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 JZSmith,
To your #2425.
CO2 is a naturally occurring trace component in our planet’s atmosphere, essential for all life on our planet. It is also a naturally occurring component of our planet’s oceans. The natural CO2 cycle in the atmosphere and oceans is many times greater than the small amount that is added from human fossil fuel combustion.
“Sequestration” of CO2 into underground permeable formations is an expensive, hare-brained idea. With some minor exceptions, CO2 is not a natural component of these formations, and no one knows for certain what CO2 will do there.
To be sure, there may be some who make some money from CO2 sequestration, but it is a totally stupid concept in my opinion.
Regards,
Max
Note to JZSmith
You wrote that there never was a vote to reduce taxes in California.
Wasn’t there a successful “Proposition 13” many years ago that still limits property taxes in California today?
(Maybe this is the exception that proves your rule.)
To keep this post on topic, exactly what are the three “AGW propositions” you mentioned supposed to achieve?
Regards,
Max
Max, to your two posts 2428 and 2427, I posted the CO2 sequestration link for you smart guys to debate. I always hope that I’ll be able to pick out a small crumb from your discussions that will help me to understand.
Your comment about Prop 13 is right on. I had forgotten about it, but it is the bedrock of the tax revolution that looks to be soon under withering attack from the left.
The current props I referenced were linked in my post 2422, but briefly they are a high speed rail line between northern and southern California (~$20 billion), renewable energy source requirements for public utilities (costs to be borne by rate payers (aka taxpayers)), and finally a program to help consumers buy more energy efficient, green vehicles and invest in research into same (~$10 billion).
This is interesting, Via: Ice Cap
If You Don’t Like History, Change It!
By Meteorologist Art Horn
Recently I was looking at some graphical temperature data from NASA. I was able to find a graph of United States temperature from 1880 up to 1999. I then went to the NASA GISS site and found the most recent plot of this data. I wanted to compare the two and see if there had been any changes in the trends. Each graph was on a different scale so I had to fit one to the other so they could be compared. After that I saved each image and opened them each in a simple paint program. In this way I could toggle between the two and visually see any changes that might have taken place.
Well it was quite an eye opener! Going back and forth between the images there is a clear cooling the temperatures before 1970 and a clear warming of the temperatures after 1970. It is unmistakable and quite remarkable. Figure one is the temperature data from 1880 to 1999. Figure two shows the most recent plot. I suggest you save each image in your computer then bring them back up in some program that allows you to toggle rapidly back and forth so you can see the changes. We all know that Dr. James Hansen is one of the worlds most visible
global warming alarmists. He is also caretaker of the NASA GISS data. It would appear that he is not happy with the trend of temperature in the United States. It would also appear that he is doing something about it. By adjusting temperatures in the past downward and adjusting more recent temperatures upward we get an amplification (or at least the appearance of one) of the rise in temperature between the late 1970s and the late 1990s. If these adjustments continue we will eventually have a new “Hockey Stick” graph. The old Hockey Stick has been broken and thrown away by most although Dr. Mann is attempting to duct tape it back together again. Now Dr. Hansen is gradually fashioning a new stick by adjusting the United States temperatures more to his liking.
On September 13th , 2008 I wrote a letter to Dr. Hansen’s boss at NASA Michael Griffin explaining my dissatisfaction of having Dr. Hansen in charge of the very data that is used to support his alarmist point of view. To date I have not received a reply.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NASATEMPS.pdf
Brute Reur 2430, If You Don’t Like History, Change It!
I’m reminded of a whirl that Max initiated over at Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit site, comment 104 @ http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964#comment-278379
It was about some surprisingly large upward “adjustments” of GISS T’s that Max noticed in early 2008. (which of course was an evidently VERY cold period). I agreed with Max that this all looked a bit fishy but the follow-up was a bit disappointing. It followed-on from the lead article:
John Goetz on history being re-written at GISS
Max, Do you know if there has ever been a good explanation for those remarkable “adjustments”?
Tony B,
You ask ” Do you really believe all the 90000 readings [of CO2 atmospheric concentrations]….were all incorrect”.
To answer you question directly, I’d say no.
There was such a wide range of reported results in the early 20th and late nineteenth centuries, and of course, some of them were pretty close. But, there was no way of knowing at the time which were right and which weren’t. Most of the reported results overstated what we now know to be the true answer. It wouldn’t have taken much. An open fire, a candle or gaslamp could have done it.
It may have been technically possible to measure CO2 concentrations, at the time, to the required accuracy of a few %, but there was obviously something going wrong because the reported results were all over the place and lacked any consistency.
To the scientists of the day it would not have seemed such an important issue and would barely have rated a mention in the scientific literature.
Bob_FJ,
On the question of ice cores. Yes, they do start off as snow which changes to ice after several years. The ice is no good for the purposes of measuring CO2 concentrations if it started off as water or has ever thawed at any stage of its life.
Snow is relatively porous to air and, as you say, gas can diffuse through its structure. Diffusion always occurs from a higher concentration to a lower concentration. After several years of accumulation the layers of snow are compacted as ice. At this time the cells in the snow are closed and no further diffusion can occur. Consequently the age of the ice is older, if you count the time spent as snow, than the age of the air trapped within it. This seemed to cause TonyB’s good professor, whose name I have forgotten and can’t be bothered looking up, some intellectual problem. He was claiming that the dates don’t match up, no-one could explain why, and this offset discredited the whole exercise. But, if I can understand it, it shouldn’t be too hard for a professor.
There’s an interesting interview here with Martin Durkin, producer of the controversial Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. I agree with one passage in particular. When asked, “What political underpinnings are involved in this scare?” he said:
I’ve been amused at the various times Brute has commented on Peter’s seeming attachment to his apocalypse. BTW Peter, I’m looking still forward to your completing the survey I posted at 2289. Thanks.
Peter
Thank you for your honest admission that accurate historic carbon dioxide measurements are possible by means other than ice cores. In Britain there was an informal – then legal- requirement, enforced by weights and measures inspectors, to take accurate measurements in factories, hospitals and many other establishments.
The 90000 historic records referred to by Beck are a fraction of the number that were routinely taken and subsequently discarded. The British Victorians were famous for the meticulous nature by which administrators and scientists recorded information. They knew what they were doing. Keeling himself admitted this.
The following link is from watts up-it is worth reading for its own sake but the comment from ‘Tony Edwards’; is particularly good and links to a talk by Keeling in 1993, reproduced in small part here (the full link is at the bottom of Mr Edwards post).
There is also reference elsewhere in the blog to a Victorian book in which CO2 measurements were recorded. (also below) They knew about the means to take measurements and specifically referred to such things as avoiding gas flames.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/beck-on-co2-oceans-are-the-dominant-co2-store/
From Keeling
“In 1804, Theodore de Saussure showed that water was also an essential chemical in photosynthesis, combining with carbon to make actual living matter. He also demonstrated more clearly than Ingen-Housz that the carbon involved in plant growth came from the air. Curious about the carbon dioxide in the air, he made the first detailed measurements of its concentration there, measuring it near Geneva, Switzerland, under different wind conditions, different hours of the day and different months of the year. The mean value that he found was roughly 0.04% by volume,which I will put in modern units as 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This value was much less than von Humboldt had found, but still in considerable error.
De Saussure’s Memories, published in 1830, nevertheless ushered in a period of increasingly precise measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide culminating in some nearly correct measurements in the 1880s by a Belgian named Jules Reiset.”
Peter, Saussure used accurate equipment, correct methodology, was aware of the need for mixing and the effects of time and location so why does Keeling illogically conclude that the measurements were inaccurate?
The reference to a book is here by Dave Gardner (05:42:27) :
“In response to oldjim wondering what the CO2 values were for Victorian London, there are plenty of old books that give those values. The particular book I’m using is ‘Physiography: An Introduction to the Study of Nature’ by T H Huxley published in 1885, the values converted to ppm are:
On the Thames at London, mean: 343
In the streets of London: 380
Top of Ben Nevis: 327
From the Queen’s Ward, St Thomas’s Hospital: 400
From the Haymarket Theatre, dress circle at 11.30 pm: 757
From Chancery Court, 7 feet from ground: 1930
From underground railway, mean: 1452
From workings in mines, average of 339 samples: 7850
Largest amount in a Cornish mine: 25000
The measurements were carried out by Angus Smith and are originally given in his book ‘Air and Rain’ published in 1872. The above locations are in London apart from Ben Nevis (mountain in Scotland, tallest mountain in UK) and the values recorded in mines. Out of that data, the closest to a background level would be the Ben Nevis value. Beck’s historical instrumental CO2 curve seems to include the Ben Nevis data point. Rather than what the RealClimate bloggers and ‘Eli Rabbett’ would have you believe, these old CO2 measurers did fully understand that CO2 values varied with location.
One of the criticisms I’ve seen of Beck’s work is that you can’t use European locations to measure background CO2 – you have to go to exotic, out-of-the-way locations like Hawaii and the South Pole. But there are some modern European measurements (on the CDIAC website) recorded at rural locations and these compare very well with Mauna Loa:
My view of Beck’s work is that it’s a fairly honest attempt to compile historical instrumental background CO2 data, and I’m amazed that he seems to have been the first person to attempt to do this, but I suspect that some of his rural locations may not be rural enough. It does look very suspicious to me that climate scientists prefer to use an elaborate proxy method like ice core data when it would appear to be simpler to use historical instrumental data and possibly then ‘correct’ it to allow for any discrepancy between modern and old-fashioned methods of measuring CO2.”
Peter, The Victorians were an inventive and thorough people and rapidly advanced their testing methods. Keeling makes reference to Haldane.
http://www.dmm.org.uk/archives/a_obit20.htm
The above link is the obituary of Prof Haldane who created a highly accurate device for measuring carbon dioxide in the 1890’s which was used in mining and medical situations, his obituary confirms his knowledge of the subject.
The following is in connection with his work for the Admiralty measuring co2 levels for divers;
http://www.divernet.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?id=2602&sc=1040&ac=d&an=2602:Grace+under+pressure…
The device he invented became a portable version and was part of the standard equipment in various organisations including hospitals, as can be seen in this inventory;
http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F1919%2FAHRF%208%2F176
The link below is a 1917 study where the means to analyse co2 is taken as the norm and a simple procedure.
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/33/1/47.pdf
Max The Germanic speaking peoples were also meticulous about records as were the French. Saussure- even in 1825- was very ware of the need for proper mixing and carried out co2 testing in all sorts of conditions-overcoming the objections from such as Gavin and Eli Rabett who believe they only took them in still and unmixed conditions.
Are you aware of any German language books (as distinct to studies referenced by Beck) such as the one by Angus Smith/TH Huxley
referenced above, where carbon dioxide measurements are recorded? It seems to me that the evidence of accurate historic measurements, recorded by meticulous and thorough people, is overwhelming, which does make me wonder why we place so much reliance on ice cores.
TonyB
Peter #2432
The good professor whose name you cant be bothered to look up is Jaworowski who has published 280 scietific papers and been involved in glacier studies for over 40 years. Perhaps he might know a little about his subject. Link is reperated below.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
tonyB
Hi Bob_FJ
To ur query 2431 regarding the ex post facto “adjustment” to the temperature record and the ensuing exchange on ClimateAudit, it was actually adjustments to the Hadley record for January-April 2008, which I was questioning (not the GISS record, which had been the subject of John Goetz’ lead article “Rewriting History, Time and Time Again”).
A blogger named “Phil” (Phil Jones?) was quick to defend the Hadley adjustment, first as a result of time lags “the data doesn’t all arrive at once, as data arrives it’s input into the calculation”, later as a result of “variance adjustments” and finally that there really was no major adjustment made. A lively exchange with several other bloggers (including yourself) followed. “Phil” dropped out of the discussion. None of the explanations were satisfactory, so I posted a graph that showed how the Hadley record (before adjustment) showed good correlation with GISS as far as 2008 cooling vs. 2001-2007 was concerned, but that after the Hadley upward adjustment it no longer showed good correlation.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2720385677_7af5ccfd90_b.jpg
As you recall, the exchange died without any resolution of why Hadley had increased the Jan-Apr 2008 temperatures after the fact by 0.08C. So it remains a mystery today.
As the song goes, “it was just one of those things…”
Regards,
Max
TonyB,
The election of a President McCain, may have been possible but it didn’t happen. It might also have been possible for 19th century scientists, (BTW It sounds very Anglo centric to term them all ‘Victorians’. What about the other Kings and Queens? Maybe some of them were even republicans?) to get it right but they came up with a whole range of values from about 250ppmv to over 550ppmv.
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=25
Callendar, in the 1940s tried to make sense of these reports. The points that are shown circled are from workers and laboratories he considered reliable. Of course this left him open to the charge of data selection, but it looks like they were the ones who were pretty close to getting it right.
Why do you think there was such a cloud of widely differing results? The variation is slightly higher than your claimed +/- 3%
Robin,
I think I’ve expressed myself clearly enough on this forum. Is a questionairre really necessary? Not really!
An apocolypse? No not necessarily. It is all avoidable. It is interesting that you are quoting Martin Durkin. He started off with the Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist Party who have wandered gypsy like across the political spectrum over the years, shedding their skins periodically in snake like fashion. First they were ‘Living Marxists’, then just the LM group, now they are ‘spiked’.
I’m not sure how they fit into TonyN’s concern of “Climate, the countryside and landscapes”. If they had their way there wouldn’t be any countryside left in the UK.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5463/
Message to TonyB
You asked (2434), “Are you aware of any German language books (as distinct to studies referenced by Beck) such as the one by Angus Smith/TH Huxley
referenced above, where carbon dioxide measurements are recorded?”
I have checked Google.de and all that I find for pre-1958 CO2 measurements are either directly or indirectly linked to the studies by Beck. I will keep searching for other independent studies or references. If I find anything, I’ll let you know.
Regards,
Max
Robin
Durkin might also have mentioned that environmentalism is essentially an urban based movement, which is hardly surprising when four-fifths of the population are now reckoned to live in urban areas. (UK figure, but the demography in other developed nations is unlikely to be very different)
The natural world is something of which the majority can now have little direct experience or instinctive understanding. They therefor lack even the most basic reference points when making judgments about the credibility of what they are told about AGW, and become easy prey to activists who promote alarmist predictions.
It is, perhaps, inevitable that a romanicised view of the natural world – and our relationship with it – has become fashionable and that this should be manifest in the modern environmental movement. But the likely consequences are worrying.
If urbanisation is the author of environmentalism, and environmentalism is, as Durkin suggests, essentially a neo-romantic movement, then it is very difficult to envisage a path which will lead back to rationalism. And what kind of global economy, and what kind of science, is romanticism likely to produce?
Hi JZSmith,
You mentioned (2429) two high-cost ”energy-related” propositions totaling $30 billion being voted on in California.
There is a German student (beer-drinking) song that starts, “Wer soll das bezahlen?” (who is going to pay for that?)
Since your Governor is fluent in German, he should be singing this song.
BTW did the high-cost props get passed?
Regards,
Max
TonyN and Robin
Have followed your exchange on the romanticized view of the natural world, as held by urban environmentalists today.
I recently saw a wonderful performance of Hayden’s oratorio “The Seasons”.
The theme is the relationship of a family of 18th century tenant farmers with nature during the four seasons, from the promise of spring, the beauty and abundance of summer, the joy of a rich autumn harvest after long and arduous work and finally the harsh winter that destroys life.
Unlike today’s urban dreamers, who glorify the idea of returning to a simpler peasant’s life with nature, these pre-industrial folks knew what nature is really all about.
I really don’t believe anyone in his right mind wants to go back there.
Max
Re: 2437, Peter
I don’t know whether Durkin really was a ‘Trot’ when he was at university or whether it is just one of those rumours that spread on the net when someone displeases the enviro’s. Anyway, most ‘Trots’ have one thing in common, they grow out of it.
That article in Spiked (I only skimmed through it) carefully scrubs round the the causes of demand for new housing, which is in excess of population growth. Not very illuminating.
I am not against the building of new houses in the countryside, providing that it is done sympathetically and contributes to rural communities rather than urbanising them. Gordon Brown’s eco-towns are quite another matter but, now that they have made their contribution to the government’s green image in the media, it looks as though they have already reached their sell-by date.
A recession can be a great time for dumping headline-grabbing projects without having to admit that they were just plain silly.
Re: #2441, Max
Yes, yes, yes!
No one who has read Cobbett would want to, and the journals of early tourists who visited Switzerland tell much the same story about rural poverty.
The point you are making is precisely what I was getting at. Having broken our direct, primeval, links with the natural world during the industrial revolution, how do we re-establish them at a time when, IMHO it is essential that we should do so? We have discovered so much about the natural world in the last two hundred years, but there is a vast difference between knowlege and understanding. And lack of understanding can so easily lead the knowledgeable towards hubris and hysteria.
Would I be right in thinking that Switzerland is one of the least urbanised countries in Western Europe? It’s thirty years since I was last there.
Update:
I just re-read one of the first posts I put up here, which makes the same point, but at rather too great a length.
Hi TonyN,
You asked, “Would I be right in thinking that Switzerland is one of the least urbanised countries in Western Europe? It’s thirty years since I was last there.”
Switzerland does have more of a “rural mindset and image” in general than its two larger neighbors. The farmers here have a lot of political pull. The high level of foreign tourism (mostly visiting rural areas) is certainly also a factor that gives Switzerland this rural image.
But in actual fact, Switzerland is 75% urbanized today, compared with France at 77% and Germany at 81%, so the difference is not so great.
The figures I have for 1970 showed Switzerland at 70%, compared with France at 68% and Germany at 75%. Also not much difference.
Two other historical data points that I have are for
· 1870: Switzerland 33%, France 30%, Germany 36% (pre-Franco-Prussian War)
· 1950: Switzerland 65%, France 55%, Germany 70% (post WWII)
The urbanization (among other things, I’m sure) brought with it a major increase of the average wealth in per capita GDP (parity purchasing power):
· 1870: Switzerland $2,200, France $1,950, Germany $1,740
· 1950: Switzerland $9,000, France $5,300, Germany $3,900
· 1970: Switzerland $17,500, France $12,200, Germany $13,500
· 2007: Switzerland $39,800, France $29,400, Germany $32,000
I’m sure that the figures for the UK would be similar although the upswing may have come a bit earlier with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there.
As you can see from the 1950 figures, not being directly involved in the fighting and destruction of WWII also helped post-war Switzerland.
Here is the “take home” from all of this (IMHO).
The urban dreamers of today’s eco-chic environmentalist scene, who yearn for a return to a simpler rural life, have no real notion how much poverty and misery such a life really entails when compared to the comfortable and affluent urban life, which they enjoy today. It’s a silly pipe dream.
Regards,
Max
TonyN
Enjoyed your “The countryside – for what it’s worth”
Max
Max: I’ve just read David McCullough’s superb biography of John Adams, US founding father and second President. Adams was a lawyer and politician to be sure – but he saw himself essentially as a farmer. Apart from his wife Abigail, that’s what he most missed when his position as a statesman required him to be absent from home. He wasn’t a wealthy man and the farm meant that the family could be largely self-sufficient. Would that more current politicians had such an understanding of and sympathy with the natural world. Paradoxically when he was the first US ambassador in London, he found that farming gave him something in common with the “tyrant” King George III – aka “farmer George”.
BTW I disagree with Durkin on one point: although “the intellectuals – teachers, lecturers, scientists” may have gained least from capitalism, others who have embraced neo-romanticism such as leading media commentators most certainly have not.
Peter: the reason the survey (post 2289) is useful is that it helps to define a respondent’s precise belief. For example, we now know that Max considers that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have made a small contribution to global warming but that they are unlikely to be harmful. Give it a go – it only takes a minute or so. And as I said when I posted, it would assist our understanding of your position if you were also to indicate what you think would be the answers given by the “overwhelming consensus”.
Hi Peter,
IMHO the point made by TonyB on pre-1958 atmospheric CO2 concentrations makes sense, i.e. there is good evidence that this was not simply a smooth curve starting with a pre-industrial 280 ppmv and gradually increasing to the 1958 level of 315 ppmv (as measured at Mauna Loa, when this started).
This much is clear: Keeling had a theory. He chose the data points that confirmed his theory. He ignored those that did not.
Why he ignored them is a totally different question, which I believe I have already addressed.
But rather than going to a pot-pourri of measurement covering the entire period of Beck’s study, I believe it would be pertinent to look at those measurements made in the 1940s, in particular the 330 data point series made in 1947-48 in Point Barrow, Alaska (where there can be no question of “industrial” or “urban artifacts”. These numbers showed a range of 350 to well over 400 ppmv. If these figures are correct (and there is no reason to believe that they are not), then there was no smooth curve as reconstructed by Keeling with somewhat questionable ice-core data and the conclusion of anthropogenic origin of the CO2 is seriously questioned.
Get the point?
It’s really quite simple.
Regards,
Max
Max, to your 2240 question on the AGW props: The most expensive one (~$20B)—high speed rail—passed. The other two failed.
(with 96.6% precincts reporting)
Hi JZSmith
Looks like the folks in California didn’t do too badly (although the bond issue for ~$20B will probably end up representing half the actual final cost, if Swiss train initiatives or the Bay Area rapid transit system, BART, are any good indicator). Project overruns of 100% are normal in this kind of project.
A rapid transit LA-SF train connection probably makes sense long term, though.
Looks like the voters showed some common sense in trashing the flim-flam props for “Renewable Energy Generation and Altern. Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Bonds” (too bad for the companies that would have made a killing on these props). The government doesn’t really need to be involved in these deals IMHO.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Yeah, I also enjoyed David McCullough’s biography of John Adams (I think there is a new film out based on this book).
I particularly enjoyed the very personal nature of Adams’ letters to his wife and McCullough’s description of the rivalry between the simple farmer, Adams and the cosmopolitan aristocrat, Jefferson, which lasted right up to the death of both.
I agree with you that it is a superb biography.
To get this back OT for TonyN, the book does mention some climate events (back in the late 18th century) that helped the American colonials in their war with Britain.
Regards,
Max