, I found that I got unwelcome messages, stopping me. So, I’ll post it here while I meanwhile check the problem out, or change my ID
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our reverend on this topic enlightened us within his opening lines:-
Laudations Jo’ for this wonderful “good news”; it is certainly a huge improvement over recent reports that sea level rise (SLR) has been flat to negative in the last few years! (and rather slight before that…. The ACTUAL DATA I mean).
However, we all know that actual data is not necessarily a true indication of the properly modelled events, either past or future. For instance, just as Armageddon did not happen in the year 2000, as wrongly predicted by many rapturous Christians, this does not mean that it will not happen! I reckon 2100 has a good feel to it; like a mystic eventuality! In numerology, it should be noted that 21 is a magic multiple of 7 x 3, and making that product centennial is particularly powerful. Is everyone happy going with 2100?
If only I and Hansen et al, could be here to say: “told you so!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the link for the above does not appear in the following post, You could Google the title above + Gristmill
Re my 1484
The link is:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/5/81346/60150
Brute, 1477, you wrote in a footnote to me, in probable amazement of Pete’s somewhat non-mainstream opinions:
Since you ask, my quick broad answer is NO, NIET, NEIN, NON, NOPE, NEGATIVO, etc!
My opinion holds that in terms of personal freedoms, OZ is way-up tops. However, it is not a free-for-all. For instance gun ownership is rarely allowed and is generally CRIMINAL. On the other hand, in line with most of the informed nations, by law, we cannot be murdered “By the State” regardless of the savagery of the “proved” criminality. (Or even if posthumously the State-murdered is subsequently proved to be innocent.)
I personally, resent (and suffer) some of the lack of controls and hypocrisy, in the USA, but had better abbreviate this right here and now.
Just a quick translation of “I had a butchers over at …..” , There are lots of Brit TV programs shown over here in Australia, and I think it’s fair to say that most Aussies still regard the old Dart (England) as their long lost European home, and have a fair understanding of the UK vernacular.
Anyway: Butchers > Butchers Hook > Look
Further my 1484,
Although the year 2100 seems to be a very strong omen, particularly WRT the numerology of 7 x 3 x 100, perhaps I should caution any absolute optimism of the great rapture to be precisely then, given that such previous sound forecasts have variously and surprisingly, not eventuated in the past. (Despite good modelling)
A potential risk to the apparent strong certainty of 2100, that I see here is;…. that Christian theologians are generally of the view that Jesus was not born at the cusp of “the year zero“, but some four years later. Thus, although the numerology aspects seem convincingly powerful for 2100, it may be that our surviving issue may be deprived another four years, until 2104. Pazienzia must they have! ‘twill come for them! (‘tis just another minor model adjustment)
I just thought I’d amuse myself by listing all the other rhyming slang that I know. Most of this would be generally well understood in Australia too.
porkies > pork pies > lies eg I’ve heard all those porkies before.
apples> apples and pears > stairs
Bristols > Bristol Cities (English football club) > titties (or breasts) eg She’s got a nice pair of Bristols
dog > dog and bone > telephone
china > china plate > mate (friend) eg My old China
pen > pen and ink > stink
pony > pony and trap > crap eg Don’t give me all that pony.
Septic or Seppo = septic tank = Yank (i.e. an American)
D’Oyly = D’Oyly Carte (an opera company) = Fart eg That’s a real pen (and ink). Who’s D’Olyed?
trouble = trouble and strife = wife eg your trouble’s on the dog (and bone)!
pegs > legs
boat > boat race > face eg She’s got nice pegs. Shame about the boat!
plates > plates of meat > feet
brown bread > dead
Swiss > Swiss Banker > wanker (sorry Max !)
tea leaf > thief
halfinch > pinch (or steal)
Brahms > Brahms and Lizst > Pissed (drunk)
Alright Pete, summarize your case. We’ve had 8 1/2 months of this…..bring it to a close. Every single indication of manmade global warming that you’ve brought to the table has been thoroughly debunked. When confronted with hard cold facts you evade the question and change the topic. As I wrote previously; back in December of 2007 I was on the fence regarding this subject.
We’ve had 8 months of discussion and I have concluded that man-made global warming is media created hysteria in an effort to advance a political ideology. Tell me where I’m wrong.
None of this matters, as the world will end on Monday.
JZ,
Re: 1491
Damn, and we just had our bathroom remodeled…..
And I was really looking forward to the Chargers-Broncos game on Sunday…
Via Planet Gore……
Wind Energy’s Footprint (Think Concrete Galoshes) [Drew Thornley]
It is increasingly a standard assumption that America can potentially get 20 percent of its energy needs from wind. Just in a state like Texas — one of its most viable locations — what would that look like?
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas projects a total of 374,740,989 MWh of energy in the ERCOT region in 2018. A fifth of this is 74,948,198 MWh. Assuming an average capacity factor of 30 percent for every 1.5-MW turbine, just over 28,519 MW of wind capacity is needed (Texas’ current wind capacity is 5,553.1 MW.). That’s almost 19,013 1.5-MW turbines.
With regard to the amount of land required: FPL Energy (the nation’s Number One wind-energy developer) says 40 acres are needed for every MW of generating capacity, on average. National Wind Watch says the number is 50 acres. Let’s split the difference and say 45 acres.
More quick math: 28,519 (MW) x 45 (acres) = 1,283,355 acres. That’s over 2,005 square miles. (Flashback: Environment Texas says 30-mile-by-30-mile solar plants in west Texas will power the entire state.) This is how much space will required for ERCOT to get 20 percent of its energy needs from wind energy in 2018.
Oh. And, since each turbine base uses 439 tons of concrete: 8,346,707 tons of concrete.
If, for some reason, the end of the world does NOT occur on Wednesday (see my post 1491 above), the whole problem of AGW, assuming the theory is true, can very easily be resolved without worrying at all about CO2 output, lifestyle changes, or wealth re-distribution.
Brute,
You say that “When confronted with hard cold facts you evade the question and change the topic.”
I always answer questions as best I can unless they are so loaded as to make them unanswerable. The problem for you guys is that you don’t have any hard facts, and don’t even like them, preferring instead the sort of clap-trap that gets posted up on contrarian websites.
For instance, as I pointed out to you recently, you are happy to quote what one of these sites says the NSIDC says is happening in the Arctic, but you can’t bring yourself to look at the NSIDC website to check what they are saying themselves.
Then another contrarian website, as if they were playing Chinese whispers, will report what the first one has said and add its own distortions. Its just laughable.
If you want facts, you need to go directly to scientific sources. If you want to ask a question make it straight and unloaded.
Hi JZSmith,
Enjoyed the blurb on “cloud ships”.
Looks like Al Gore is getting some competition, that may make his carbon trading company and scheme redundant. He’ll still have his Oscar and his Nobel Peace Prize, but gone are the multi-megabucks he was already savoring in anticipation.
First we’ve got T. Boone Pickens with his wind-farms to free up natural gas as motor fuel, but also saying “drill, drill, drill!”
Now there’s John Latham, with his ”fleet of 1500 wind-powered ships that cruise the oceans autonomously, spraying massive plumes of salt water into the air”, thereby reversing “the effects of global warming within years”. Poof!
But if Al’s really in it to “save the planet” (rather than just to turn a fast megabuck) he could take over command of the fleet of wind-powered ships. Maybe the UN could promote him to the rank of Admiral.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
To your 1491 and the end of the world, I am happy that I have seen no reports of man-made black holes swallowing up entire cities as yet and doomsday is almost over.
In July 1945, when the first atomic bomb was tested at Alamagordo, NM, there were some similar “end of the world” fears.
According to Wikipedia, “The observers set up betting pools on the results of the test. Predictions ranged from zero, a complete dud, to 18 kilotons of TNT (predicted by physicist I.I. Rabi, who won the bet), to destruction of the state of New Mexico, to ignition of the atmosphere and incineration of the entire planet (this last result had been calculated to be almost impossible, although for a while it caused some of the scientists some anxiety).”
Since the media (a) hardly existed at the time and (b) was kept out of the loop prior to the test for security reasons, and since there were no environmental activist groups at the time, the public could not be led into mass hysteria as is being done today.
And, after the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the much greater horror of WWII came to an abrupt end at least 6 months early, with 500,000 to 1,000,000 Allied troops plus three times that many Japanese troops and civilians (for a total of 3 to 4 million people) saved.
And, hey, even Al Gore should be happy. The nuclear technology, which was pioneered at Alamagordo in July 1945, can now “save our planet” from AGW. But that’s not what he really wants (he wants carbon cap and trade schemes, that will make him even wealthier than he already is, today).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You chided Brute (1496), “you are happy to quote what one of these sites says the NSIDC says is happening in the Arctic, but you can’t bring yourself to look at the NSIDC website to check what they are saying themselves.”
Now, Peter, this is exactly what I have observed that you do, as well.
Rather than downloading the raw NSIDC directly and seeing for yourself what is going on you rely on press-release rehashes of the data, as you have also done for weather/temperature data from the Hadley Met Office.
I believe that it is always better to go back to the raw data than to be confused by someone’s rehash, particularly if that “someone” is trying to sell a message.
Regards,
Max
Alright Pete, summarize your case. I have concluded that man-made global warming is media created hysteria in an effort to advance a political ideology. Tell me where I’m wrong.
Ahhh……. and the global temperature still drops as CO2 rises.
UAH Global Temperature dips in August
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/uah-global-temperature-dips-in-august/