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.
Max, I agree that high-speed LA-SF train service might be good in the long run, but as you say, typically these things run way over budget. We could use the money elsewhere.
It is also interesting that T Boone Pickens, and his “alternative energy” company, was behind and funded the signature gathering to put Prop 7 on the ballot.
There’s an old saying: ‘When they say “It’s not about the money”… it’s about the money.’
Hello Peter
Yesterday I quoted from a book about Co2 readings in Victorian times. I thought I’d follow up on the mines aspect which mentioned the work of Haldane in measuring co2 levels in – amongst other facilities-mines.
Quote was as follows;
“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”
Like the Cotton industry, mine owners needed to employ ventilation to keep co2 down to acceptable levels-for the sake of the miners or- more likely- to protect their investments. The interesting link below starts;
http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/air_flow_2007.pdf
“As recorded by Agricola (1), Pliny (AD 23 to 79) describes how, in Roman times, gases dangerous to humans sometimes occurred in pits and wells. He also describes how they were detected by observing the behaviour of a dog or lighted candle when lowered down the shaft. They were removed by passing a current of fresh air through the workings. In British coal mines one such dangerous gas, almost certainly being encountered by the fourteenth century, was called ‘blackdamp’ or ‘chokedamp’. This was probably in response to the fact that its presence was indicated by naked flames being extinguished and humans suffocating. Blackdamp is now recognised as occurring due to the presence underground of oxidising processes, including breathing humans, burning candles and the spontaneous combustion of coal. Thus it would have been particularly prevalent in workings not scoured by a current of fresh air drawn in from the surface.”
So as far back as Roman times there was an awareness of the chemical composition of gases and this was positively identified by the fourteenth century. The need for coal at that time was of course spurred on by the lurch from the MWP into much cooler times.
The above document goes into the various legislation enacted to control a variety of problems in mines including c02 (blackdamp) The various Coal mines acts of 1855 1887 1911 refer. The 1887 act identified specific legal limits for co2.
The following link gives a definition of blackdamp and also makes reference to Haldane-who was also mentioned yesterday in my post.
http://www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/glossary/blackd.htm
Before the various mine acts could be passed various Royal commissions were set up. Some 25 can be accessed from here, commencing in 1842.
http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/site/literature/royalcommissionreports/
Tyndall-a famous name of course in climate science- worked with Robert Bunsen, who was one of very many who made co2 measurements, as mentioned by Beck.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/general/history/john_tyndall_biography.shtml
Interestingly Tyndall gave lectures to ‘working men’ at mines in the company of Huxley, who was also mentioned yesterday as the author of a compendium of studies of c02 called ‘Physiography- an introduction to the study of nature” dated 1888.
A fascinating section from his biography follows;
“In 1859, aged 39, Tyndall began investigating radiant heat and the acoustic properties of the atmosphere. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapour, carbonic acid (carbon dioxide), ozone and hydrocarbons. Amongst his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of “…perfectly colourless and invisible gases and vapours…” to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat, whilst other gases are quite opaque.
Tyndall’s experiments also showed that molecules of water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation and that even in small quantities these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself, a phenomenon of great meteorological importance. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling the Earth’s surface air temperature. He said that without water vapour the Earth’s surface would be “held fast in the iron grip of frost”. He later speculated how changes in water vapour and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.”
As an aside, those that know Ben Nevis-Britain’s highest, snowiest and most windswept mountain, might wonder how a co2 reading could possibly be taken on its summit-let alone with any accuracy.
“Top of Ben Nevis: 327”
Those who have climbed up there-like me- will have observed the ruins of a weather observatory dating to the 1800’s which was manned by-amongst others- John Buchanan, a chemist of some note who made the co2 reading mentioned above. His obituary is linked below;
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=JR9262900993&JournalCode=JR
Like many of his breed he was highly meticulous;
“He seemed to work mainly for the satisfaction of his own mind, for once a definite result was obtained the problem lost its driving power ; and only a portion of the notes which he amassed, with a care and precision that can only be described as meticulous, was ever worked up for publication. He used to say that he loved work but hated writing; still, the number of his published papers exceeds one hundred.”
The Victorians were sophisticated and inventive people who were very interested in sciences-and were meticulous recorders of the information they painstakingly gathered. Many of their inventions were used to provide better conditions for working people by measuring-amongst many other things- carbon dioxide levels in mines, hospitals and factories.
Why should we place our faith in a few ice core samples- open to interpretation- in order to measure co2 when we have hundreds of thousands of direct readings carried out at the time and under well understood conditions? It makes no sense at all.
TonyB
TonyB,
These “Victorians” of yours are all very interesting but is a CO2 reading, 7 ft off the ground at Chancery Court, taken at some unknown time in the 19th century by some unknown chemist, really of any relevance at all? “Well understood conditions”? Even if it was accurate, how do we know how many coal fires were burning in the vicinity at the time?
You still haven’t explained why the range of reported Victorian values, ( I remember Mrs T talking about them ), for the background CO2 level varied from 200ppmv to over 550ppmv if the results have an accuracy of +/-3%.
There is plenty of ice, and plenty of trapped air bubbles, in the Antarctic. It can be checked and rechecked. It makes perfect sense to trust 21st century over 19th century technology, unless of course you are trying to invent your own facts.
Max,
Are the banks still secure in Switzerland? Can we come bunk in with you for four years?
Pete, you responded to my 2414, with:
I’ll try and keep this brief and simple:
(1) In amongst what you wrote above, several statements are very wrong, and several others are perhaps incomplete, or irrelevant. (or mildly wrong). Would you like to check-over what you wrote, (were you in too much haste?), and make any edits that might help readers here to understand your intended meanings?
(2) Despite the errors alluded, I notice that you do not appear to contradict my 2414.
Is my understanding (2) correct?
Puzzled! Bob_FJ
Is my understanding (2) correct?
No. Ice is typically some tens of years older that the air samples that it contains. It is the length of time that it takes for the snow to be compacted into solid ice and for the cells to close so that no further diffusion can occur. It will vary from site to site and be dependent on the rate of snowfall.
Maybe you’d like to write it all down in your own words and it might become clearer what you are actually saying. If you feel that I have it wrong that’s fair enough, of course, but please explain!
Brute,
If you feel that gasoline is too expensive in the USA you’ll not be a happy chappy in Switzerland. You might want to ask Max how much a big Mac costs in Zurich or Geneva. That’s a better indication of the true cost of living than many official indices. If you can’t afford their meat prices or resist the urge to go off killing their native fauna you’ll find the Swiss will probably get very cross with you.
Max, Reur 2436, responding to my 2431, you wrote in part:
1) I’m sure, given the subtlety of the evidence, that Inspector Rex, (An allegedly brilliant Austrian canine police detective, appearing here weekly on SBS TV), would apprehend “Phil”, and charge him with crimes against humanity, under his UEA name of P. Jones. (AKA as Dear Ol’ Phil Jones, distributor of Manna to us mere mortals on Earth)
2) Concerning your graphic, it is interesting that:
a) No-one contested the actual data
b) No-one could explain it’s grossness.
Clearly, we need an expert to help us. Peter M perhaps?
Aiuto! Bob.
Brute,
I’ve just looked it up. $6.36 for a big Mac in Switzerland. Is that about double the US price?
Much cheaper to learn to love life in your new United Soviet Socialist States of America. I must say that I have never been a customer of a nationalised bank. How do they treat you when you want to withdraw some money? Does it have to be approved by the local party commissar?
Pete, Reur 2456 @ 6:27 am. responding to my 2455 @ 5:55 am
I see that IF you opened 2455 at the instant it arrived, you took up to 32 minutes to reply post with:
a) Continue with your fetish about the cost of living in Switzerland, cautioning Brute not to go there. Erh, BTW do you understand the significance of currency exchange rates between different countries?
b) Scolded me in part with:
This is one of a whole bunch of things that you clearly do not understand, and it does not address my question in (2)……which was not about the age of the ice!
However, since you raise it, and keeping it brief and simple by just addressing this one point:
There are various papers which attribute the age of entrapment of gas bubbles in ice in the Antarctic in thousands of years, (not tens): up to about 6,000 years. (last I looked)
You may be confusing the situation with Greenland, which has been attributed somewhat doubtfully with 83 years, because it has long been warmer there, and to “line-up the graphs” etc.
REPEAT VERY SIMPLE QUESTION:
Is it true that you have previously claimed to be a physicist?
Peter #2453 Plus Max-your German skills are needed!
(Max-you might also note your Port Barrow series (post #2447) of 350-400ppm in 1947-8 is virtually identical to the Giessen study in 1939-40. See under)
Peter said;
“These “Victorians” of yours are all very interesting but is a CO2 reading, 7 ft off the ground at Chancery Court, taken at some unknown time in the 19th century by some unknown chemist, really of any relevance at all? “Well understood conditions”? Even if it was accurate, how do we know how many coal fires were burning in the vicinity at the time?”
The Victorians were well able to distinguish background sources as was identified in the Factories acts when readings had to take into account such elements as gas lighting. Just as in the same way I am sure Keeling was able to strip away the rather larger natural influences from the effects of measuring co2 on top of an active volcano. Measurements are taken at all sorts of heights- 2m being fairly standard
Anyway, you rather missed the point about the range of measurements. The Victorians were fascinated by science and associated facts and figures and would take all sorts of readings just because they could- many of them had no point whatsoever but were considered ‘novel’ very many others did have a purpose
The Ben Nevis ones are interesting and were taken in a remote area by a renowned Chemist.
Others in the developed world were also taking readings prior to 1958.
These Kreutz samples from the Giessen weather station 1939-40. (link given previously)
“Giessen conducted 64 000 measurements in 4 differnet altitudes using a high precision gas analyser invented by P Schuftan, Accuracy: 1,5%. The yearly average for 1939/40 was 385 ppm. Country air with lowest CO2 was in average 372 ppm. The seasonal amplitude was 54 ppm which was roughly 20 ppm more than the data measured at the coast of the Baltic sea at that times. Most interesting is that the about monthly variations correlate with the lunar phases (peak on full moon) This series represents 75% of the data samples surveyed.”
The data is available here;
“See the partial translation from “hoch Deutsch” (high German) into English By André Bijkerk
“Who was W. Kreutz in Gießen? or what’s wrong with atmospheric CO2?”
Note sampling at 0 m, 0.5 m, 2.0m, 14.0 m with 120 measurements per day. Note detailed analysis vs all major meteorological parameters. He measured daily variation with 1.5 hr sampling for a week. Furthermore, The weather factors under consideration are (solar) radiation, temperature, wind speed and precipitation.”
“In the next tables we give the average values of all the samples in thousands of percents during the period 1.5 years. The overall average of more than 25,000 samples is 43.85 (438.5 ppmv)”
The facility is still running;
“The Justus Liebig University Geissen is running a
Free Air CO2 Enrichment Facility
See: “detailed description of the enrichment technique:
Jäger, H.-J., Schmidt, S.W., Kammann, C., Grünhage, L., Müller, C. & Hanewald, K. (2003): The University of Giessen free-air carbon dioxide enrichment study: description of the experimental site and of a new enrichment system. Journal of Applied Botany 77, 117-127.
Schmidt, S.W. (2003): Ein modulares System zur Untersuchung der Auswirkungen von erhöhtem atmosphärischen Kohlendioxid auf Grünland-Ökosysteme. Dissertation, JLU Gießen.
Quelle: http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2003/1125/ ”
Contact Persons
There is an:
“Air Quality Monitoring Station Linden of HLUG Phenological Garden and Air Quality Monitoring Station
“The Air Quality Monitoring Station Linden, located at the Environmental and Climate Impact Research Station Linden, is part of the air quality monitoring network of Hesse which is operated by the Hessian Agency for the Environment and Geology (HLUG).”
Peter has made various comments about accuracy regarding the comparison of chemical wet method vs. IR method. This paragraph in Beck’s repsonse to Keeling and Meijer…
“My E&E paper is an excerpt from my 113 page monograph (Beck, 2006/2007). In this monograph I compared the chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2, represented by the Steinhauser series for 1957/58 in Vienna (Austria), with the IR measurements at Mauna Loa. The average for chemical data for Vienna was 320 ppmv by chemical methods, and this is similar to the 318 ppmv obtained from Mauna Loa. This proves the validity of both types of measurement within the documented error range.”
That you can get accurate measuremenmts without needing to go to the top of volcanos in Hawaii or mount an expedition to the south pole can be seen in these readings (which seem very similar to Max’s)
Shetland Islands, Scotland elev 30m
356.89 ppm in 1993 to 370.97 ppm in 2001
Mauna Loa (elev 3397m)
357.04 ppm in 1993 to 371.02 ppm in 2001
Westerland, Island of Sylt, Germany near sea level 329 parts ppm in 1973 to 364 ppm in 1997
Mauna Loa 329.68 ppm in 1973 to 363.76 ppm in 1997
Hundreds of thousands of increasingly accurate direct measurements were made from the early 1800’s by numerous people who knew exactly what they were doing. The modern interpretation of co2 readings by Keeling prior to 1958 appears to be rather curious. Another Hockey stick?
TonyB
Hi Brute,
Yeah. The Swiss UBS bank also got a shot in the arm from the National Bank here. Saw our banker a few days ago and my wife asked him point blank if UBS was going to be taken over by HSBC or China Bank. He only laughed (but I noticed that it was a nervous laugh).
Costs are high here (not only for Big Macs). The exchange rate is about 1.10 Swiss Francs per US$, but the purchasing power of the $ in the USA is about 2x the purchasing power of a SF here, depending on what you are buying.
Residential homes here cost around $450/sq.ft. (can be up to twice this near the big cities).
A pound of good quality sirloin steak costs $25-30.
A pound of top filet steak costs $35-45.
A pound of Atlantic salmon costs $20-30.
But a pound of good local cheese (not Velveeta “copy-cheese”) costs $10-12. Why do you think the Swiss invented cheese fondue and raclette?
Regards,
Max
Message to Brute
Forgot to mention this (to get us back on to climate or energy-related topics).
Switzerland has the lowest gasoline prices in Europe, so Germans, French, Italians and Austrians who live near the border all come here to fill their tanks.
The price here is only SF 1.70 per liter (which figures out to be $6.00 per US gallon).
A real bargain, right?
Max
Bob_FJ,
The figures you give are way too long. For instance if you look at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
” Mixing of air from the ice sheet surface to the sealing depth is primarily by molecular diffusion. The rate of air mixing by diffusion in the firn decreases as the density increases and the open porosity decreases with depth. Etheridge et al. (1996) determined the sealing depth at DE08 to be 72 m where the age of the ice is 40±1 years; at DE08-2 to be 72 m depth and 40 years; and at DSS to be 66 m depth and 68 years. ”
See the link for more references.
TonyB,
I keep asking and you keep avoiding the question of how the 19th century CO2 figures can be so varied if the accuracy of measurement was +/-3% as you claim. Lets take you at you word. Lets say all these 19th century measurements of yours were accurate to this level. Typically.
What about the readings that were around 200ppmv? These were accurate to 3% too. Right? So, the low value can only be explained by saying they weren’t using contaminated samples.
So why were some meaurements up around the 550ppmv level? It can only be because the samples were contaminated by extra CO2 from gaslamps, steam locomotives or coal fires or whatever.
You are really saying that mainstream science has understated the problem of atmospheric CO2 increase. It has risen from a base level of 200ppmv. Not 280ppmv.
Is that really what you want to argue?
Re: #2444 & #3445, Max
Thanks and archived, and thanks.
I got the urbanisation figure of 80% in the UK that I used from Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s report on the urban environment, but was unable to find either a reference for the research or a sensible definition of an urban area; only the vaccuous statement that it was an area with a population of more than 10,000. No indication of density, size etc.
Do you know, without going to a lot of trouble, how it is defined for the figures that you quoted? And does the listing that you used include a figure for the UK.
Incidentally, the UN put out a press release a while ago saying that globally the population of urban areas was about to exceed that of non-urban areas for the first time.
So far as the GDP figures are concerned, I am certainly not suggesting that urbanisation has been detrimental, only that it has caused a fundamental change in how we perceive our relationship to the natural world which may play a part in public attitudes to AGW. Particularly the eagerness of many people to embrace this new doctrine without question, and their reluctance to consider any evidence to the contrary.
Hi Peter,
Yes, they do have hunters here in Switzerland that “go off killing their native fauna”. Occasionally there are hunts for chamois or the rarer ibex, in addition to common red deer and the larger European stag (Hirsch or cerf).
But 60% of the venison served in the restaurants during “game season” comes from deer farms in New Zealand.
Regards,
Max
PS Don’t know how to get this on topic, except maybe to make a quick estimate of the amount of methane “degassing” and resulting global warming coming from these deer farms.
TonyN: This one is not off thread. Bad conscience?
JZ,
Could you point an ignorant Englishman to a refernce that would explain what Props. 1A, 07 and 10 are about? From a standpoint of total ignorance it would seem to me that California have given the thumbs up to a scheme that can be justified on the grounds of infrastructure improvement without reference to AGW, but thrown out – by large majorities, two schemes that are solely aimed at saving the planet. Am I right, and if so is this some kind of backlash in the US’s greenest state?
Note to TonyN
To ur query 2464: The statistics I cited earlier on urbanization of France, Germany and Switzerland did not define the breakpoint between “urban” and “rural” populations.
It looks like these statistics are not that well defined (and certainly not uniform). I have seen one report that defined “urban” (today) as a conglomeration of >10,000 inhabitants. By this definition Switzerland today is only 65% “urbanized” (i.e. 35% of the population lives in communities of 10,000 or less), so the statistics I cited earlier (in particular those for earlier years) must have been based on a lower population breakpoint.
In a UN study, I have seen a definition used in the UK: rural = urban areas with <10,000 residents plus towns up to 30,000 that act as rural service centers.
{http}://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/EGM_PopDist/P07_Champion.pdf
Another study links the increased level of urbanization with an improved standard of living:
{http}://family.jrank.org/pages/1731/Urbanization-Urbanization-Process.html
“Prior to World War II less than 25 percent of the world’s population was living in urban areas. Since then the process of concentration has accelerated, especially in the developing countries. By the end of the twentieth century roughly 48 percent of the world’s six billion people lived in urban areas (United Nations 1996). Thus, the opening of the twenty-first century signals the beginning of another crucial global watershed: over 50 percent of the world’s population will become urban dwellers.
Generally, the proportion of a country’s population that is urban (i.e. the level of urbanization) is closely associated with the level of economic development—particularly the degree of industrialization—and the standard of living. In the advanced industrial economies today the urban proportion varies between 75 and 90 percent, in middle-income countries from 50 to 75 percent, and in the developing world from 10 to 50 percent.”
Although urbanization generally results in improved standard of living, the study does mention more recent “over-urbanization” in developing countries with mega-cities and large slums as a trend where urbanization increased more rapidly than economic development.
Regards,
Max
TonyN,
I normally follow the line of thought of most arguments on this thread but I’m having trouble with this one
“The natural world is something of which the majority can now have little direct experience or instinctive understanding. They therefore 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.”
The environment is equally important to those living in cities. Maybe more so, when you consider that cities are generally more polluted than the countryside. What are the “reference points” that countryside dwellers pick up on to cast doubt on AGW theory? In Australia, it’s just the opposite. The cities look green, well watered and prosperous. On the other hand, the farmers in the bush are struggling with the worst drought on record and many inland rivers have just about dried up.
Peter #2463
I am a bit mystified at your constant reference to 200ppm.
My #2379 had one link to the Beck figure which was subsequently repeated and another added, and is repeated again here. The first link leads to the raw data of the measurements 1812-2004 in a graphical form-no mention is made of 200ppm-samples range from 270 upwards.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html
The next link shows the actual measurements -represented as dots- with the allegedly cherry picked data used by Keeling ringed-these show the slope upwards of co2 that then supported his upwards only trend that he recorded from 1958. The trend he shows is not apparent if the full extent of the data is examined in the second paper which show figures from 250ppm upwards.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm
The individual figures are accurate to plus or minus 3% but you get lots of contaminated outliers in all scientific measurements which get discarded for good reasons, as well as some that may be discarded for other reasons.
Becks original document is here- http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
it is worth reading and also shows diagrams of the various analysing machines used which I have been referring to throughout these recent posts and were responsible for many hundreds of thousands of samples. As far as I can see Beck makes no mention at all of 200 ppm in his document either.
When Ralph Keeling made his comments on Becks paper he also made no reference to 200ppm
“ Comment on “180 Years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods by”
by Ernst-Georg Beck,
Energy and Environment, Vol. 18(2), 259-282, 2007.
by Ralph F. Keeling
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093-0244
rkeeling@ucsd.edu
May 14, 2007
Beck’s 11-year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck’s Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes.”
Real Climate also referred to these ranges. The only reference I have seen to 200ppm was for glacial times and from yourself. I am not sure why you keep mentioning it Those at the top end are possibly correct but are only intended to be relevant to the conditions they were taken e.g. pockets of gas in a Cornish mine and stated as such-see my previous link. They are not claimed to be representative of the general atmosphere. Please clarify where the 200 ppm arises it is certainly not a figure I support. Thanks
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Back to atmospheric CO2.
From the studies cited by TonyB, it appears that there was a well-documented spike in atmospheric CO2 in the 1940s, and that (at around 400 ppmv) this spike was slightly higher than today’s value.
There was also a well-documented increase in temperature in the early 20th century (linear increase of 0.53C), peaking in the early 1940s.
Following this warming period, there was a period of slight cooling that lasted around 30 years (as Mauna Loa started measuring rapidly increasing CO2 levels).
And, as we all know from all the recent ballyhoo, there was also a well-documented (and extremely well-reported) increase in temperature (linear increase of 0.38C) in the late 20th century, peaking in 1998, accompanied by even more rapidly increasing CO2 levels, back almost to the same level they had reached in the 1940s.
Is there a link?
If so, what is it?
What is the cause?
What is the effect?
What is the physical mechanism for this cause and effect?
Interesting questions that TonyB has raised.
Do you have any answers (besides just denial of the “inconvenient” CO2 measurements made in the 1940s)?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
In your #2468 it appears you have missed the point. It is not whether or not farmers suffer more than urban dwellers from the impact of droughts.
When TonyN refers to “city slickers” being more easily bamboozled by enviro-activists than their “country cousins” into believeing (for example) that droughts and resulting crop failures are “man-made”, he is probably right.
Farmers know that droughts come and go (the Australian record shows major droughts recorded as far back as 1864). An interesting article on droughts in Australia shows how these may be linked to El Nino patterns in many cases.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/livedrought.shtml
The study points to the short and intense drought of 1982/83 as well as the longer but smaller drought of 1991-1995, both of which were related to natural El Nino oscillations.
Farmers also know viscerally that droughts are not “man-made” (from automobile exhausts, etc.)
Urbanites, on the other hand, have no real-life relationship with droughts or crop failures and thus will more easily fall for stories linking these events with AGW.
I believe this is the point TonyN was making (please correct me, TonyN, if I got that wrong).
Regards,
Max
PS The worst US drought ever recorded was the “dust bowl” of the 1930s, long before there was any AGW to speak of.
That’s what I’m worried about; my money being “co-opted” by Comrade Obama and the “Green Police” for purposes of “equality” or to fund the Revolutionary Proletariat. Sort of like Omar Sharif in Dr Zhivago…………The Brute palace being turned into a Kibbutz for local party members………..
(I’d make one of those goofy smiley faces here but my computer skills are lacking).
Hi Peter,
Back real quickly to droughts and AGW.
Indur Goklany has made a study of annual death rates from extreme weather events over the period 1990-2004, as compared to the period 1900-1989.
{http}://members.cox.net/goklany/Extreme%20Events%20Note%20Hohenkammer.pdf
For droughts the report shows (annual related deaths):
1900-1980: 111,185 deaths per year
1990-2004: 126 deaths per year
No clear link between droughts and AGW here, Peter, even in the much-ballyhooed “hottest years of the millenium”.
Regards,
Max
Nov 05, 2008
Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?By Noel Sheppard
Californians by very wide margins defeated two green initiatives that anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in the media and in legislative houses across the fruited plain should take heed…but will they?
To begin with, Proposition 7
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop7-title-sum.htm
would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.
Proposition 10
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop10-title-sum.htm
would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.
Much to the likely chagrin of Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his global warming sycophants in the media, these measures went down, and went down in flames:
Proposition 7 Renewable Energy Generation
Yes 3,294,158 35.1%
No 6,102,907 64.9%
Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes 3,742,997 40.1%
No 5,581,303 59.9%
Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? We’ll see.
Pete,
RE: # 2468
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a large portion of Australia a “natural” desert? Southern California is also a desert climate only transformed into a productive agricultural area through irrigation projects. Frankly Pete, I’m baffled as to why you would be surprised that there are “droughts” in an arid or semi-arid environment.
Climate of Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia
The climate of Australia varies widely, but by far the largest part of Australia is desert or semi-arid – 40% of the landmass is covered by sand dunes. Only the south-east and south-west corners have a temperate climate and moderately fertile soil. The northern part of the country has a tropical climate: part is tropical rainforests, part grasslands, and part desert.
Rainfall is highly variable, with frequent droughts lasting several seasons thought to be caused in part by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Occasionally a dust-storm will blanket a region or even several states and there are reports of the occasional large tornado. Rising levels of salinity and desertification in some areas is ravaging the landscape.
Australia’s tropical/subtropical location and cold waters off the western coast make most of western Australia a hot desert with aridity, a marked feature of greater part of the continent. These cold waters produce precious little moisture needed on the mainland. A 2005 study by Australian and American researchers [1] investigated the desertification of the interior, and suggested that one explanation was related to human settlers who arrived about 50,000 years ago. Regular burning by these settlers could have prevented monsoons from reaching interior Australia.