This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
Brute
I enjoyed the UN’s (2005) “50 million climate refugees by 2010” fairy tale you posted (2568).
Where are these guys?
It’s pretty hard to hide 50 million folks.
Just shows that if you want to make absurd “doomsday” claims, you should make sure (like IPCC, James E. Hansen, Al Gore and most of the other “prophets of doom” do) that you give yourself several decades of leeway – best of all, predict a disaster that will occur long after you are expected to be dead.
Otherwise you will be proven to be a liar as was the case for the UN refugee forecast or Hansen’s failed 1988 temperature prediction (before he learned the lesson of effective scaremongering).
Max
Peter 2570
“For it to work, countries have to be at the same or similar stages of economic development like they are in Europe.”
and later
“Nevertheless I’m just wondering why you are so aligned to the a very right wing party yet happily deny that your politics are just that.”
I want to elect my own leaders who can make our own laws and enact the wishes of the people.
If disliking a self serving non elected out of touch grouping with little in common, many of whom interpret the rules in their own way, who have created a monster of a currency doomed to fail and support corrupt practices that the auditors refuse to sign off is very right wing, it just shows the very low standards of probity the ‘left wing’ must have that they see nothing wrong in all that
Your first comment in particular just shows that you nothing whatsoever about Europe and the Euro. OIf all the many absurd statements you make here that takes the biscuit. Or perhaps you are being ironic?
Speaking of which we are way way off topic
tonyb
Peter 2575
You do have this unerring habit of finding blogs Ive never read. You’ve given three examples in the last few posts.
You really won’t progress until you realise that being a climate sceptic doesn’t automatically make you eligible for the Attila the Hun fan club or automatically put you on the payroll of Big Oil.
Most of us are highly rational which are not, unfortunately, traits you’ve been displaying the last few months.
Tonyb
TonyB,
Well yes maybe the European countries weren’t quite as similar as they thought in terms of their economic development. But I’ll leave that argument alone for you to mull over in the UK.
For a UKIP supporter to deny being right-wing is a bit like a member of the Socialist Workers Party to deny being a red! Of course we can all make arguments for just how sensible our politics are, but at the same time it’s important to know where you are on the political spectrum. Either you don’t have a clue or you just don’t want to admit it. I’d be on the left – I agree. Not SWP or CP, but in favour of the mixed economy and Keynsian economics certainly.
And as both James Delingpole and George Marshall argue, if you align yourself with the right it is expected that you become a climate change sceptic too. It’s part of the package. It’s an article of faith. Its a pity it’s developed like that but there we are. It’s no more likely that we’ll see large numbers of UKIP supporters , or US Tea Party supporters demanding GHG controls any time soon, than it is that we’ll see large numbers of revolutionary socialists getting teary-eyed toasting the health of Will and Kate. They have their ‘articles of faith’ too.
Peter 2579
Perhaps you’d better address your comments to a UKIP supporter-that is someone who has either voted for them or supported them with money or otherwise enthusiastically endorsed their policies.
You really need to revise your theory that someone who is right wing is also going to be a climate sceptic or that someone on the left is automatically an alarmist.
Incidentally the range of development of countries in Europe encompasses virtually third world economies through to those at the leading edge of technology. They make unhappy bedfellows as each wants something different.
To bind such diverse countries together with a single currency is something that hasnt been achieved since Roman times-and that was enforced at the point of a sword!
Now how about getting back on topic before the other Tony chastises us?
tonyb
Peter M
Logical reasoning is apparently not one of your strengths when you conclude that the (already tenuous) premise
means that everyone who is rationally skeptical of the “dangerous AGW” premise is, by definition, politically “aligned with the right”.
Far from it, as we have witnessed on this site.
Here is an example of your logic:
Max
TonyB
Do not hold it against PeterM for being ignorant, when it comes to the EU. Europe is very far from Australia.
I am a bit closer (as a Swiss), but am still not directly impacted as you are. The Swiss Franc has appreciated vis-à-vis the Euro, which is good for buying French wine but bad for Swiss exports to the EU. The Swiss have declined EU membership despite a lot of pressure, and polls taken in neighboring provinces/departments of France, Italy, Germany and Austria have shown that a majority of these folks along the Swiss border would like to become part of Switzerland (instead of the other way around). So I probably have a better grasp of the EU than Peter does, but am not “living it” (as you are).
The EU is a conglomerate of highly developed and woefully underdeveloped nations, all with totally different history, needs and interests.
Worst of all, it is a non-democratic society superimposed on societies with varying degrees of representative democratic government and tradition.
Here we have, on one hand, the example of tiny Belgium, which is coming unglued economically and politically because of differences between the Waloon and the Flemish population groups (with Brussels – home of the “French-speaking Flemish” – as the “wild card” and, ironically, also the HQ of the EU).
On the other hand we have an artificial union of even more widely disparate units, which is supposed to work, but is also coming unglued economically and politically.
Now, to get this back on topic.
While EU politicians have made flowery statements about commitment to saving the planet from AGW, the EU nations cannot agree on the safety and future of nuclear power, a very basic question regarding energy policy (and climate change policy, as well). General popular opinion on the AGW goals is also very divided, but the people have not been asked by the EU ministers.
The post-war “Coal and Steel” trading union was a good thing, as was the European Common Market in its day. But the present EU and Euro are a disaster, which is only being held together because of the egos of some powerful people, but not because of the expressed will of the general population.
These are my opinions, as a Swiss, who believes that decentralized direct democracy with a multi-party representative government is the best political system – and that the EU setup is in direct opposition to this principle.
Max
TonyB
Let’s go a step further away from the voting public than the EU.
There are serious considerations of giving the UN the power to enforce and administer global carbon caps and taxes.
Now here is an organization of completely different members, with all sorts of diverse political, historical, economic and societal backgrounds and interests.
It is totally non-democratic, as is a significant percentage of its member states.
It has been involved in specific international peacekeeping missions, but these have not been spectacularly successful.
Many of the specific programs it has undertaken, which involve larger sums of money, have been marked by corruption and waste.
Even if AGW did represent a real and serious potential threat, it would be an unmitigated disaster to arm this group with the power to levy hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of taxes primarily on the inhabitants of the industrial nations.
And, even more, since the scientific case for the “dangerous AGW” premise is anything but certain, it would be sheer folly to embark on such a course, as I am sure even PeterM would agree.
Max
Max,
Yes if you are aligned with the far right, certainly in countries like the UK and the USA, then it is increasingly expected you become a climate change sceptic. There’s no logical fallacy. It probably wasn’t like that ten years ago but that’s the way it has developed.
Of course there are always a few exceptions to these sort of political rules and allegiances. For instance, there will be a few UK Tories who are also republicans, and they’ll be groaning just as much as the left at all the ballyhoo about some planned wedding next year. But there won’t be many.
There will be a few Tea Party Republicans in the USA who are concerned that guns need to be controlled. But again not many.
On the other hand UK Tories will largely be for gun control. And US Republicans will still largely be, well, republicans.
I’ve often asked climate sceptics how they can know the science is all wrong when they don’t understand it. That’s not a tough question but they still don’t answer. The real answer is that they don’t use any science at all. If there is any science involved, it is psychology – not Physics. Sceptics take their cue from their ‘gut instincts’. From what they hear their friends say. From how their chosen newspaper or TV station reports the issue. If they don’t like Al Gore to start with, then what he has to say will produce entirely the opposite effect from what he intended.
I am starting to think, with the benefit of hindsight, that it might have been better if Al Gore had asked someone from the other side of the political spectrum to co-host AIT to try to de-politicise the issue. But its too late now, unfortunately.
PeterM
Although it appears overly simplistic to me, I cannot agree or disagree with your premise (2584) that membership in a “right wing” political movement requires skepticism of the “dangerous AGW” premise. [The other examples you presented are irrelevant to our topic here and do not interest me.]
But I can tell you categorically that rational skepticism of the science supporting the “dangerous AGW” premise does not require being a member of a “right wing” political group (as accepting the AGW science without question does not require affiliation with a “left wing” political group, even if it may be true that many AGW-believers do have “left-of-center” political beliefs).
As we have seen on this site, there are several bloggers here (as well as some climate scientists) who are rationally skeptical of the DAGW science but are not at all aligned with “right wing” politics.
It is a common fallacy to assume that a correlation in one direction means it must also be true in the other direction, as I pointed out (and as I am sure you are aware).
And that was the point here, Peter.
The dispute you and I (or you and TonyB) have here really starts with the “science”, Peter – not with “left or right wing politics”.
This may be hard for you to grasp, and even harder to accept, but it is so. Believe me.
Max
PeterM
You made the point (2584)
Well, the question may not be “tough”, but it definitely is “loaded”. However, you have not asked me that question, have you?
Nor have I seen that you have asked it to TonyB (or Bob_FJ, or many of the other bloggers here).
I have also asked DAGW believers how they can know the science supporting dangerous AGW is right and the response was that they did not understand the specific details behind the IPCC predictions, but they accept the word of the IPCC as the international body of knowledge on “climate science”. And, besides, the glaciers are melting, aren’t they?
So your argument is weak on two counts, Peter.
Please go ahead and ask me the question how I “can know the science is all wrong” when I “don’t understand it”, which you say you have “often asked climate sceptics”.
I’ll be glad to give you my answer.
Then ask TonyB, Bob_FJ and some others here who have discussed the science and see how they respond.
You might be surprised!
Max
Max
I certainly don’t blame Peter for being ignorant about the EU, although it woud help if he didn’t try to believe he is so knowlegable about it.
Its our leaders to blame for allowing so many disparate countries to be jammed together, then compounding the resultant problems by imposing a one size fits all economic policy in the shape of the Euro, then fuelling it all with cheap money.
The consequences were utterly predictable. You don’t have to be right wing or left wing to see this was madness, just to have some common sense, a knowledge of history and the ability to see that the intentions of the ruling elite are different from what the reality can deliver, or their electorate want.
I can see no alternative to the Euro eventually spliting up, either altogether or into two tiers, and it is likely that will then rent the EU itself asunder.
Hopefully it will then become the free trade area we were promised by a Tory govt back in the 1970’s.
The way the EU myth has been sold has many similarities to AGW. As your #2583 points out the UN makes the EU look like pillars of rectitude-they certainly can’t be trusted to get the story right let alone be responsible for levying ‘fines’ on industrial economies for the sin of being successful.
Tonyb
Through debate in the Space special interest group of the high IQ society Mensa, we have found a better way of predicting Climate Change than computer models. The largest effect on Climate Change is the Length of the Solar Cycle, short Solar Cycles cause a warming and long Solar Cycles cause a cooling. The speed of the centre of the sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits of the Planets, this means that short term Climate Change can be predicted.
Max,
It is putting it too strongly to say that AGW scepticism would be “required” in, say , Tea Party circles in the USA. I’m sure that any constitution they might have would allow free thought on that issue. It would be the same for other issues too, like Gun control, or Obama for President.
However, in practice. things work a little differently. If you are not sure what I’m getting at, just try turning up at your next Tea Party rally with a placard saying “End Carbon Pollution Now!” or “End Mountain Top Mining Now”.
Whereas “AGW is a socialist scam ” would be perfectly acceptable.
This is from the Mensa International Website.
Climate Change from Space
Mars Global Surveyor studied the surface of Mars from 1999 to 2006, four Martian years, this coincided with a five and a half year rise in solar activity reaching the Solar Cycle peak in 2002. During a Solar Cycle maximum the Sun irradiates 0.1 percent more energy than at a Solar Cycle minimum, for Mars this means an increase in Global temperature of 0.21 Kelvin in three Martian years. At Perihelion Mars receives 44 percent (6.8 percent for Earth) more radiation than at Aphelion as the orbit of Mars is almost six times more eccentric than Earths. Mercury is the only planet to have a more eccentric orbit than Mars. Perihelion occurs during the Southern Summer and ever since the 1830s it has been noted that during warming periods a dark band appears around the periphery of the shrinking polar cap, and with dust storms being more common during this period, this has decreased the Martian Albedo from 0.16 to 0.15 and increased the Martian Global temperature by 0.65 Kelvin. This has also caused more frozen CO2 to melt and turn into gas than usual for three Southern Summers in a row. With 95 percent of the Martian atmosphere made up of CO2 (0.038 percent on Earth) and only 0.03 percent Water vapour (1 percent on Earth). CO2 induced Global Warming is almost an irrelevance for Mars as it is for the Earth, as the CO2 has already absorbed most of the radiation available for absorption. The Warming on Mars raises the average surface temperature by 3 Kelvin to 210 Kelvin from 207 Kelvin. Both Planets can cool much faster than they can warm up, so Mars with almost a 100 percent transparent dry CO2 Atmosphere and without the problems with feedback (other than dust storms) from Water Vapour, Clouds, Oceans or an Atmospheric Mass 2,600 times that of CO2. Then Mars is the perfect example to use to test the theory of CO2 warming on Earth. The Black Body Temperature of Mars is 81.5 percent that of the Earth. The surface has a 7 millibar CO2 atmosphere (0.39 millibar CO2 atmosphere on Earth). So the equivalent 7 millibar CO2 Atmosphere on Earth would produce a temperature of 3.68 Kelvin. If you deduct the 0.24 Kelvin increase for a doubling of CO2, four times you get 2.72 Kelvin for a 0.4375 millibar Atmosphere. This makes 2.7 Kelvin for a 0.39 millibar Atmosphere. The 2.7 Kelvin includes, 1.2 Kelvin for CO2 absorption only, plus half of the 1.5 Kelvin that CO2 absorption shares with Water vapour. Confirming that the CO2 induced Warming on Earth is about 2 Kelvin, and also four times weaker than on Mars. Confirming the irrelevance of its ability to increase Global temperature much more, even with significant increases in Carbon Dioxide. Man made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man & 85ppm due to Nature, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. All evidence in Ice core data and direct measurements point to changes in the temperature causing the changes in CO2 levels as on Mars, this increase being due to the 0.76 Kelvin increase in Global Atmospheric temperature over the last 200 year bounce back from the Little Ice Age. But ice core data shows that this is mainly due to the 800 year lag in the changes in deep ocean CO2 levels after the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean contains 93.5 percent of the Earths CO2. The increase has added only 0.1 Kelvin to the 2 Kelvin that CO2 gives to the Warming of the Earths Surface Temperature. This means that man-made CO2 has only increased the Global temperature by 0.015 Kelvin. The Solar Cycle Amplitude and more importantly the Solar Cycle Length and the Forbush Effect being responsible for the further 0.66 Kelvin increase. The largest effect on Climate Change is the Length of the Solar Cycle, short Solar Cycles cause a warming and long Solar Cycles cause a cooling. Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years. The last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years. Short Solar Cycles cause a decrease in cosmic rays when Solar activity is high, decreasing cloud cover and leading to the enhancement of Global Warming on the Earth, a 1 percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. This is called the Forbush effect and is caused by coronal mass ejections which are ten times more common during Solar maximum and have a ten day period that can be predicted four days before the event. This is carried by the solar wind to the Earth on the Suns magnetic field lines.
A study of Luna Earthshine shows that the Albedo of the Earth decreased from 0.32 in 1985 to 0.29 in 1997 showing a 6.5 percent decrease in cloud cover. The Earths Albedo has since increased to 0.31 showing that 69 percent of solar energy is absorbed, 50 percent by the Surface, 19 percent by the Atmosphere (13.3 percent by Water Vapour, 1.6 percent by Carbon Dioxide and 4.1 percent by Dust, Ozone, Nitrous-Oxide, Methane and other gases). In the last hundred years the Earths Albedo has been as high as 0.44 and as low as 0.29 with an average of 0.36. The Albedo effects the North more than the South because the land snow zone for the south is mainly in the sea.
Weather from the Sun was first postulated two hundred years ago when William Herschel tried to prove the price of grain was inversely correlated with the sunspot number, which was subsequently proven, the sunspot number being low during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) at the end of the Little Ice Age. The sunspot number was close to zero during the earlier Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, this is also confirmed by tree rings formed at sunspot minimum which have a higher amount of carbon-14 due to the Forbush Effect. The enhancing effects of the Albedo changes on the Earth and Mars would more than explain Global Warming on both Planets and would explain why the cause of Global Warming on other Planets is not that definite other than the finding that the changes in the brightness of Neptune correlate with the changes in the Earths Global Surface Temperature. When the Earths temperature increased, the Atmospheric Water Vapour content increased, but if this increase had been due to CO2 then the Tropospheric temperature would have increased at twice the rate of the Surface temperature increase. This did not happen. Over half of all Solar radiation is absorbed by the Earths Oceans which are almost 300 times the mass of the Earths Atmosphere. This helps to regulate the effects of the changes in the Earths climate which then responds to these changes after a five year lag. Global Warming peaked in 1998 and ended with the following Solar Cycle peak, followed by strong observational evidence that the ocean has been cooling since 2003, and that the increase in Atmospheric Methane has ended. So it seems quite clear that Climate Change is ruled by the Sun. The speed of the centre of the sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits of the Planets, this means that short term Climate Change can be predicted. There are also long-term future causes of Climate Change in Astronomy. The inclination of Mars varies between 35 degrees and 14 degrees over a period of 50,000 years while that of the Earth only varies between 22.1 degrees and 24.1 degrees over a period of 41,000 years, both planets are at the half way point, Mars at 25.19 degrees and the Earth at 23.44 degrees. This cycle and other changes in planetary axis and orbit produce Ice ages every 100,000 years, in periods when more ice is exposed to the Sun heightening the Albedo, which causes the cooling. The Galactic Orbit of the Solar System every 240 million years produces Ice Age Epochs every 120 million years which are caused by the Sun passing through the Galactic spiral arms increasing the level of cosmic rays and therefore cloudiness, we are at present in an ice age epoch caused by our presence in the Orion armlet.
But the Final Global Warming Terror will be when the Sun turns into a Red Giant. In one billion years time the Oceans will be boiling and in five billion years time the Earth will be eaten up by the Sun, leaving Mars as the most inner Planet of the Solar System. The information above comes from many sources such as The Guinness Book of Astronomy Facts and Feats by Sir Patrick Moore, Encyclopaedia Britannica but mainly from Scientific papers found on Google Scholar.
John Wright (31): I think it’s more customary to post a link…
Paul,
I’m not sure what Mensa has to do with it. Is it just me, or is proclaiming a super intelligence and membership of Mensa really indicative of [snip]
There is no credible scientific evidence of the solar cycle, or the length of it, being responsible for the last 100 years or so of warming anyway.
PeterM
“Science” first.
“Politics” second.
Otherwise there is the danger of politically motivated “agenda driven science”.
Max
PeterM
You wrote to Paul Cottingham (2592):
Not being familiar with Paul Cottinghams’s findings relating climate change and the solar cycle, I can only comment on the published papers linking solar activity with climate (which I have already done several months ago here, but will repeat, in case there has been a memory lapse).
Solar intensity as measured by the maximum Wolf number has increased by almost 70% over the 20th century.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Solar cycles 10 through 14 (1858 to 1902) this averaged 87.6
Solar cycles 19 through 23 (1955 to 2008) this averaged 147.2
Frijs-Christensen et al. (1991) showed a robust statistical correlation between solar cycle length and the 11-year mean averaged northern hemisphere land air temperature from 1880 to 1980, where solar cycle length was the interval in years between the sunspot maxima.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698
Silverman et al. (1992) used a slightly different approach to carry the data series back to 1750, also showing a strong correlation
Frijs-Christensen and Lassen (1995) carried the data series back to 1500, concluding:.
The correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface temperature is confirmed.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSV-40SFKBT-2G&_user=10&_coverDate=07/31/1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d
So much for the solar/temperature correlation, which appears to be much more robust, statistically speaking, than the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I’ll get to some more recent studies in a next post (these are the ones you and I have already discussed, Peter).
Max
PeterM
Back again (on correlation between solar activity and 20th century temperature).
Solanki et al. showed (1995) that the level of solar activity of the past 70 years was unusually high compared to the previous 11,400 years.
http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Then there are the following studies (for which I have provided links earlier, but will be glad to repeat). These have estimated the amount of 20th century warming, which could be attributed to this observed unusually high level of solar activity is on average 0.35C (roughly half of the total measured):
Baliunas + Soon (1995)
Dietze (1999)
Geerts and Linacre (1997)
Lockwood and Stamper (1999)
Scafetta and West (2006)
Shaviv and Veizer (2003)
Solanki et al. (2004)
In the later Solanki et al. paper (published by the National Climate Data Center at NOAA) the 20th century estimate was broken down to time periods before and after 1970.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
The warming prior to 1970 was estimated to have been caused principally by the high level of solar activity, with the warming after 1970 caused principally by other factors.
[There has been a lot of ballyhoo surrounding that last sentence, all ignoring the main thrust of the paper, which was that the sun played a significant role in overall 20th ecntury warming.]
So it is not correct to claim, as you did to Paul Cottingham (2592):
As you can see, there is very “credible scientific evidence of the solar cycle, or the length of it, being responsible for” at least half of “the last 100 years or so of warming”.
Max
I’ve noticed that my two dogs have been exhibiting strange and sometimes newly irritating behaviour just recently.
Could it be caused by global warming?
For instance, what about this news report:
A dog has had a lucky escape off an Adelaide beach after befriending a local sea lion and following him four kilometres offshore.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/18/3070383.htm
Max never give up does he? If anyone writes anything about solar effects causing the warming Max will swallow it all and regurgitate it on this blog. If anyone claims its not warming, and that the UHI hasn’t been properly accounted for, Max will swallow and regurgitate that too.
The same goes for anyone saying that its a “natural recovery” from the ice age. When pushed Max might just reluctantly admit that anthropogenic sources of GHG’s might have a small effect but Max’ll quickly add that, of course, its just too small to worry about. If anyone makes the argument that CO2 is not a pollutant, its a plant food, and that warming may occur as a result and, of course, everyone like warmer weather Max won’t have a problem with that either.
If anyone suggests that Cosmic rays might be doing something to our climate… Yes you’ve guessed. Max will go along with that also.
Have I missed anything out? I’m sure I must have!
In fact Max will agree with just about anything except the position of mainstream science that letting GHG’s build up in an uncontrolled fashion might be a bit on the dangerous side!
But that’s not possible is it? Max thinks it would be crazy to think that “puny man” , all 7 billion of us, can in any way shape or form change the Earth’s climate!
Maybe its that Supernatural being in the sky who’s making it warm up just to test our reaction and see how arrogant we are. I hope that’s not the case – I’ve just picked up so many black marks over the years. He’ll think I’m a arrogant shite no doubt! There won’t be much for me to look forward to in the afterlife. Max will be alright though. He’ll be sitting on his cloud, playing his harp, and enjoying saying “I told you so”. That is if there is any communication allowed between us then :-)
PeterM
Your ramble (2597) does not change the fact that IPCC grossly underestimated the impact on our climate of “natural forcing” factors, as the many cited independent studies on solar impact have shown, and as has been confirmed by the most recent cooling, despite record increases in CO2 levels.
Face it, Peter: roughly half of the 20th century warming has been attributed by these many studies to the unusually high level of solar activity, and the Met Office has attributed the 21st century cooling (so far) to “natural” forcing factors (which IPCC had estimated to be irrelevant).
Looks bad for IPCC, Peter. It appears to me that they got overly fixated on anthropogenic forcing (primarily from human CO2) and ignored all the rest. I wonder why?
But maybe you have another explanation.
Max
PeterM
You wrote to Paul Cottingham (2592):
So I cited several scientific studies by solar scientists (2594/2595), which provide “credible scientific evidence” that around half of the “last 100 years or so of warming” can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity.
[These are the same studies I cited earlier on this site with links, plus one or two additional ones, for which I provided the links.]
So I have invalidated your claim to Paul Cottingham (and we can end that specific discussion).
Rather than getting into a discussion of the specific science of these studies, you get of onto a side-track with a (rather childish sounding) “Max never gives up does he?” ramble (2597).
In this blurb you opine:
I would agree that humans have changed local climates through urbanization, etc. but, after looking at the scientific evidence out there, I have concluded that man is unable to willfully make any perceptible changes to our planet’s global climate.
But let’s do a quick “reality check” on my conclusion.
Let’s say we have established that the perfect “just right Goldilocks” “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” for our planet is that of the year 1990, or precisely 0.19°C cooler than that of year 2009, 20 years later.
Explain to me specifically with actionable proposals how “puny man, all 7 billion of us” is going to “change the Earth’s climate”, so we will be back to the 1990 “just right” average temperature, demonstrating with calculations how much global cooling each proposed action will achieve.
If you are unable to do so, then you must admit that you have no specific ideas how “puny man, all 7 billion of us” is able to “change the Earth’s climate” at will, and that my statement above is correct.
Waiting for an answer, Peter. Time to get specific.
Max
PS My answer would be “do nothing, but wait another 16 years” – it cooled by 0.07°C since 2000 due, according to the Met Office, to “natural” forcing (which overwhelmed the GH forcing from record CO2 increase) so if it keeps up at that rate it will be back down to the 1990 level by 2025.
Max,
The thing about deniers is that they don’t behave like normal scientists. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. The reaction of a normal scientist, having made some kind of error which subsequently come to light is to admit it. Ok no-one likes to be wrong but trying to defend mistakes usually ends up making you look a total jerk.
Yet I see you have come back to your “solar evidence” line.
We went through this before when Brute posted up this graph on Feb15 2009:
Suggesting, correctly, that it did show some increase in TSI.
Later the same day you chipped in with
“I see you are now agreeing to around 1.5 W/m^2 change of solar irradiance over the 20th century. Actually this number has been estimated by Willson and others to be around 1.65 W/m^2 (or 10% higher than what you read off of the graph ).
This translates to a warming of around 0.35C (without any feedbacks, of course).
It also compares with a forcing from CO2 of 1.5 W/m^2 (adjusting the IPCC figure from a 1750 starting date to 1900).
This translates to a warming of around 0.3C (also without any feedbacks, of course).
So it looks like we have reached agreement on the solar and CO2 warming of the 20th century. Great!”
So, you were saying that because the forcings, from GHG emissions and changes in the solar TSI were both about 1.5 or 1.6 W/m^2 that the effects were roughly equal. And this is of course consistent with the figure of 0.35 deg C warming from solar effects.
The slight problem was that you’d overlooked that Wilson’s graph showed the energy per square meter coming from the sun. If you were a flat earther then this may make some sense, as the Earth would indeed appear as a flat disk. However, the Earth is now thought, at least by by the scientific consensus, to be spherical. So you needed to divide by a factor of four for the extra area involved.
Furthermore you hadn’t taken into account that the albedo of the Earth was ~ 70% so the upshot of all this was that your 0.35 degC figure, from solar changes, was nearly six times too big! When you make the correction you end up in pretty close agreement with the IPCC’s figure.
But, hey, it all sounded good. So why let a bit of faulty arithmetic spoil a perfectly good argument? :-)
Just wait a while and spin it out all over again when you think its all been forgotten!