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.
TonyN, Reur 3471,
“Mind bombs” would be funny, if it weren’t so sickening.
Despite that there is huge inertia in the media-political regime, I do think that ultimately this “mind bomb” approach by the alarmist screamers might end up as a bit of a minefield for them, given time. I also agree/sympathise with Max of course. (3475).
I’m currently continuing extended intercourse with the Oz ABC’s director of editorial policies, concerning inadequate definitions in the ABC policies*, from whom I’ve had some responses which were both encouraging and surprisingly rapid. However, he seems to have gone rather quiet on my last such, but then he could be out of town. And, as the Italians expostulate: Pazienza!!!
To be fair though, (in terms of his possible workload), I’ve also sent him, for elaboration, two substantial descriptions of the gross elitism of Robyn Williams, the journalist presenter in the flagship radio programme; “The Science Show”, which is clearly in serious violation of the Address to Staff by the Chairman of the Board, back on 10/March/2010. (requiring total impartiality and true investigative journalism)
It is thus with some amusement that I see the additional label of “Robyn’s rancoria” attached to “100 metres Williams” (I’ve asked him twice recently if he still asserts that sea level could rise by 100m by 2100, including some blogosphere observations on that, but it is the first time that he has not responded to me)
My amusement rises when I see the way the article has already widely spread, as per Googling “Robyn’s rancoria”. (and so far it includes even a German site)
* Which allows the ABC CRU (Complaints Rejection Unit) to permit broadcast of unchallenged gross bias and misrepresentation etc. (Which UK Ofcom should not allow)
ALL
I’m just trying to work out some figures for a new article I’m writing concerning the cost of implementing the precautionary principle.
Purely for the sake of the argument, can we agree that ‘officially’ man is said to be responsible for some 0.4 degree C of warming since 1850 (the vast majority covering the 0.5C rise since 1950).
This is caused by 0.14C through the effects of increased co2 from 280ppm to 390ppm (1ppm is said to equate to around 0.003degrees C of temperature difference)with a three to one ratio caused by positive feedbacks through the enhanced warming effects of water vapour.
I am seeking the ‘official’ position so please set aside any personal theories :)
tonyb
Another blizzard this week…….
Blizzard roars through US’s snow-weary midsection
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_winter_weather
All
Further to my 3477
How many thousands of metric tonnes of Co2 in the atmosphere are required to raise the temperature by 1 degree C?
tonyb
TonyB
Re ur 3477, what you have summarized appears to be close to the so-called “majority consensus”, with two exceptions.
IPCC has left the door open for Hansen’s “hidden in the pipeline” postulation, namely that the warming we have seen is only a portion of the warming that has actually occurred, as there is still a considerable amount of GH warming that has not yet shown up in the atmosphere, but is “hidden in the pipeline”, waiting for the climate system to reach “equilibrium”.
As long as there were no real measurements of upper ocean temperature, other than some spotty measurements from expendable XBT devices (which have since been shown to introduce a warming bias), the “pipeline” was assumed to be the upper ocean heat sink, which was assumed to be warming.
But then, OOPS! Accurate and comprehensive ARGO measurements were installed all over the ocean in 2003 and these showed COOLING rather than warming. Craig Loehle did a detailed recording of upper ocean heat, showing that this had decreased significantly. Josh Willis (a co-author with James E. Hansen of the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation and NASA leader of the ARGO project) had to admit that the upper ocean was NOT warming (i.e. there was no energy “hidden in the pipeline”). A “speed bump” is the scientific jargon he used to rationalize it.
[Now “scientists” are scrambling to try to show that the vast deep ocean has “absorbed” this extra heat, which miraculously by-passed detection in the upper ocean in the process, but is now lurking in the deep ocean, just waiting to pop back out at us (through some as yet unexplained mechanism) and fry us some day!]
But this ruse is not working, as a) there are no data to support the postulation and b) it defies the laws of physics. Besides, even if 100% of the postulated GH warming would be transferred to the deep ocean, it would result in a warming there of less than 0.01C, so hardly a threat to anyone (including the denizens of the deep).
So, to get back to your original question, I believe the “consensus party line” is still that energy is “hidden in the pipeline” (even though this has hypothesis has been falsified by the actual observations), and “scientists” are scrambling to find a way to defend the hypothesis against the facts.
This means that the observed warming (0.6-0.7°C over the 161-period since the HadCRUT record started) is postulated to be only a portion of the “real” GH warming. In the “hidden in the pipeline” paper Hansen co-authored with Willis, the authors estimate this to be 0.55°C since the record started, which is still “hidden”). [More on this later, if you are interested – it is a superb bit of “circular logic”!]
On this basis IPCC warns us:
[As it turned out the first decade actually cooled slightly even though CO2 emissions continued merrily and were not “held constant at year 2000 levels”. And the upper ocean cooled, as well. Oh, well. So much for the models…]
The second claim of hidden feedback is still hanging out there, as well, although there are no empirical data to support it.
IPCC has come up with a new scientific-sounding “mumbo-jumbo” term in the statement:
In other words, the theory goes as the upper ocean warms (from AGW, of course) it will release more dissolved CO2, further exacerbating the atmospheric warming, further warming the upper ocean, etc.
But, wait a minute!
The upper ocean is COOLING, not warming.
(Back to the drawing board.)
Sorry for the long response, Tony, but as you can see, this is a “can of worms”. And it is changing daily as we read about physical observations, which refute the model-based IPCC “mainstream consensus” hypothesis.
For your study, I’d stick with the actual observations you cited but add the footnote that IPCC models assume that there is added GH warming “hidden in the pipeline” (at some as yet undefined location), which, if correct, could almost double the amount of warming actually observed.
Max
PS Peter may wish to add his comments to the above. Since he is a firm believer in the “mainstream consensus” (IPCC party line), he may be able to give you clearer insight into this murky situation.
Thanks Max. I look forward to any further comments on my 3749.
This should all be right up Peters street so I look forward to his replies to the questions posed in both my emails.
Tonyb
TonyB
Re ur 3479
1) When will we reach 1C theoretical GH warming from human CO2 emissions?
– Today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is 390 ppmv
– IPCC tells us the 2xCO2 temperature impact is 3.2C
– IPCC tells us the relationship is logarithmic
– On this basis a 1C rise in temperature would be caused by an increase to 485 ppmv, or an increase of 95 ppmv
dT(2xCO2) = 3.2C
ln2 = 0.693
ln(485/390) = 0.217
dT = 0.217 * 3.2 / 0.693 = 1.0C
CO2 concentration is projected to increase at a compounded annual growth rate of 0.45% per year.
At this CAGR it will take 49 years to reach 485 ppmv:
390 * (1.0045)^49 = 485
IOW we will reach this by year 2060 (all other things being equal)
2) How many tons of CO2 in the atmosphere are required to reach this level?
– An increase of 95 ppmv = an increase of 144 ppm(mass)
– The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt
– So this equals a CO2 mass of:
5,140,000 * 144 / 1,000,000 = 742 Gt (or 742 billion tons)
Regards,
Max
PS Please note that the calculation was based on “equilibrium” values.
If half the warming is “hidden in the pipeline” it will obviously take much more time (and CO2) to reach the 1C warming (say by year 2100).
But that is another story…
Max
Max,
Another less mathematical way of looking at it, and which gives a similar result, is that the observed increase in recent decades has been 0.17deg per decade.
So an increase of a further 1 degree will, on this rate, occur in 1/0.017 = 58 years. Or by the year 2069. That will be a total of about 1.75 deg C of warming since since pre-industrial times.
A linear increase, in time, is not a bad approximation. CO2 levels increase exponentially whereas the temperature increases logarithmically in proportion to that.
The delay in warming is no great principle of Physics. Anyone knows that kettles don’t instantly boil. So, that 1.75degs won’t be the end of it even if CO2 levels are suddenly stabilised in the year 2069.
Bob_FJ
I know you are interested in the ENSO impact on the climate.
Here is a good article on the decadal variability of clouds as tied to ENSO, written by Robert Ellison, a hydrogeologist, on Judith Curry’s blogsite. (The comments are interesting and Ellison backs up and defends his hypothesis concisely and convincingly.)
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/#comment-40669
He has also published this, which goes into more detail (which you may already have seen):
http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/
Regards,
Max
PeterM
Correct.
Has nothing to do with Hansen’s “hidden in the pipeline” postulation, though.
If you really want to go into the specifics behind the Hansen postulation, I’ll be glad to go into more detail. It is based on “circular logic” and, in addition, has been falsified by the recent cooling of the upper ocean.
I agree that your dT approximation is close to the one I made using the observed CAGR of atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC assumption on 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (which is what TonyB wanted).
But there is also another way to look at this.
Since 1850 we have seen warming (in fits and spurts) of around 0.04C per decade (let’s assume there are no built-in warming biases here and the record is accurate).
If this underlying trend continues, we will see 0.4C warming over the next century.
If it doesn’t, we won’t.
Max
PeterM
You project AGW by year 2070 of 1.75 degrees since pre-industrial times, of which you say we have already seen 0.75 degrees to date (with no ill effects), or 1 degree from today to 2070 (using IPCC’s inflated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2 degrees C). [I got there 10 years earlier under the same assumptions, but what the hell, it’s a guess either way.]
This is at continued “business as usual” CO2 emissions.
So it looks like all the EU politicians are essentially getting a “free ride” when they “commit” to holding global warming below 2 degrees by year 2100.
First of all (and most importantly), they’ll be long gone.
And secondly, we won’t even get there even with “business as usual”.
Looks like we can fold up IPCC, let all the climate scientists and computer guys work on something more productive than AGW and all be happy.
Good news for everyone; don’t you agree?
Max
Max,
If you went back to 1750 or even 1650 rather than 1850 you’d get an even lower figure for 21st century global warming than 0.4 deg C!
Yes, the start of global warming may have just about been detectable then, but the massive releases of CO2 since WW2, from the burning of fossil fuels and the effects of deforestation, increasing at an exponential rate, are the real cause of the problem.
On a business-as-usual scenario, using the most likely IPCC figures, total AGW will be 2.35degC by the end of the century with another degree to follow in the pipeline.
You may have heard of a 450ppmv target which is the maximum CO2 level which is consistent with a 2 deg overall target maximum warming.
That’s just the first step. The next step will be to bring it back down below 400ppmv in the longer term. The danger is that even a warming of 2 degrees will mean that the oceans release CO2 rather than absorbing it as they do at present. Warm soda water is much more fizzy than cold soda water.
In addition, the Tundra region of the Arctic will melt and release quantities of methane even with any degree of warming. So there is a high danger of even stronger feedbacks kicking in than are being experienced now.
So its not just a case of saying that you wouldn’t mind an extra couple of degrees of warmer weather, unfortunately.
PeterM
To be precise (3487), the temperature increase from today to year 2100 would theoretically be 1.8C using IPCC estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and “business as usual” CO2 growth rate.
The pols are off the hook!
Max
PeterM
No. The warming from today to year 2100 would theoretically be 1.8C (not 2.35C) using the IPCC assumptions cited above.
This is all pure theory, of course, since it assumes that “all other things are equal”.
We have seen from the first decade of this century that “all other things are NOT equal”.
The IPCC models had projected warming of 0.2C per decade and we saw none. They even warned us that we would see warming of 0.1C per decade even if CO2 levels had been kept at 2000 levels (which they obviously were not).
In other words, the IPCC model-based projections were GIGO, lousy, worthless, meaningless (or any other adjective you want to use).
Moreover, the postulated “pipeline” turned out to be empty, Peter.
And yet you trust these same models to give you a meaningful projection for 90 years in the future when they can’t even get the next 10 years right?
Duh!
I’d call that “blind faith”, Peter, not science.
Max
PeterM
No.
I have not heard of it and have no notion where you dredged it up.
But it’s BS anyway, as pointed out in earlier posts.
Max
PeterM
I hate to keep doing this to you, but you come up with so many silly statements which need correction.
The 450 ppmv target is NOT consistent with a 2C warming (as you claimed).
The theoretical “equilibrium” warming to be expected from increasing from today’s 390 to a future 450 ppmv is 0.7C.
That’s all there is, Peter – even the warming supposedly “hidden in the pipeline”.
Of course, the whole premise is in serious doubt based on what is really going on out there as opposed to what is assumed by IPCC model simulations (but that’s another story).
You’ve got to get your figures straight, Peter, if you want to spout them off. Otherwise you really do look silly.
Max
PeterM
I truly hate bashing you, Peter, but you have thrown up so much unsubstantiated garbage that I feel the continued need to straighten you out.
OK. Let’s do a sanity check on that statement.
We now have 390 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere and this is increasing at a CAGR of 0.45% per year (currently 1.8 ppmv/year).
There will be no significant actionable proposals that will have any impact on our emission rate over the next 10 years, so that means we will reach around 408 ppm by 2020, no matter what we do.
Now IPCC tells us that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is several centuries (I think they guessed it had a “half life” of 300 years). So these 408 ppmv are not going to disappear for a long, long time.
So even if we shut down the world’s economy completely, we would NOT be able to “bring it back down below 400 ppmv” (and we obviously are NOT going to shut down the world’s economy completely).
Atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise, as we in the developed world maintain or slowly increase our standard of living, the developing countries improve the economic lot of their populations and the billions of poorest nations gradually build up their own reliable, low-cost energy infrastructure in order to pull their populations out of abject poverty at the same time as global population continues to grow, even if this will be at a reduced rate.
Non-fossil fuel based energy sources will be developed and exploited, for sure, as the world’s economies gradually wean themselves off of ever more costly fossil fuels. This will possibly help the CAGR of atmospheric CO2 slow down to half its current rate or around 0.2% per year, so it takes us a bit longer to reach 500, 600 or 700 ppmv than would otherwise be the case. But that is where we are headed.
That’s what is going to happen in real life here on Planet Earth, Peter. And we will all enjoy the ride as it does.
Forget about “the next step will be to bring it back down below 400ppmv in the longer term”. That’s all a silly pipe dream, Peter. Come back down to Planet Earth and enjoy the ride with the rest of us.
Max
Max,
You can write NOT in capital letters as much as you like. But it doesn’t make you right!
It truly must be a global worldwide conspiracy! The 450ppmv/2degC warming target figure is accepted worldwide. Just Google the figures.
See page 9 on this Indian link for example.
http://lcs-rnet.org/pdf/Alternate%20Policy%20Scenarios%20and%20Modelling%20Results%20for%20India%20%28Country%20Level%20Analysis%29%20%26%20Ahmedabad%20%28City%20Level%20Analysis%29.pdf
The 2 deg g C figure is the total warming to be expected not just future warming. It doesn’t mean closing down the world’s economy but it does mean moving to a low CO2 emissions economy.
You are possibly right that this target won’t be met, but the scientific message is that we’ll all be stuffed if we just crash on to 500ppmv and beyond regardless of all the danger warnings.
Peter,
Where is this “hidden heat”? Where does a person measure the amount of hidden heat? Where is this “pipeline”?
Hansen can’t find it.
Trenberth said that it was “a travesty” that he and the rest of the global warming faithful can’t find it.
Where is it?
PeterM
No.
The “450ppmv/2degC warming target figure” is NOT accepted worldwide.
Sorry about that.
The reason is because it is not defined properly,
I stated that increasing CO2 from today’s 390 ppmv to a future 450 ppmv would theoretically increase temperature by 0.7C (not 2C, as you stated).
The “2C” figure would apply for the CO2 increase since 1850, namely from 290 ppmv to 450 ppmv.
But this is a ridiculous number, Peter. We are not in 1850 today, nor do we want to return to the temperatures of 1850. A future warming “target” starting with 1850 is about as stupid a concept as I have ever heard, so I’m sure that’s not what you really meant.
What counts is the amount of future warming we would expect from increasing CO2 levels to 450 ppmv.
And that, Peter, is 0.7C (even using the exaggerated climate sensitivity of IPCC).
[In actual fact it is probably around one-third of that amount, based on recent physical observations on clouds from several sources, rather than model simulations based on theoretical deliberations, as IPCC used (conceding a “large amount of uncertainty” back in 2007.]
You have to define your terms, Peter. And you have to use bases, which make sense. Going back to the warming since 1850 to describe a future warming ltarget does NOT make sense, Peter.
Max
Brute
Peter will ignore or waffle around your question (because he has no answer), but the answer is clear.
The “pipeline” is in Peter’s head – nowhere else.
Even Trenberth is having to admit it’s not there, while some “scientists” are eagerly looking to see if the “missing energy” is hiding in the deep ocean (having passed unnoticed through the upper ocean).
Brute, the fact is that these guys are getting desperate since Climategate and all the other recent revelations. Not only have they totally lost public support, and the media is also starting to drop them like a hot rock, but the planet’s climate is also working against them.
The “upper ocean pipeline” (Willis/Hansen) has been falsified by the recent cooling of the upper ocean despite record CO2 increase.
The 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C has been falsified by the observed “lack of warming” over the recent decade.
It really is a “TRAVESTY” (writ BIG) for these guys. And, of course, for Peter as well as he sees his religious dogma crumbling around his ears. So the only option is to deny what is happening.
But he will not answer your question, because he can’t. There is no answer.
Max
Brute,
You ask where the missing heat is. Max seems to think I have no answer. So, lets see if you can do a bit better than me and work it out for yourself by way of a simple experiment.
Take a white plastic bottle of water and put it out in the sun until it warms to an even temperature then quickly spray paint it matt black.
Questions:
1) Does the water change in temperature immediately after the painting?
2) Does it warm, cool or stay the same after one hour assuming that the sun stays out?
3) If the water temperature does change, where does the extra heat come from or go to?
Max,
You seem to be having a hard time grasping the 450/2 concept. I doubt you’d listen to me but maybe you’ll take more notice of the Australian CSIRO?
http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-Risks-Beyond-2C.html
Max, Reur 3485.….Robert Ellison.
Many thanks for that. I’ve not come across his work before, and am very impressed by his wonderfully lucid and extensive comments on the Judith Curry blog. (which was in response to yours). I’ve only found time to flick through his fuller article, but have ditto impressions at a quickie, so far.
Why is it that engineers, geologists, and hydrologists or if you like coalface types, (with the exception of many greenie biologists), seem to be able to see past the academic fruitcakes? Like it would be interesting to have Robert comment on the real hydrology implications of Himalayan glacier retreat and advance.
And, maybe I should contribute over at Judith’s