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.
Pete,
None of this is, or was, “free”. Someone (I highly suspect the taxpayers) had to pay for it. It’s great that you received something for nothing; you should be very proud of yourself. It would be even better if the people that PAID for all of that did so voluntarily instead of being forced to pay for your stuff at the barrel of a gun or the threat of tax prison.
My church does the exact same thing….offering services to people that could otherwise not afford it. The difference is that the people of the church donate their own time and money VOLUNTARILY.
By the way; why aren’t the “pinnacles of progressive thought and redistribution of earnings”….. the universities…..offering “free” education? Why don’t they lower their tuition fees or better yet, open their doors to any Tom, Dick or Harry that walks through the door?
Why stop there Pete? Why not force me to pay for your car too? After all, you need a Mercedes Benz right? Isn’t it your “right” to have the same possessions as everyone else?
Peter, thanks for the data! (your post #2284)
I’ll be in touch if I need more.
TonyB, your 2287 (Obama a US natural born citizen?)
Tony, I really don’t know the answer. It appears that he is, but many questions remain. A Hillary supporter filed suit to get to the bottom of it, but a federal judge dismissed the case. He has apparently appealed the case to the US Supreme Court, but I doubt he will prevail.
It certainly doesn’t ‘smell right’, but the MSM is circling the wagons on this and closing down discussion. The Obama campaign seems a bit too secretive on this, but with the media unwilling to ask tough questions, we may never know.
I hope he is a natural born citizen, because if not, then not only will we have to deal with a financial crisis but also a Constitutional one as well. (Assuming he wins)
I answered the same as you two with the exception of questions #1 & #2.
#1. With all of the problems and sloppy work that I’ve seen documented as well as the Urban Heat Island Effect and the loss of all of the cold weather monitoring stations in the former Soviet Union, I simply can’t put any faith in the record.
#2. Given the miniscule amount of CO2 generated by “mankind” and the rapid temperature decline in previous eras as well as currently; the correlation of CO2 vs. temperature simply isn’t there….especially considering the infinitesimally small amount generated by people. The Sun is the arbiter of our global temperature and pretty much all of our weather/climate events.
Q1 Do you think the world’s temperature has increased over the past one hundred years?
a. Yes
b. No [please exit the survey]
c. Not sure / don’t know.
?
Q2 Which of the following is closest to your view of how mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have affected any such global warming?
a. They were the cause of all or most of it?
b. They made a substantial contribution to it?
c. They made a small contribution to it?
d. They had little or nothing to do with it?
e. I have no view on this
.
Q3 Do you think global warming is likely to continue over the next one hundred years?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure / don’t know
.
Q4 Which of the following is closest to your view of the likely effect on mankind of continued global warming?
a. It will be seriously harmful
b. It will be fairly or slightly harmful
c. It will not be harmful – and may be slightly beneficial.
d. It will be beneficial.
e. I have no view on this
.
Q5 Do you agree that taking action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of the priority lists of world governments?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure / don’t know
.
Q6 Do you agree that taking action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of your personal priority list?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure / don’t know
.
Watts Up With That had these very interesting survey results from The Nature Conservancy.
Correction/Addendum:
especially considering the infinitesimally small amount generated by people compared with other “natural” sources.
Max,
You’ll have to ask the CIA about Cuba. Some of the figures I quoted are attributable to them so they should know what their margin of error is.
The point about Cuba is that they have been able to survive quite well while under a blockade which has been in place 1962. It was imposed after the Castro government expropriated the properties of United States corporations,notably those that belonged to the United Fruit Company and the ITT. It was nothing at all to do with any campaign to bring about a more democratic Cuba.
Brute,
There is always a place for church charities. The Salvation army, for instance, does a good job, but the idea that we should all rely on charity to fix up social ills is really quite 19th century.
The idea of Social Democracy is that children, the sick and older people too, are taken care of. And of course the ones who either do the taking care, or pay for the taking care, are the ones in between times who are economically active. I’ve probably paid back the cost of my education several times over through tax, so the taxpayer has probably had a good deal.
But apart from that it is just the most civilised way of organising a society.
Do you only believe in the concept of equal opportunities if those opportunities can be paid for at the time?
Peter, it’s off-topic, but I’ll bite on your question about equal opportunity. I hope Tony will forgive me…
Equal Opportunity (EO) in the USA means that a person cannot be screened out of employment, schooling, government assistance, banking, (loans, etc) because of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or for any similar reason. It doesn’t mean that they should get a government stipend to cover the cost of higher education, for example, but there are government programs just for such a situation.
EO, boiled down, means simply that everyone should and ought and does have equal access to the ‘road to success’, be it financial, educational, or some other ‘success’. Especially here in the USA, the “American Dream” is the idea that individual success is a direct result of person’s intellect, drive, fortitude, sacrifice, and luck. Their physical attributes, nor their station in society should not and must not be the reason for their failure, should failure be their lot.
Equal opportunity means that everyone has the opportunity to go to college, to purchase a nice car, a larger home, etc.
How you pay for it is up to you.
See how this works? It’s called EARNING.
A quick anecdote:
People espouse the “Liberal Doctrine” until their ox is gored. In Obama’s case, he’d simply steal the girl’s grade and give it to the indolent student as a matter of “parity” and “fairness”.
A Real Life Parable: The Waiter & The Homeless Man
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read ‘Vote Obama, I need the money.’ I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a ‘Obama 08’ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Brute,
Your posts do remind me of the saying that both the rich and poor have an equal right to sleep on the street in a cardboard box. Any discussion of equal rights is just so much twaddle unless the economic implications are addressed.
You both seem to assume that sensible spending on health and eductaion will have a net cost to the taxpayer. But, there are net benefits too. Money spent on education, and I would include industrial training schemes too, will result in less unemployment, which means fewer welfare cheques and more income tax revenue.
Young people with jobs are much more likely to stay out of trouble with the law. What is the cost of incarceration in one of your jails? There would not be much change out of $150,000 per year. Not to mention the additional costs that crime imposes on victims and society.
The USA has one of the world’s highest rates of imprisonment in the world and one of the highest crime rates too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisoned
Approximately six or seven times the rate that you would find in more ‘Social Democratic’ countries like Australia, the UK or Canada and getting on for ten times as many as in Germany, Sweden or Denmark. So, you do have to ask the question of why that might be. Are Americans are so much different from any else? I don’t think so.
The system that you guys choose is very much a matter for own democratic system, of course. But just as we used to point to the deficiences of the USSR as an argument against those who were advocating too much state control, so too can we point to the USA as an example of what can go wrong when the system tends too far towards laissez faire capitalism.
Brute,
You should come to Australia. Generally speaking you don’t need to tip here. Its not part of the culture.
I do have mixed feelings about the concept. On the one hand it re-inforces the master servant relationship and encourgaes the restaurant owners to not pay proper wages. On the othet hand I don’t begrudge paying a bit extra for someone who is on low pay.
Apparently in America it is quite normal for waiters to be given hardly any pay at all but make up their wage on tips. Is that right? If I were the waiter, and I saw you come in again as a customer, I’d make sure that you had more than the normal ingredients of coffee, milk and sugar in your drink!
TonyB – re 2300. It seems this is the first snow in London in October since 1934. But then I think 1934 was overall a warm year.
PS: it’s hard to get this thread back on topic – yawn.
Hi Peter,
The tipping system in restaurants appears to be the same here in Europe (in general) as it is in Australia: a fixed amount is added on top of your bill to cover “service”. This is supposed to be redustributed to the waiters, included in their wages. Here it is currently 15% and is included in the food price. The customer often adds on a small amount if the service was very good.
The USA has more of a “pay for performance” principle, where it is up to the customer to decide how much tip he will pay: usually this is 15+% if the service was reasonable, and up to 20% if it was excellent. I have seen restaurants that add on 15 or 18% if the group is 6 people or more. Then there is usually only a minor add-on, if the service was really good.
I personally think the “pay for performance” principle would help ensure a better quality of service in many restaurants here in Europe (but switching back to this system will never happen here).
Don’t know what percentage of the waiters’ wages comes out of the “15% kitty” in Europe or the actual tips in USA, nor do I see that this really matters, provided the total amount earned at the end of the day is the same.
Regards,
Max
Sorry TonyN, and Robin, to be off-topic, but I can no longer ignore the many awful provocations mainly from Brute!
During the 80’s I spent a lot of time in the USA, and I found it truly sickening to see what in effect were ghettos of unimagined poverty, in many places in Detroit, and surprisingly in outer Denver CO, and somewheres in Northern California. Sure, Bombay etc was worse in its slums, but the SHOCK was to see real poverty, and presumably bad health/teeth, in what was supposed to be in the most advanced cashed-up nation in the World. (?????????) (and which you DON’T see in other “advanced nations” with a high standard of living, as far as I‘m aware).
I also stayed a lot in Windsor in Canada, across from Detroit, sometimes working there.
One of the things that I remember well about Windsor, was that if you wanted to take a taxi to Detroit airport, you had to call early, and first find a service that was willing to take you there, and in the event, many drivers were nervous about it, as demonstrated partly by them closing windows and locking all doors before emerging from the tunnel or the bridge into the USA. (And BTW only the USA taxis had bullet-proof glass behind the driver, and there, you didn’t sit in front).
Another one that still makes me smile hugely today, was that there was a conference of priests one year in Canada, and the Canadian border officers reportedly had to confiscate an enormous number of (illegal in Canada) hand-guns from under the priestly robes of many USA arbiters of the Christian faith. Now is that funny, (SICK), or is it not?
Maybe ten years ago, I saw a documentary film about a hospital in Washington (?), and it was the most head-shaking stuff. It was TRULY astonishing, and made me wonder how the rampant individual greed of the favoured groups in USA is so strong as to allow this “third-world suffering” within their own nation; whilst boasting to be the most advanced in the world. For example, in the doco, they interviewed I guy, seemingly from amongst your so-called equal opportunity order, (but AKA elsewhere as the lower socio-economic order), about how he felt about being shot by his wife, and he was quite flippant about it, admitting it was the second time, but that he would also recover this time, it seemed.
Re: comments by Pete on tipping:
A couple of years ago, a dear Canadian friend of mine from Windsor, (Canada) who had had a green card for eight years in the USA, joined me for a holiday centred on Sydney (Oz). Of course we dined and stuff, but whenever the bill came, she would look at me in horror concerning ZERO tip from us. I carefully, and repeatedly explained to her, that we do not tip here in Oz, because all workers are legally entitled to what is called a minimum (fare) wage, by law. I also mentioned that in at least one country, it is actually an offence by law to tip. She continued to have doubts about my explanation for quite a long time, until after talking to several working holiday staff, serving table in Oz! (From NA)
I’m riled about a few OTHER things, but perhaps I need to stop here, and meanwhile, I pose a few questions just on the few points above, mainly to Brute:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Do you own a handgun, or any other lethal weapon up to and including such as an RPG launcher, and if so, WHY? (Your response may provoke further questions)
2) The obvious disparity between the rich and the poor socio-economic groups in some USA areas, (The little I saw, not being the most famous for it), in the 80’s was truly repulsive to me. Has anything changed in recent times?
3) You have obviously done comfortably well in your (I’m all-right Jack) career. If you had been born into one of those communities of “equal opportunity” that you comment on , but which I have opined as ghettos, do you think you would be where you are now in terms of standard of living? (If so, why?)
4) Do you think that the total freedom of the USA “Money Market” to have done whatever it likes in a free-for-all was a good thing? Do you agree on a total lack of control on this and other matters?
(Don’t take that as an excuse to blame it on the Democrats! We are talking about the process of USA government in total!)
Hi Peter.
Murder rates by country
{http}://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Of the nations listed the average rate was 0.1 murders per year per 1,000 people.
“Top ten” countries were:
0.6178 – Colombia
0.4960 – South Africa
0.3242 – Jamaca
0.3161 – Venezuela
0.2015 – Russia
0.1302 – Mexico
0.1073 – Estonia
0.1039 – Latvia
0.1029 – Lithuania
0.0983 – Belarus
The USA ranked #24 (out of 62 nations ranked) at 0.0428 murders per 1,000.
The total EU (unranked) had slightly less than the USA at 0.0335 murders per 1,000.
India ranked #26 at 0.0344 murders per 1,000 (around the same as the EU).
China (unranked) had 0.0173 murders per 1,000.
Australia ranked #43 at 0.01503 murders per 1,000.
Switzerland ranked #54 at 0.00921 murders per 1,000 (looks like I should stay at home).
Of course, as horrible as these murders may be, they are “peanuts” when compared to all the deaths from wars, massacres, executions for “crimes against the state”, slaughters and oppressions.
The site below gives some estimates (for the 20th century).
{http}://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm
To get back on topic, annual deaths from all climate related occurrences were
Year 1900 to 1989 – 217,000
Year 1990 to 2006 – 28,000
This equals
Year 1900 to 1989 – 0.09416 deaths per 1,000
Year 1990 to 2006 – 0.00487 deaths per 1,000 (reduced to one twentieth; thanks to milder climate from “global warming”?)
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
Max,
“The tipping system in restaurants appears to be the same here in Europe (in general) as it is in Australia”
No not really. In Europe tips seem to have become institutionalised, or formalised, in the 15%, or whetever, service charge that is often added. There is no added service charge in Australia, it’s all included in the listed prices.
The only exception is on public holidays when 10%, or so, may be added to cover the double or even triple pay entitlements of workers. Though I’m not sure if they may have been abolished or watered down by the previous government.
There used to be a tradition of getting extra pay for holidays in Oz too. After ten years service, in one job, everyone is still entitled to six months long service leave. Full pay of course :-)
Message to TonyB
An earlier IPCC report included a graph showing the past 1,000+ years temperatures qualitatively, with no actual temperature estimates. Several studies have shown MWP temperatures around 0.6C higher than 20th century maxima and LIA minima around 2C lower than the 20th century maxima.
It would be interesting if someone could gather all the temperature info out there and try to fill in a curve such as this.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2984169776_a24b5bd42f_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Bob,
1)Do you own a handgun? Yes, numerous firearms. Self/home defense, collectibles,
hobby, hunting.
2)Has anything changed in recent times? I don’t know. I do know that since the
beginning of time there have been people who achieve and those that choose not
to.
3) Do you think you would be where you are now in terms of standard of living? (If
so, why?) “Comfortably is a subjective term but we do alright. And yes, as I
stated above, there are those that do and those that don’t. Unfortunately, many of
the policies adopted by the more Socialist minded politicians during the late
1950’s and 1960’s caused the disintegration of the family causing the “ghettos”
that you observed in Detroit. Detroit city has always been a bastion of Liberal
government intrusion into the lives of its citizens and in many ways has encouraged them to remain on the public dole; providing incentive to rely on the government as opposed to becoming self reliant. You observed the result of these policies first hand.
4)Do you think that the total freedom of the USA “Money Market” to have done
whatever it likes in a free-for-all was a good thing? Do you agree on a total lack
of control on this and other matters? No, I don’t believe in a totally unrestricted
free market.
Let me just clear up one misconception that I believe that you may hold regarding me. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I’m not “rich”. Typical middle class family….father was an Engineer, mother was a housewife and part time secretary. Public schools, no college (trade schools after high school). I don’t remember receiving an “allowance” as a child. I do remember asking for one once and was told that if I wanted an allowance I could have one after I got finished paying for my portion of the gas and electric bills, rent, etc. I had “jobs” to do around the house….mostly stuff a 6 to 12 year old could do…cleaning, yard work, etc. Summertime I mowed lawns (with the family mower) in the neighborhood for the elderly/widows eventually earning enough money to purchase my own lawn mower and cover expenses, (gasoline) and started a “business” of sorts. I delivered newspapers, I collected empty soda bottles to return for deposit. In the wintertime I shoveled snow from driveways/sidewalks for money. One summer I worked as a laborer for a brick mason. Another summer I worked for a landscaping company. When I was old enough to drive I purchased a $200.00 car and worked nights after school busing tables and washing dishes. Summers in high school I worked at the same engineering company as my father cleaning boilers, moping floors and apprenticing with the senior mechanics, (handing them tools and a general lackey). Eventually through persistence and hard work (mostly hard work) I’ve managed to develop a career and make a decent living. With the help of a strong woman we’ve managed to put a few bucks away. We built our own home to save on construction costs.
I’m far from “rich”. I’ve never asked anything or received anything from the government, (aside from the public school)except for the freedom to earn a living and make decisions for myself. I’ve paid my taxes dutifully each year and contributed to society by not becoming a burden on society. We managed to be (somewhat) financially successful by making sound financial decisions and not living beyond our means. I have also volunteered through my church to aid the less fortunate through building projects, (Christmas in April). I assist with shut-ins, the elderly and widows and unwed mothers applying my skills to make repairs to their homes in my “spare” time so don’t lecture me on the “virtues” of volunteerism.
The American economic system is and should be based on merit and performance. This system encourages innovation, competition and rewarding strong work ethics. The socialist system encourages sloth, apathy and mediocrity.
Take a look at a soccer, (football) team…..Should the under performing players be paid the same wage as the higher performing players? Should the superstars be paid the same wage as the water-boy? If so, where is the incentive to excel and to achieve a higher level of performance? Does Peter reward the guy that is lazy, routinely late and a slacker by paying him the same wage as his top employee that brings new ideas to the table; is always providing suggestions on how to increase productivity and efficiency?
TonyN,
Is it possible to set up a forum for these grossly off topic comments? I’d like to continue this dialogue with Bob and Peter, but I’m afraid doing it here will cause Robin’s eyes to roll back in his head and he will disengage. You could call the thread “everything else” “off topic comments” or “free for all”. We’ve a good group here, many insightful, intelligent people…..the conversations are stimulating.
Hi Peter,
Tried sending this earlier, but ir got stuck in the spam filter, so am resending with {parentheses} in link.
We have sort of drifted off our most recent topic of climate sensitivity from added CO2 and the suggestion of a delayed equilibrium in the observed warming from AGW.
Rather than defending Hansen’s climate equilibrium hypothesis by making oversimplified analogies, let’s look at the hypothesis itself.
Hansen et al. paper “Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases”
{http}://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
It appears to me that a basic flaw in Hansen’s approach is that it is based upon circular logic and wishful thinking.
Let’s see if we can run through the logic.
Greenhouse theory (and IPCC radiative forcing estimates) tell us that 2xCO2 should result in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2, (= 5.35 * ln2) and that this should result in a warming of 0.68°C. In other words, 1 W/m^2 results in 0.18°C warming.
At 47% there today (from year 1750 to 2007), we should have seen around 0.33°C warming from CO2, of which the 20th century (1901-2000) would account for around 0.24°C.
20th Century warming was 0.65°C according to Hadley records (let’s ignore UHI distortions, etc.). From where did the rest of the observed warming come?
Solar scientists tell us 0.35°C came from increased 20th century solar activity, which reached an 8,000-year high level in the late 20th century.
The greenhouse theory tells us that increased methane should have accounted for around 0.08°C.
Voila! We have reconciled the theoretical greenhouse warming with the observed facts.
This is the simplest explanation (ignoring short-term “blips” caused by volcanoes and ENSO, etc. plus the fact that there may still be many natural climate forcing factors of which we are not yet aware).
To paraphrase the principle of logic of Occam’s razor: “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.”
But wait! This is not very alarming, since it means that we will only see another 0.45°C warming between now and year 2100, when we expect to have 560 ppmv CO2 (or twice the 280 ppmv we had in pre-industrial year 1750).
So let’s crank in some hypothetical positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to make our warming forecasts more interesting. Let’s assume (a) that relative humidity remains constant in the troposphere with warming following in goose-step the theoretical maximum established by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and (b) that high elevation (energy absorbing) ice clouds increase with warming but that low elevation (energy reflecting) water droplet clouds do not increase in the same proportion, together providing a strong net positive feedback, so that with the other feedbacks we end up with a 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3.2°C rather than 0.68°C according to the greenhouse hypothesis. Sounds a lot more alarming.
But oh-oh! Now we have a problem with the 20th century observed warming. This means we should have seen a warming of around 1.4°C from CO2 alone (but we actually saw less than half this amount).
Wait! Let’s come up with a delayed “equilibrium” hypothesis, which suggests that the warming has indeed occurred at a rate of 2.5 to 5 times that postulated by the greenhouse hypothesis or around 1.5-2 W/m^2 due to AGW with all feedbacks, but that this warming is “hidden” somewhere.
In other words, Earth should have warmed 1.4°C under the influence of an added 1.5-2 W/m^2 from anthropogenic sources (let’s ignore the sun as “insignificant”); this energy is just hiding in the “heat sink” of the ocean.
To justify this, let’s do a bit of circular thinking. To quote James E. Hansen: “it cannot be assumed that the planet is in thermal equilibrium with space, that is, it is necessary to consider the transient response to variable climate forcing. The response time of surface air temperature to changed climate forcing is dependent on the ocean surface thermal response time, because of the close thermal coupling between surface air and the ocean mixed layer.”
“Although the thermal relaxation time of the mixed layer alone is only several years, exchange of water between the mixed layer and deeper layers may delay the full surface response by decades or even centuries.”
Huh?
So CO2 is causing the atmosphere to warm, but the upper ocean is instantaneously taking up some of this added energy before the surface air thermometers (or satellites in the troposphere) can even measure it, then gradually exchanging the upper layer heat with the lower layers, from where it will eventually be released back into the atmosphere, thereby causing added global warming at the surface some time in the future (like a “time bomb”).
Wow! “Climate science” is indeed very complex!
Starting with this hypothesis and an assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 2.8°C, Hansen goes a step further to find an “exchange rate”, which would provide a theoretical “good fit” to the observed temperature trend. After arriving at an exchange rate of 1.2 cm/s he works backward to determine the climate sensitivity.
In summary he states: “Total warming at equilibrium due to gases added in the 1970s and 1980s would be about 0.5°C.” “We conclude that there is strong evidence that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a global warming of at least 1.5°C. Almost all projections of atmospheric composition indicate that an effective doubling of CO2, including contribution of trace gases, will occur sometime in the next century. Furthermore, for any climate sensitivity in the range of 3±1.5°C, the global mean warming should exceed natural climate variability during the next one or two decades.” [written in the 1990s]
He then closes the circle with the conclusion: “a climate sensitivity of 2.5°C is needed to provide the best fit to the observed global temperature trend.” “We conclude that the global temperature trend of the past century is generally consistent with the climate sensitivity estimated by the National Academy of Sciences committee (Charney, 1979; Smagorinsky, 1982): 1.5-4.5°C for a doubled CO2.”
How well did Hansen do with his circularly derived sensitivity assumptions?
We did not see the 0.5°C predicted warming in the atmosphere from the increased greenhouse gases from the 1970s and 1980s (in fact, it stopped warming entirely after 1998, and has started cooling since then). No atmospheric warming is equivalent to 0 W/m^2 going into the air.
So where are the missing 1.5-2.0 W/m^2 from all the added greenhouse gases? In the ocean? Based on spot measurements from ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, the ocean appeared to be going along with Hansen until the latest NOAA Argo robot measuring devices were installed (and de-bugged). While the originally reported rapid cooling since 2003 is being “re-calculated to account for suspected measurement errors”, Lyman et al. (2006, 2007) showed that warming stopped in 2003 and that the average warming rate from 1993 to 2006 was only 0.33±0.23 W/m^2.
So 80-90% of the warming disappeared out of sight completely? But yet it may come back to fry us in “decades or even centuries”?
Ouch!
Looks like we can bury Hansen’s “equilibrium” hypothesis (and with it the related 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C) as a bit of “voodoo”.
It’s really a shame that such a wonderfully thought out hypothesis just didn’t work out in actual fact.
If you want to defend the “equilibrium” hypothesis, Peter, please do so (but not with oversimplified “saucepan” analogies that do not apply).
And, please, don’t come with “consensus of almost all scientists believe Hansen’s hypothesis to be correct” as a “proof” that it must be correct.
Regards,
Max
Max, Robin Brute et al
The vast amount of factual information posted on this blog from official sources showing actual temperatures from the past, sea levels, uncertainties about the science, modelling and the processes from the IPCC itself etc etc, never seems to get debated in depth, but instead we get sidetracked onto other issues.
I am therefore proposing to take 2 pieces of factual information and create a reference point showing that temperatures are unrelated to the Keeling curve.
To do this I propose superimposing actual CET records dating back to 1660
http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png
over the graph showing actual C02 readings.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
The information contained in this second link has come from a great deal of work by many people, as per the reference under. I have no reason to believe it is not accurate.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp006/
The IPCC CO2 chart is here, but is not as clearly set out as the cdiac graph. http://www.emissionzero.ie/index.php?p=charts
It seems to me that superimposing actual temperatures over actual co2 levels (rather than inventing computer hockey sticks) is such a basic exercise that it must have been done thousands of tines before in graphical form. Can anyone can post a link please??
If not, I intend to construct the graph myself. The CET figures are factual and verifiable and relate to the usual 30 year climate pattern so they can be used as they are. However, the CO2 graph would I think benefit from;
1) Being extended to 1660 so it reflects the CET figures
2) Extending the left hand vertical line downwards so the 280 ppm figure (effectively nil on the metric tons matrix) can be seen more clearly above the bottom horizontal line.
3) The matrix used on the left hand side ‘metric tons’ would more usefully be correlated as well in the more familiar parts per million, with 280ppm as the pre industrial figure (0 on this graph ) and 380ppm as the current figure (8000 on this graph) This graph seems identical to the IPCC one where they seem to have made a direct substitution of metric tons for ppm. Is anyone aware of any reasons why this should not be done?
Comments please
Max #2318
Just composed this off line then pasted it before reading through the other posts. I think this is what you seem to have in mind? I intend to start with the Hadley figures then work back to the bronze age with a separate graph
TonyB
Max,
I think the sort of calculation you are working on is well worth while. It should be possible to get reasonably close to the right answer, for 2x CO2, by looking at the historical record.
There are a couple of other things that you need to consider such as the effect of volcanoes and particulates. Maybe you could produce your own version of this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Brute,
I would say that I was arguing more for a sensible balance between socialism and capitalism. But it is wrong to say that socialism, as such, rewards failure, or that it implies that everyone is or should be paid exactly the same. In fact that argument is a bit rich as we have recently seen finance capitalists reward themselves very nicely for failure. They resign with so called ‘golden parachutes’ worth millions of dollars. Ordinary workers just get fired.
I would also make a distinction between finance capitalism, the gross mismanagement of which which has caused the world economy to just about seize up, and industrial capitalism which produces the real things that sustain human civilisation. Finance capitalism should exist only insofar that it is needed to support the industrial sector of the economy, whether this is capitalist or socialist, and not as the monster it has grown to become.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to set up their own business if they are producing something useful at the same time. In most instances the people doing this are not capitalists themselves. Most of the time they borrrow capital from banks or financiers, and who are of course the real capitalists.
Bob_FJ and Brute
Just another take on weapons and crime.
US inhabitants have the constitutional right to “bear arms”. This is regulated at the local and state level, but the basic constitutional right cannot be taken away without an amendment to the constitution, which is highly unlikely to ever occur.
Violent crime rates are high in parts of the USA and firearms are often involved. It is hard to find comparable global statistics for other violent crimes (due to the different laws that apply), but homicide rates can be compared directly.
The USA on average apparently has an only slightly higher homicide rate than the EU or India (see earlier post), so there is no clear evidence that the higher rate in the USA is a result of the “right to bear arms”. Some studies have been made to show that there is no clear cause/effect correlation here, just as there is no clear cause/effect correlation between human CO2 emissions and “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” (to get this back on topic for TonyN).
In Switzerland every male has to serve in a militia army, which is much like the National Guard in the USA. It begins with an extended “basic training” at age 19 or 20, and is then repeated in annual or bi-annual retraining courses lasting a few weeks. The “reserve” soldier has his weapon at home with him (and is supposed to do a certain amount of target practice at government firing ranges during the time he is not on active duty). There have been isolated cases where the military weapon was used to murder someone, but this is rare. Switzerland has a very low homicide rate, despite the fact that a large percentage of the population has a firearm at home.
I would generally agree with the argument (often made by the National Rifle Association in the USA) that it is not the fact that Americans have the right to own firearms but other factors that cause US violent crime rates to be somewhat higher nationally than in other countries. A study shows that firearm ownership and violent crime do not really show a correlation.
{http}://www.gunowners.org/op0746.htm
Of course, you have local communities as Bob_FJ mentioned, such as Detroit, where violent crime rates are extremely high.
{http}://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html
Here is a list of top murder rate cities of the USA (murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants):
1. Detroit (46)
2. Baltimore (45)
3. St. Louis (40)
4. Newark (37)
5. Washington (31)
6. Oakland (30)
7. Philadelphia (27)
8. Atlanta (26)
9. Buffalo (20)
10. Cleveland (20)
The USA average is 4.28 murders per 100,000 (out of 301 million people)
Now, it is a statistical fact that many of the cities with the highest homicide rates also have a high percentage of African-American population and a relative high level of poverty. This is not meant to be a “racist” observation, it is merely a statement of fact. That is not to say that there are not other communities (in particular smaller, rural communities) that have a high percentage of African-Americans and a low homicide rate.
Of the top 10 homicide rate cities we have (percentage African-American population):
1. Detroit (83.7)
2. Baltimore (64.3)
3. St. Louis (51.2)
4. Newark (53.5)
5. Washington (60.0)
6. Oakland (35.7)
7. Philadelphia (43.2)
8. Atlanta (61.4)
9. Buffalo (37.2)
10. Cleveland (51.0)
The USA average is 12%.
I see that the homicide rate in African nations is higher than in “European” nations. The problem with getting crime statistics for Africa is that only five or six countries in the whole continent actually make their statistics public. Below are reported homicide rates per 100,000 people:
South Africa – 122
Swaziland – 93
Lesotho – 50
Rwanda – 45
Guyana – 22
Just looking at the EU, the murder rate per 100,000 people is 3.35 (out of 496 million people)
I see that the murder rate in Asian nations is much lower than in “European” nations. Let’s just take three major ones, China, Indonesia and Japan (annual homicide rate per 100,000):
China: 1.73 (out of 1,322 million people)
Indonesia: 0.91 (out of 235 million people)
Japan: 0.50 (out of 127 million people)
Average:1.52 (out of 1,684 million people)
A study was made to examine the apparent difference between crime rates based on ethnic (or racial) differences.
{http}://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/poen/2002/00000023/00000006/00373264;jsessionid=1d2qkmm5gnmss.alexandra?format=print
{http}://www.springerlink.com/content/97lkr63empuymwle/
The study found:
“Rushton’s theory of r-K race differences was examined in relation to the rate of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population and Gross Domestic Product per Person for 74 countries from the 1993–1996 International Crime Statistics published by INTERPOL and the 1999 CIA World Fact Book. Each country was assigned to one of the three macro-races East Asian, European, and African. The results corroborated earlier findings that violent crime is lowest in East Asian countries, intermediate in European countries, and highest in African and in Black Caribbean countries. The median number of violent crimes per 100,000 population were: 7 East Asian countries—34; 45 European countries—42; and 22 African and Black Caribbean countries—149, respectively. The median Gross Domestic Product per Person was highest in East Asian countries ($12,600), intermediate in European countries ($7,400), and lowest in African and Black Caribbean countries ($1,900). Across the three population groups there was an ecological correlation of –.96 between crime and wealth (wealthier countries had less crime). Finer-grained analyses, however, found that while wealth was negatively related to crime across European or East Asian countries, it was positively related to crime for the African and Black Caribbean countries (i.e., the wealthier an African or Black Caribbean country, the greater its rate of violent crime). Future research needs to examine genetic factors in addition to cultural factors as well as their interactions.”
Is there an ethic or racial cause/effect correlation? Maybe not, but the facts seem to point to the fact that East Asians are the least violent, Europeans come next, and Africans are the most violent.
What do you two think?
Regards,
Max
Message to TonyB
Re your 2321, it would be very informative to have a long term temperature / CO2 correlation, as you propose.
I do not know how far back into history one can go on this, but it would be good to include medieval warmer periods as well as later cooler periods.
The Mann “hockey stick” has been shown to be flawed and the currently available “spaghetti” temperature reconstructions do not provide too much info, since they ignore historical data and rely principally upon some sort of single proxy study, ignoring others.
I am looking forward to seeing whatever you can come up with on this.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I’d just add that many of these cities have strict gun control laws. The law abiding citizens are unarmed, the criminals are armed to the teeth. Criminals are criminals because they don’t obey laws.
Since Washington D.C. banned guns the murder rate increased 134%.