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.
Let the data speak for itself
Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1C per decade.
Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange
Max,
Your comment that “mitigation will achieve nothing as has been pointed out repeatedly on this site (and never quantitatively refuted by yourself or anyone else).” shows that you feel that the problem is beyond human control.
You are really saying that even if the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is true ( and, yes, I do know that you don’t accept it is, but that’s a different argument) there is nothing that can be done to mitigate it.
True, we shouldn’t underestimate the scale of the problem. It is going to require substantial changes in the way we travel, generate electricity, and look after the forests and oceans of the world. However, many of these changes will have additional benefits. None of the billions, or even trillions, of dollars that may need to be spent will be lost. They don’t disappear from the economy. Unlike, I may add, the $40 trillion of so, that have disappeared from the world’s stock markets in the last few years.
Lets not be too defeatist just yet. Lets not say that the problem is just too unimaginably big for us to face. It does not make any logical sense to extend this line of thinking, by further arguing that therefore the AGW problem cannot possibly exist.
Mankind ‘can’t influence’ climate
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21543358-5001024,00.html
Your point on the overall negative feedback effect of clouds is highly speculative. Maybe 1-2% of climate scientists would agree with your statements. Why put all your faith in such a small minority?
You don’t need complex computer models to understand that clouds tend to trap heat. You’ll know from your own experience, with other factors being equal, that clear nights are much cooler than cloudy nights. This is an example of the natural ‘greenhouse effect’ at work.
What your figures have shown is that if the IPCC’s best estimate climate sensitivity of 3 degrees is correct, that temperatures may double and redouble again over pre-industrial levels. That’s six degrees Celsius of warming! Or ten degrees Fahrenheit. Of course it could be much worse than that. If the Arctic tundra melts in a big way enormous volumes of methane may be released which will add an additional positive feedback to the system.
No-one is saying that the available coal, oil and gas should not be used. However, it needs to be used up over a longer period. Maybe more like a thousand years than a hundred years.
This article gives a good flavour of the EU’s current position on “climate change”. The author, the BBC’s Europe Editor Mark Mardell, is of course 100% signed up to the current orthodoxy. This is his comment on the state of previous CO2 reduction plan:
Pete,
Are you being “speculative” or do you have some classified insight of these catastrophic weather events? The Earth “could” be pummeled by and asteroid next year, (An unforeseen asteroid hit Eastern Africa last month). Should we move all of civilization underground and hoard food to “combat” this cataclysmic menace? Chances are, this WILL happen sometime in the future…….should we rearrange our economy now to avoid the rush?
Hi Peter,
“You are really saying that even if the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is true (and, yes, I do know that you don’t accept it is, but that’s a different argument) there is nothing that can be done to mitigate it.”
Here you come again with the old “overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion” saw. Forget that one, Peter. It’s totally unproven and beside the point anyway (as you have just conceded).
“Mitigation” = taxation (to try to “force” humanity to change its evil ways and burn less fossil fuel).
The numbers I presented show that no matter what we do, it will have a negligible impact on global temperature. If you can come up with numbers that show otherwise, please do so.
The cost would be exorbitant, as I have pointed out.
The impact on our climate would be negligible, as I have also pointed out.
Come with counter arguments and calculations if you can, Peter, not with vacuous statements about “the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion”.
Regards,
Max
Real Politics Sink Carbon Claptrap
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/10/15_Real_Politics_Sinks_Carbon_Claptrap.html
Hi Peter,
“Your point on the overall negative feedback effect of clouds is highly speculative. Maybe 1-2% of climate scientists would agree with your statements. Why put all your faith in such a small minority?”
Please provide a list of the 98-99% of climate scientists who would support the concept of a net positive feedback from clouds having an impact of 1.3°C additional warming with a doubling of CO2.
I have quoted you the IPCC that states clearly, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”. Doesn’t sound like support by 98-99% of climate scientists to me, but I will be interested in seeing your list of those who specifically endorse the strong positive feedback from clouds, as you claim.
Then I would also be interested in seeing the physical observations on which this endorsement is based (please no model studies, just observed facts, please).
Regards,
Max
Max 2074
I have often said that if ‘peak oil’ is as close as is claimed (hence the demand for alternative energy sources)the co2 problem automatically solves itself. The ‘Peak oil’ philosophy surely must concede that if it is just about to run out then we can not put much more CO2 into the atmosphere? Science says that what there is still to come will not have much effect anyway due to the logarithmic effect of the gas- again as both you and me have pointed out.
The trouble is not the ‘rational’ people who would look at the factual evidence and the maths, shrug their shoulders and ask what the fuss was all about. The trouble is the politicians- who are famously ignorant of science- and the green activists. Rationality comes a poor second to political beliefs.
Now the activists are not irrational (from their perspective) or stupid or wicked -it is just they have a different agenda. I sympathise with some of their objectives, but the simplistic solutions they offer do not recognise that we are no longer an agrarian based society of a few million but a highly complex world with 6 billion.
Each country needs to decide their own alternative energy solutions. In the Uk onshore wind farms -the current technology of green choice- are hugely over rated, highly expensive and totally illogical. Cost, maintenance,down time, transmission problems, destruction of the rural environment, all need to be factored in. They are also by no means carbon neutral due to their construction needs and the vast amount of concrete required to anchor them into the ground.
The Uk has wilfully failed to recognise we are an island (with no part of the country more than 70 miles from the sea) with two tides per day and substantial waves. It is our obvious choice coupled with offshore wind farms and a variety of other smaller scale measures.
In Peters case Solar power is likely to be a good solution. However, whatever the ‘top up’ being offered by alternative sources it does nothing for the ‘base’ supply. This is likely to be nuclear or coal, but because of the activists opposition to either, the UK has a looming energy crisis.
Unless people want to live in caves knitting sheep by the light of gloworms whilst throwing lumps of dung onto the fire, they have to accept that some sort of ‘base’ supply is needed, which is always likely to be unpopular with a tiny percentage of the population.
TonyB
Peter – Max (2080) has beaten me to it but I’ll ask this anyway: what’s the evidence supporting your “overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion” claim?
Here’s an entertaining read for the weekend.
Peter
The link that follows shows quotes made by the IPCC themselves about their own models. I have also separately sent you links from the IPCC authors assessments and the Exeter climate conference which are additional to these, that all say the same thing about enormous uncertainties. Following this extract are some additional comments by the IPCC on models.
These first comments are specifically to do with clouds
7.2.2 Cloud Processes and Feedbacks
7.2.2.4 Cloud-radiative feedback processes
“In response to any climate perturbation the response of cloudiness thereby introduces feedbacks whose sign and amplitude are largely unknown.”
“The sign of the cloud cover feedback is still a matter of uncertainty and generally depends on other related cloud properties.”
“Cloud optical feedbacks produced by these GCMs, however, differ both in sign and strength.”
7.2.2.5 Representation of cloud processes in models
“In spite of these improvements, there has been no apparent narrowing of the uncertainty range associated with cloud feedbacks in current climate change simulations. A straight-forward approach of model validation is not sufficient to constrain the models efficiently and a more dedicated approach is needed.”
The link to these comments is here;
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/IPCC.html
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change themselves admitted in their 2001 report
“in climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term predictions of future climate states is not possible.’
If that is not explicit enough Kevin Trenberth, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report wrote,
“..the startling climate state in several models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors”
Modelling is an extremely problematic area which the IPCC admit. They specifically agree the problem with modelling clouds has not been overcome. I make that 100% then of climate scientists having a problem with cloud modelling.
I have been to the Met office in the UK when they have run these models and the programmers have also said clouds are hugely problematic.
TonyB
It was good to hear John Humphreys get belligerent with Robin Oakley of Greenpeace this morning. The question from the Today programme’s rottweiler was:
The question had to be put three times, with increasing menace, before anything resembling an answer was forthcoming. Then Humphreys asked what viable alternatives Oakley thought there might be, adding:
Unfortunately he then remained schtum while Oakley delivered a very long – and obviously carefully rehearsed or even scripted – diatribe in favour of wind power. Perhaps his editor whispered something in his ear.
But why was the man from Greenpeace spooked by a question to which there could only be one answer? And can anyone remember the last time a BBC presenter asked an environmental activist a difficult question? Perhaps things are beginning to change.
Listen again item at 08:44am.
Hi Peter,
You opined (2079), “You don’t need complex computer models to understand that clouds tend to trap heat. You’ll know from your own experience, with other factors being equal, that clear nights are much cooler than cloudy nights. This is an example of the natural ‘greenhouse effect’ at work.”
It is general knowledge that the net effect of clouds on our climate is one of cooling.
It is also generally known that low-altitude clouds containing water droplets provide a net cooling (or negative feedback) by reflecting incoming radiation, while high-altitude clouds containing ice crystals provide a net warming (or positive feedback) by absorbing outgoing radiation.
What was poorly understood until quite recently was the net overall effect of clouds with higher sea surface temperatures. Lindzen had presented a hypothesis on this, whereby the formation of heat-trapping high-altitude clouds reduced with warming, thereby providing a net negative feedback and “natural stabilizing thermostat”; he called this the “infrared iris theory”.
Spencer’s physical observations have now validated this theory by showing that higher temperatures caused an increase in low-altitude (cooling) clouds, but a decrease in high-altitude (warming) clouds. This was an important breakthrough in an area, in which (as TonyB has pointed out quite clearly) the prior knowledge was extremely uncertain, and even IPCC conceded a “largest source of uncertainty”.
Thanks to Spencer’s work, this large uncertainty has now been cleared up.
The physical observations confirm that your oversimplified statement is out-of-date, Peter.
But, cheer up and be happy, Peter. This means that all the fossil fuel in this world cannot cause more than around 1°C warming, and we are not doomed to fry or drown from 6-meter sea level increases.
It’s all about real science, Peter, based on actual physical observations, rather than the virtual “never-never land” of computer model simulations and media hype.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
“Peak oil” scares have been around for at least 50 years. The dates of the predicted collapse just keep getting moved further into the future.
It is certainly true that all the fossil fuels on this planet have some sort of absolute limit, which will inevitably be reached some day.
In calculating the maximum ever temperature impact from fossil fuels (in order to calm Peter down), I used the following estimates.
World oil reserves (billion bbl):
“proven” 2007 O+GJ = 1,317
ANWR = 16
New offshore continental shelf = 86
New Brazil offshore = 29
Additional tar sand = 200
Arctic O/S, Greenland = 200
Oil shale global = 2,500
World total = 4,348
(Equals 569 billion mt)
At today’s consumption = 75 million bbl/day
Equals 159 years
World coal reserves (billion mt)
Estimate = 1,000
At today’s consumption 6.2 billion mt/year
Equals 161 years
World natural gas reserves (trillion cubic meters)
“proven” 2007 = 176
assumed new finds (incl. co-production with new oil) = 200
World total = 376
At today’s consumption = 2.8 trillion cubic meters/year
Equals 134 years
Now there are obviously some caveats.
First, the annual consumption rates may increase for the short term, but they will undoubtedly decrease as these fuels become scarcer and more expensive with time, to be replaced by other sources. (I believe Peter agrees with this assessment.) Oil will move to becoming primarily a petrochemical feedstock rather than a motor fuel. Natural gas will become a motor fuel and feedstock for fertilizers, being replaced by nuclear and renewables for power generation. Nuclear-generated hydrogen may also become a motor fuel, if the many economic and safety concerns can be overcome. Even coal will become a source of feedstocks and liquid fuels, also being replaced by nuclear and renewables for power generation. Deep drilling technologies will make geothermal sources more competitive, etc. Wind and solar will have their place, as well, but this will probably be limited. Sugar cane ethanol will become a worldwide source of renewable motor fuel. Most important of all, when we look 150+ years into the future we have no earthly idea of all the new technologies that will be developed.
So the “peak oil” panic is probably another red herring, as is the 150-year supply limit.
But the maximum climate impact of burning all these fossil fuels is most likely correct, and certainly also no cause for panic. That is the main point I wanted to make.
Regards,
Max
Max, your post 2068 is a masterpiece! If your figures are correct, we can’t do a darn thing about GW, that is assuming that CO2 emissions are the root cause. If the AGW crowd cannot disprove your analysis, and continue to push their collectivist “solutions”, (a.k.a. ‘remake the world in a kinder, greener, fairer, more equal way), then it becomes even more clear that the entire AGW position is merely a vehicle to further their political agenda. Nothing more.
Robin
Another quote from Mark Mardell, this time blogging about the EU summit here. He describes the negotiation of an economic rescue plan as a triumph, and then on moves on to their failure to reach agreement on climate change:
[It was a ] tragedy, because of what has happened to the climate change plans. This was, inspired by Tony Blair, the commission’s big idea. Something, it’s obvious, that individual countries can’t do on their own, something popular with the public, something where there was a vacancy for world leaders, showing the way to laggards and doubters.
Now Tony Blair was the sort of politician who would have no problem recognising risk free politics. But isn’t there something missing from Mark’s version of why the EU is so keen on climate change? Are these really the only reasons for the EU to buy into climate alarmism? What about the conviction that we really are on the brink of environmental Armageddon.
A shrewd reporter I think.
max 2091
I fully agree with your calculations and conclusions.
In reality we make a minimal impact by burning fossil fuels and we have a long time to deal with its eventual demise. Which is not to say its becesarily a good idea to rely too much on something that is inherently finite and can be polluting locally-co2 considerations aside. The reality is we NEED fossil fuels at present but it would be DESIRABLE to replace them. Nuclear is an obvious (the only?) candidate in the short term (30 years) wave energy the obvious source (for the uk) in the longer term (with a variety of other renewables)
The new Spanish facility for solar power generation perhaps points the way for countries like Australia.
The other factor is sensible conservation of resources -our insulation standards in homes are woeful and in business even worse. It makes good economic sense, as well as harbouring resources, to drastically improve our levels of insulation.
TonyB
Robin,
There are mavericks like Lindzen and Spencer who you guys are obviously big fans of. The kindest thing that you can say is they represent the very edge of the scientific ‘bell curve’ of opinion. Whereas people like Max and Monckton with their theories of hoaxes and charlatanism are well outside the bell curve.
I’ve answered the question about the consensus many times before. But, I know how you will whinge if I don’t keep repeating the same answers so I’ll say it again. Every single scientific body of opinion in the world , without exception, considers that AGW is a problem to be taken seriously.
Either you accept the science or you don’t. The right wing in the US certainly have a thing about the UN. Taken to extremes it leads to young men like Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirators committing unspeakable atrocities. But, you can read the same negative attitude about the UN in this blog too. ‘UN bad. The IPCC is part of the UN. Therefore it is bad too.’
However,the IPCC represents as best as is possible the extent of the scientific knowledge about AGW today. Either you accept the IPCC report or you don’t. Either you accept the science or you don’t. You don’t have to, of course. No-one is stopping you living in your dream world.
I don’t intend to get involved in “how much will it all cost” arguments. It doesn’t make any difference to the atmospheric science. Of course AGW doesn’t have to happen in a disastrous way, but it could. Whatever happens is entirely down to us.
TonyN,
If you actually look on the Greenpeace website there are many contributors who are now saying that nuclear power is an essential part of the AGW solution too. Greenpeace have their role as a pressure group but the real solution to the AGW problem has to come from the political mainstream, and they don’t have the same hangups on the nuclear issue.
Hi Peter,
Your long post has not answered my question. Instead it is just a repetitive ramble that “every single scientific body of opinion in the world , without exception, considers that AGW is a problem to be taken seriously”.
Peter, this is unsubstantiated happy-talk.
Bring facts. How did you arrive at your 98-99% agreement among climate scientists to a net positive feedback from clouds resulting in an increase in 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3C? Who are the individuals specifically endorsing this viewpoint by name?
Enough waffling, Peter. Bring facts.
If you cannot bring specific facts, I will have to assume that you made this whole sentence up and that it is untrue.
Regards,
Max
A Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-founder-explains-why-he-left-greenpeace
No smoking hot spot
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Today’s defectors from the alarmists’ ranks include:
*Dr. Kerry Emanuel, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, who published an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association reporting on his modeling which suggests that “frequency and intensity of hurricanes may not rise over the next two centuries, even if warmer trends occur.”
*Dr. Miklos Zagoni, prominent Hungarian physicist, whose studies now indicate that “runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations.”
*British botanist Dr. David Bellamy, who now calls global-warming fears “poppycock” and says global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.
Others: Canadian fisheries expert Dr. Tad Murty; French geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre; Canadian paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark; Polish physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski; and Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv.
Face it Peter, you’re supporting a dying cause…..
NO ‘Consensus’ on “Man-Made” Global Warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html
Although, I’d be happier if you did turn out to be right, and I know that you yourselves desperately want to be proved right and are, in fact, already claiming that you’ve won, I should just remind you that wishing and claiming won’t make it happen.
This is the Wiki page of lead authors.
{http}://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:IPCC_lead_authors
There is maybe John Christy in there who may be tending towards the view that AGW may be on the lower end of the problem scale. But I notice that you don’t seem to be too big a fan of him. He’s not a Monckton, a Lindzen or a Spencer! Then there are many other non-lead authors too numerous to mention. For instance it doesn’t include:
{http}://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt
In November 2004 Gavin Schmidt was named as one of Scientific American’s “Top 50 Research Leaders” for the year. I might have mentioned James Hansen too.
Maybe you ought to read the third Arctic report card before you become too triumphant:
{http}://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
“Autumn temperatures in the Arctic are at record levels, the Arctic Ocean is getting warmer and less salty as sea ice melts, and reindeer herds appear to be declining, researchers reported Thursday.”
Up until now you may have had a valid point about sea levels not increasing at quite the predicted rate. However, that looks like it may be changing. ” with the latest measurements being of an “unprecedented” rate of sea level rise of nearly 0.1 inch (2.54mm) per year.