THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Peter,
The latest monthly globally averaged land and sea surface and tropospheric temperatures are in.
You’ll be pleased to know that all four records show a cooling trend since the start of the new millenium in January 2001:
-0.018C/decade Hadley
-0.024C/decade GISS
-0.144C/decade UAH
-0.156C/decade RSS
Not only is this in direct contradiction to the IPCC forecast of +0.2C/decade warming, but it is also strangely in direct defiance of greenhouse theory, since the tropospheric temperatures are cooling more rapidly than those at the surface.
But despite this anomaly, the news is good (if you are an AGW-believer and are worried about Hansens’s “tipping points” frying us all anytime soon), but it is potentially bad news (if you are a solar scientist or a Manitoban wheat farmer).
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Looks like the latest temperature figures show that EC chief Jose Manuel Barroso is winning the global warming battle.
Hats off to the valiant efforts of the EU!
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
More seriously, you do point out a basic problem with the EU “policy makers” (i.e. politicians and bureaucrats).
They are continuing to march in goose-step unison to solve the “climate crisis” (when it has long disappeared all by itself, despite record CO2 emissions by one and all, including the EU, itself).
Believe this demonstrates that “mitigation” has nothing whatsoever to do with slowing down man-made warming and everything to do with reacher deeper into the taxpayers’ pockets.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
To your 2046 on Arctic sea ice. I’m sure that Peter is pleased that latest surveys show that it seems to be recovering from last year’s low.
The amount of increase was apparently 1.58 million sq. km.
I know Peter dislikes this sort of comparison (when the news is good), but this is slightly more than the surface areas of Spain, France and Germany combined (or slightly less than the surface area of Alaska). Lots of ice.
Regards,
Max
Max/Robin,
I’m confused. I read that Italy and the Dutch oppose the plan.
Italy threat to scrap EU climate plan
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24505062-11949,00.html
DUTCH SAY ‘NEE’ (Or is it “tegen”?) AS NEDERLAND JOINS OPPOSITION TO EU CLIMATE PLAN
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.984894
Re: Robin, 2050
Orthodox position of pious hope?
According to Mark Mardell, on the BBC one o’clock news, there is a demolition squad headed by Berlusconi and a bunch of very angry Poles biding their time. Will Angela ride to the rescue and risk being lynched by her own industrialists? Might the public be treated to the unedifying spectacle of Gordon and the other members of the Council of Ministers fighting like ferrets in a sack over climate change policy just when they are supposed to be solving the global financial crisis?
We live in interesting times and I suspect that Jose Manuel may be about to discover that climate change politics are no longer risk free.
The same programme also reported that Ed Milliband has told the Commons that the UK carbon emission reduction target for 2050 is to be 80%, and will probably include maritime and aviation emissions, rather than 60% and forget the ships and planes. Is there any political risk in making a distant and unattainable target even more unattainable when you have a nice new government department all of your own? Milliband is now a hero in green circles, and that could be very handy after the next election if he suddenly needs to return to the world of think-tanks from whence he came.
I must apologise to myself; that last sentence probably breaks blog rules, but it was just too tempting.
David Holland, author of BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE “HOCKEY-STICK” AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, which is a well argued and referenced indictment of Mannian climate reconstructions, has posted a very interesting comment on another Harmless Sky thread here. Those of you who read Climate Audit will be familiar with the subject matter which concerns the reluctance of at least one IPCC review editor to reveal how he carried out his duties.
OK, Peter, maybe “elitist” was inappropriate. I retract it and apologize for its use in the first place.
To reiterate my thoughts, however, no one is suggesting any minority is unable—because of race—to pay their debts. I didn’t suggest it, and don’t believe that to be the case at all. I live in an up-scale neighborhood, and it is very racially integrated. Asian, Hispanic, African-American, even Anglo-American. Only one foreclosure (so far) in my neighborhood.
What I object to is the notion that people are “entitled” to a home, and that it would be good public policy to figure out how to get them one even if they can’t pay for it.
As it turns out, many could not, especially when they didn’t earn it, but were, essentially, given it. And the American taxpayer is not on the hook for it. The political Left believes that it is good to take from those who ‘have’ and give to those who ‘don’t’. My view is that it is morally WRONG to take money from Citizen B and give it to Citizen A. That is also my fear with the ‘solutions’ to AGW; the Left wants to take from rich countries and give to poor to ‘mitigate’ global warming.
I do support paying a reasonable tax. Government has an important role in life, and taxes are a necessary evil to fund government activity. But taxes, especially if Obama gets elected, will go up. American’s have historically hated paying taxes, and the left-ward swing in American politics means to me that being successful will lead to even higher penalties than today.
Forgive me a for a bit of trash-talking, but Peter, there has been a ‘the party’s over’ tone in many of your messages.
I think not.
My favorite passage:
Clarification to my post above: I should have written, “Peter, there has been a ‘the party’s over’ tone in many of your recent messages regarding the stature of the USA.”
Sorry.
Hi Robin,
I must admit that many Swiss are watching the latest posturing of individual EU states on the predicted future “global warming” crisis with a bit of amusement.
“Mitigation” is obviously a mechanism for increasing the economic power of politicians and bureaucrats (at the expense of the taxpayer), but many of these are beginning to realize that a crippling of the economies of their nations is too high a price to pay. The Germans are still giving it “lip service”, while the French are going their own way with a strong nuclear option and the Poles and Italians are beginning to balk. In the UK the citizenry are apparently on a different wavelength than the politicians.
All of this is happening at the same time as global temperatures have started to cool due to natural factors and a financial crisis threatens to cause a major economic downturn in Europe as well as the rest of the world.
Will the virtual future computer-generated disaster of AGW take precedence over the realities of today’s actual financial crisis at the same time that we are observing a real cooling of the planet?
Robin, I do not share your view that “policy makers” will be able to push through the proposed drastic cuts in CO2 emissions (and prosperity) in the present time and age. Time is not on their side. Nor is the public, despite all the media propaganda.
I truly believe that the current economic “crisis” (plus the thermometers all over the world) are slowly giving the deathblow to the whole AGW hoax.
In five years we can lay it to rest, like so many other “imminent disasters” of the past.
Regards,
Max
I have tried to work out the C02 figures relating to the british govts plan to reduce co2 emissions by 80%
Leaving aside that the overwhelming majority of co2 is natural I have used the figure that humanity has increased co2 by 100ppm since the industrial age in 1750.
co2 represents 4% of greenhouse gases. Britain emits 4% of the worlds co2 in total.
So the uk figure represents 0.000016% of the atmosphere.
That represents an annual average rate of 0.00000008%
emitted by Britain since the industrial age.
If we reduce by 80% that equates to 0.000000064%% of the atmosphere. In reality this reduction will cause impossible pain for miniscule effect.
TonyB
Tony B,
Just trying to get this through my thick noggin….You calculated that 64 one millionths of one percent, (not certain if I got the zeros right), will be the result of the entire country lowering their rate of emissions by 80%?
How much will this 80% reduction lower the global average temperature?
True, the GHG effect for each small country is small in relation to the the total problem.
So, does this mean that we can divide the earth up into smallish units, maybe the individual States of the USA, or individual provinces of China etc, and in turn each one can argue that they contribute a very small overall percentage to GHG emissions and therefore they should be exempt from all controls?
Er, well, unfortunately, no it doesn’t!
Max: I didn’t say that I thought “that ‘policy makers’ will be able to push through the proposed drastic cuts in CO2 emissions in the present time”. What I said was that, despite the increasing impracticality of it, the AGW orthodoxy continues to be as strong and persistent as ever amongst politicians and the MSM. For example, when our new Minister for Climate Change backs away from painful short-term measures by focussing on “tougher and legally binding” targets for 2050, no one seems willing even to point out the absurdity of it. Instead he is lauded for his courage.
Brute
It can’t affect the temperature. A reduction by 80% of emissions is still an increase of 20%!
A small country like britain has no discernible affect at all on greenhouse gases but the effort of reduction will be very painful. For other -security-reasons I am all in favour of sensible alternative energy formats but they need to be supplemented by base supplies such as nuclear and coal (probably gassification)
100ppm accrued over 250 years (although even that amount is hotly disputed) ais a very tiny fraction of greenhouses gases and our annual co2 emissions is a small part of that. This is the ultimate of gesture politics.
It would be interestijg for someone to do the figures for the US and China. As Peter says we can’t divide up the world but it merely illuistrates the misunderstanding of the impact of this gas. As i say the amount does not take into account the fact that man is only responsible for a fraction of co2 anyway-most comes from natural sources.
This whole thing needs to be put into its proper perspective As Brute says thats a lot of zeros. The figures were checked by an advanced mathematician who didn’t belivee it either. I can barely believe it myself so would welcome someone else doing the maths as well.
TonyB
Hi Robin,
Thanks for clearing it up for me. Yes, EU leaders are still “talking the talk” about CO2 reductions, but we both agree that they will have a much more difficult time in “walking the walk”.
And, as TonyB has pointed out, even if they really do so, it will have a negligible impact on global temperature.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
You wrote about the impact of the UK CO2 emissions on “global temperature”, and asked about the “impact of China, USA, etc.
I made a similar calculation on a global basis, using some assumptions that are most likely exaggerated:
· 100% of human CO2 emissions go directly into the atmosphere, where they stay indefinitely (natural CO2 cycle ignored)
· The 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” is +3°C (IPCC “mean value”, including all feedbacks, as assumed by GCMs cited by IPCC)
· “Mitigation” efforts will result in a reduction of CO2 emissions to 20% below 2007 values (~1990 values) within 10 years, where they will remain for the rest of this century
· “Mitigation” costs are equivalent to a carbon tax of $100 per mt on all human CO2 emitted
We have read about the need for “mitigation” in order to “solve the global warming crisis”.
This is a fancy word for the imposition of carbon taxes (or cap and trade schemes), which are intended to “force” the reduction of the use of fossil fuels. A tax increasing to a level of $100 per metric ton of CO2 emitted has been discussed.
What will this “mitigation” cost and what will it achieve?
World CO2 emission (2007) = 27 billion mt/year CO2
Carbon tax = $100 per mt
Total cost (at current CO2 emission level) = $2.7 trillion
World population = 6.5 billion
Per capita cost = $415 per year (paid by every man, woman and child on Earth)
But let’s say you are a resident (and taxpayer) of one of the major “industrialized” countries, i.e. the USA, the EU, Japan, Canada or Australia. You then have a “carbon footprint” of:
Combined CO2 emission = 12.4 billion mt/year CO2
Carbon tax = $100 per mt
Total cost (at current CO2 emission level) = $1.24 trillion
Combined population = 976 million
Per capita cost = $1,270 per year (paid by every man, woman and child in these countries)
Assume that this carbon tax “forces” a shift from fossil fuels resulting in a 20% reduction of CO2 emissions below 2007 (back to level of 1990) within 10 years, and that it remains at that level to the year 2100. (Note that this is a smaller reduction that that being discussed by some governments today.)
Reduction of 20% = 5.4 billion mt/year CO2
Over next 92 years
Equals a cumulative reduction of 497 billion mt CO2
Earth’s troposphere plus stratosphere has a mass of 5.3 million Gt (5.3 quadrillion mt)
So that if we assume that all of the reduction in emissions results in a direct reduction of atmospheric CO2 the cumulative reduction of CO2 represents:
497 / 5.3 = 94 ppm(mass)
Equals 62 ppmv (correcting for density of CO2 and air)
Today’s level = 380 ppmv
Impact on warming
Use IPCC 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3°C
(Note that this sensitivity has been obtained from climate models, which all assume a strong positive feedback from clouds; recent observations on strong negative feedback from clouds indicate that assumed the 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3°C is probably overstated by a factor of 3 to 4, and that this should be 0.8 to 1°C instead. But let’s use the IPCC number, anyway.)
ln2 = 0.6931 (2xCO2)
CO2 today = 380 ppmv
Reduction = 62 ppmv
Future CO2 = 380 – 62 = 318 ppmv
380/318 = 1.193
ln(1.193) = 0.1767
dT (warming not experienced due to CO2 reduction) = 3°C * (0.1767) / (0.6931)
Equals 0.76°C (this is the total amount of warming that was averted by the “mitigation”)
dT per capita (amount of warming each person helped avert) = 0.00000000012°C
Carbon tax = $415 per year per capita today
At 20% reduced CO2 emission
Carbon tax = $332 per year per capita
Over the 92 years from today until 2100
This equals a per capita cost of $30,500
This equals $248 trillion to reduce warming by 0.76°C at most (and a more likely 0.2 to 0.3°C)
For the industrially developed nations mentioned above:
Carbon tax = $1,270 per year per capita today
At 20% reduced CO2 emission
Carbon tax = $1,017 per year per capita
Over the 92 years from today until 2100
This equals a per capita cost of $93,500
“Mitigation” (i.e. carbon tax) is obviously a very expensive cost to humanity that will achieve nothing.
This can be recalculated by country, by group of countries, etc., but it still comes out the same conclusions:
· “Impact of Mitigation” = “Much Ado about Nothing”
· “Cost of Mitigation = Ouch!
Regards,
Max
Max
As you say you have taken the ‘best’ scenario of the IPCC and the worst scenario of mans impact so though the maximum possible real world impact was 0.8 Degrees (as we both pointed out days ago) you have increased it by 400% and even then the impact of our mitigation is zero. In the real world -and still excluding the carbon cycle- mans impact is in reality so small this is nothing more than a political charade. It is also why temperatures steadfastly refuse to increase, sea levels arent rising and all the other myriad facts that have been pointed out in this forum demonstrate what is really happening. It is why there is so much talk about uncertaties as evidenced by the extracts posted from the IPCC authors assessments and exeter climate conference. This is nothing more than a political exercise based on highly selective science.
The benefical impacts of co2 are far better documented than the claimed downsides. Plant growth is known to be stimulated by enhanced levels and in view of the rising population this impact needs to be factored in.
mind you the greens protest crowds dont have quite the same impact do they if their banners read;
‘we demand Britain takes drastic action to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 64 millionth of one percent ”
Not as catchy as ‘save the polar bears’
TonyB
Message for TonyB
The global impact of “mitigation” (0.76°C) was calculated based on a simplified approximation. To be more exact, one should calculate the CO2 concentration by year 2100 with and without mitigation, from this calculate the temperature increase for both cases and subtract the two for calculating the global temperature impact of mitigation.
Due to the logarithmic nature of the greenhouse effect, this results in a lower net reduction of warming by year 2100 resulting from mitigation (0.51°C).
C1 = current CO2 concentration = 380 ppmv
C2 = year 2100 concentration (no mitigation) = 560 ppmv
C2/C1 ratio = 1.4737
lnratio = 0.3878
Climate sensitivity (2xCO2 + feedbacks) = 3C
ln2 = 0.6931
dT = 3 * lnratio / ln2 = 1.68C
C1 = current CO2 concentration = 380 ppmv
C2 = year 2100 concentration (with mitigation) = 560 – 62 = 498 ppmv
C2/C1 ratio = 1.3105
lnratio = 0.2704
Climate sensitivity (2xCO2 + feedbacks) = 3C
ln2 = 0.6931
dT = 3 * lnratio / ln2 = 1.17C
Impact of mitigation = 1.68 – 1.17 = -0.51C
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Looks like our 2069 and 2070 crossed.
Yes, it is all about political hype and has nothing to do with science.
Sea levels are not rising any more than they have over the past 150 years, but I believe that there is a “rising tide” of rational people who have become skeptical of all the media-inspired AGW hysteria based on faulty, politically inspired pseudo-science.
This group does not have the multi-billion dollar financing of the AGW proponents, but its voice is being heard more loudly every day, particularly as temperatures are not increasing and sea level rise is not accelerating.
Whether the wheels come off the AGW bandwagon in 2, 5 or 10 years, it is a pretty certain prognosis that they will eventually do so and the whole AGW gravy train will end up in the ditch (to be replaced by a new craze, I’m sure).
But until this happens, I think it is important for all rational skeptics to make their voices heard, so that the vast majority of people (who have no axe to grind either way) can hear both sides of the story.
Only in this way do we have any chance of “keeping the politicians honest” and getting their hands out of our pockets.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “True, the GHG effect for each small country is small in relation to the the total problem.
So, does this mean that we can divide the earth up into smallish units, maybe the individual States of the USA, or individual provinces of China etc, and in turn each one can argue that they contribute a very small overall percentage to GHG emissions and therefore they should be exempt from all controls?
Er, well, unfortunately, no it doesn’t!”
Well, actually, drastic mitigation of global GHG emissions would result in an infinitesimally small impact on global temperature, as the numbers (using the IPCC’s assumptions) show.
In other words “controls” (i.e. “taxes” to force people to reduce CO2 emissions) will achieve nothing as far as reducing global temperature, and they will do this at great cost for all concerned.
So, yes, Peter, to answer your question: all countries should therefore be exempt from all controls (and taxes) on CO2 emissions, as they will have no impact on our planet’s climate, on polar ice caps, Arctic sea ice, polar bear populations, vector-borne diseases, heat waves, ocean acidification, droughts, floods, sea levels, high tides, tropical cyclones, other severe weather events or any of the other AGW-caused disasters conjured up by IPCC, environmental activists and the alarmist media.
Face it, Peter, “mitigation” will achieve nothing as has been pointed out repeatedly on this site (and never quantitatively refuted by yourself or anyone else).
Regards,
Max
Let the data speak for itself
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange
Wow, looks like you two burned the midnight oil pulling together those calculations; thank you both. It really illustrates the point of the lunacy of what these politicians are considering.
Again, as I’ve previously written, we’re discussing infinitesimally small numbers……0.7 degree “average” temperature rise “averaged” over the entire globe “averaged” over a (roughly) 150 year period? Seems hardly worth discussing……but here we have politicians and eco-chondriacs pontificating to “the obtuse general public” that we simply do not understand the catastrophic implications of global warming and how it is imperative that we all cower in fear and radically change our lives so that we can “correct” the temperature of the planet. (Think of the conceit of anyone that claims to be capable of controlling the weather). Robin’s King Canute analogy comes to mind.
The only thing left would be for Pete to consult with the Delphic Oracle to determine which course of action, (collectively) the world should take. I’m certain that it would involve some form of punitive taxes and redistribution of wealth. And of course, we are not to view this collective action as Socialism; but as “sacrifice” to “save our planet” from greedy, evil Wall Street types. (The Socialist part is simply a convenient benefit to resolving this “world wide environmental crisis”).
Hell, the temperature here dropped 10 degrees in the last 24 hours. The trees, birds, fuzzy creatures and myself seemed to have adapted. I find it curious that environmentalists promote the theory of natural selection, survival of the fittest and the theory of evolution, but find it unthinkable that plants and animals are incapable of adapting to temperature changes of +\- .7 degrees “averaged” over the entire globe, “averaged” over 150 years. The leaves are changing color as is “normal” for this season of the year…..”adapting” as they do every year during this month……”adapting” as they always have for hundreds of thousands of years.
This isn’t about saving the planet; this is about reshaping societal philosophy and indoctrination. This is about greed on a level equal to the worst Wall Street offender, (or Washington politician), committed by the likes of Al Gore and Mark Lynas in the name of “the children” and polar bears…..the only thing more tear jerking would be that we need to stop driving as much to save the baby kittens and puppies.
An absolute fraud…..yes, fraud.
Message to TonyB and PeterM
Just some food for thought.
In looking at the theoretical greenhouse impact of the planet’s fossil fuels, one can draw some interesting (but not very alarming) conclusions.
All the proven plus optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet are around:
· Coal = 1,000 billion mt
· Oil = 569 billion mt
· Natural gas = 376 trillion cubic meters
At current consumption rates these reserves would last us around 150 years.
When adjusting for the percentages going into non-combustion end uses, these would generate all together a calculated 5,300 Gt CO2.
All told these emissions would theoretically increase atmospheric CO2 levels by around 675 ppmv over these 150 years, from today’s level of around 380 ppmv to an absolute “that’s it, folks” maximum of 1055 ppmv.
This calculation ignores the natural CO2 cycle and assumes that all emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Currently only slightly over half of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere and the rest is absorbed elsewhere (oceans, etc.) or dissipated into space.
So what does this all mean?
IPCC tells us that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity without any feedbacks is around 0.8°C. However, IPCC climate models have built in the assumptions that result in a 2xCO2 impact of 3°C including all feedbacks. This includes a warming impact of 1.3°C from an assumed strongly positive net feedback from clouds, conceding that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
Recent physical observations on clouds have cleared up this “largest source of uncertainty” on the part of IPCC by demonstrating that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative rather than positive as assumed in the IPCC models; correcting for this we arrive at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.8°C including all feedbacks (clouds, water vapor, lapse rate, surface albedo).
If we use the corrected IPCC assumption for CO2 forcing, we end up with a net warming from today’s 380 ppmv to 1055 ppmv around year 2150 (when all fossil fuels have been consumed) of 1.2°C.
Ho hum!
Regards,
Max