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.
PeterM
To your 3896.
Here’s the dilemma.
A net energy balance is very hard to make, as you point out, due to very small differences between very large numbers.
GH theory tells us that the outgoing LW radiation is slowed down by the absorption and re-radiation of LW energy by GHGs (H2O, CO2, etc.) and clouds, thereby resulting in some warming of our planet.
The critical question is “how much warming should we expect from a doubling of the largest human GHG, CO2?”
Top of atmosphere (TOA) readings of energy flux from ERBE and CERES satellite observations tell us a few things:
SW energy reflected by clouds and surface albedo represents around 1/3 of the incoming solar energy.
The other 2/3 are radiated out to space as LW energy by both the surface and the atmosphere.
Both Lindzen and Spencer have shown from these TOA satellite observations that the total outgoing radiation has increased with higher temperature, thereby resulting in a net negative feedback.
Spencer + Braswell (2007) has shown that the observed net feedback from clouds over the tropics is strongly negative with tropospheric warming, rather than strongly positive, as had been assumed by all the climate models cited by IPCC. This is significant, because the IPCC models had attributed 1.3C out of the estimated 3.2C 2xCO2 CS to model-based strongly positive cloud feedback. If this feedback has now been found to be strongly negative instead, this would reduce the 2xCO2 CS to a figure below 1C. There have been no rebuttals of this study to date.
Lindzen + Choi (2009) has shown that the overall outgoing energy flux increases with higher sea surface temperature over the tropics, thereby resulting in a net negative feedback and a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.5C. There have been two critiques of this study (both on blog sites, rather than formal papers). One by Trenberth, Fasullo, et al. on RealClimate and one by Spencer on his blog site. Trenberth accuses LC09 of “cherry picking” the raw ERBE data to get a desired result; this suggestion is falsified on the same blog site through an independent statistical analysis of the same raw data arriving at essentially the same result as LC09. Spencer has criticized the calculation method of LC09, and arrives at a slightly higher 2xCO2 CS of 0.6C (rather than 0.5C) using the ERBE data.
Spencer has made a new study, expanding the CERES satellite data to include 60N to 60S over a time span of six full years. This study is still in press, but will appear soon (this year) in the Journal of Geophysical Research. On his blogsite Spencer has given a “sneak preview” of this study and its conclusions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/strong-negative-feedback-from-the-latest-ceres-radiation-budget-measurements-over-the-global-oceans/
This study shows that the total outgoing energy flux increases with higher air temperature, resulting in a strong negative feedback and a 2xCO2 CS of around 0.5C.
So while it is true that making a total energy balance of our planet is difficult, it has been observed by TOA satellite data, that the outgoing energy flux increases with higher temperature, resulting in an overall negative feedback and a 2xCO2 CS of 0.5C to 1.0C (a dilemma for those who expect AGW to be a serious potential problem).
Max
PeterM
You ask (3900) about a time lag between change in forcing and temperature.
What has been physically observed in this regard?
Yes there is a time lag.
This appears to be a matter of months when there is a strong El Niño (1997/1998 is a good example).
It appears to be less than a year in response to volcanic eruptions, which reduce solar input by reflecting more incoming solar radiation.
It also appears logical to me that the atmosphere will respond more quickly than the ocean, IOW it takes longer for the same solar radiation to warm seawater to any depth than to warm the atmosphere (higher specific heat, greater mass, etc.). It will also cool more slowly at night, when there is no solar radiation, as anyone living near the sea can attest. It is also clear that the ocean is warmed by solar radiation and not by the atmosphere.
Has this answered your question?
Max
So if the atmosphere warmed up by one degree, wouldn’t that eventually, and ‘eventually’ could be quite a long time, mean that the waters of the ocean would warm up by the same amount? If you measured the temperature difference between a point a hot water central heating radiator and an extremity in the room you measure several degrees difference. Maybe something like 40 degC. And that difference would stay constant if the temperature of the radiator was altered be just a degree of so.
Not straight away of course. It would take time. And if there were a large thermal mass in the room like a b
Of course if practice it wouldn’t quite work like that. If there is a forcing factor of, say, 1W per sqaure metre applied to the atmosphere, some of that 1W will warm the air and the land which will take place with a much quicker time constant that any warming of the ocean.
And because the ocean is cooler it in turn will have a cooling effect on the land meaning that it too will warm up more gradually than it would otherwise.
I’m sure you’ve seen those graphs showing areas like the Arctic and central Asia which have warmed faster than say a country like New Zealand which is surrounded by ocean.
So isn’t it likley that if conditions do stay the same then everything will catch up in the end and that NZ will warm by just the same amount. But, of course it will just take longer.
It shot off again!
Second paragraph should be: Not straight away of course. It would take time. And if there were a large thermal mass in the room like a big water tank it could take a long time.
Judge places California’s global warming program on hold
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/03/california-global-warming-program-put-on-hold.html
PeterM
As long as net energy was continuously being added, the answer is yes.
Big water tanks take a long time to heat up, depending of course on the rate at which heat is added. The ocean (a gigantic “water tank”) is heated by solar radiation (not by the atmosphere).
Climate forcing is a bit of an artificial construct since it assumes a natural equilibrium state, but the same is true for our planet’s climate. There are observed time lags even in globally warming the atmosphere. We see a lag of almost a year between volcanic eruptions and global temperature change, for example.
A 1 W/m^2 energy input to the atmosphere taken over the surface area of the globe will heat up the atmosphere more quickly than it will the upper 700m layer of the ocean because of the higher specific heat and higher total mass.
For that reason, Hansen’s postulated “hidden” 0.55C atmospheric warming (1880-2003) would represent 0.003C warming of the upper ocean if this energy was really there. Unfortunately for Hansen’s hypothesis, ARGO measurements show that they are NOT really there (as the upper ocean has cooled since these measurements were installed). Other heat sinks (melting ice, evaporating moisture) are too small to make much of a difference, as pointed out earlier. So the “missing” energy is either “hiding” some unknown place (or has most likely been radiated out to space).
Max
PeterM
We have apparently agreed that the same amount of energy flow will raise the temperature of a smaller mass of air (our atmosphere) more quickly than it will the temperature of a much larger mass of water (the upper ocean).
What does this have to do with Hansen’s “pipeline” hypothesis, i.e.
– our models estimate we should have seen 1.2C warming (1880-2003)
– our thermometers show us that we have only seen 0.65C warming
– therefore 0.55C additional warming has already occurred (since our models can’t possibly be wrong), and is “hidden in the pipeline” (with the “pipeline” being the upper ocean)?
I would say that there is no connection, but would like to hear what you would say.
Max
TonyB
Judith Curry has launched a blog on “Arctic Ice”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/19/pondering-the-arctic-ocean-part-i-climate-dynamics/
She has quoted some selected studies, which project that the Arctic could be ice-free by the late summer of 2040, and that this development lies outside what could be expected from natural factors.
Curry is opening the discussion to anyone who has studied Arctic ice trends historically.
How about checking it out and joining in?
The site is usually free of AGW trolls, who simply use personal attack against any “non-believers” rather than discussing the issues, so it is a good venue for sharing information objectively.
Max
TonyB
The Curry site I mentioned even has bloggers commenting on the aborted “Catlin mission”, so it may be of interest to you (since you have more inside knowledge of this).
Max
Max,
Maybe you can plot me a graph of how you think the temperature will change in response to a change in climate forcing. You don’t have to be too precise at this stage. Just the general shape is enough at the moment.
Consider two possibilities. Firstly when then there a sudden change in climate forcing. Secondly when there is a gradual change in climate forcing.
PeterM
Sorry. Plot your own curve. That’s all a bit too hypothetical for me.
I can simply refer you to the actual Hadley temperature curve (with all its warts and blemishes), which shows three statistically indistinguishable multi-decadal warming cycles of around 30 years each, with 30-year cycles of slight cooling in between. The latest decade shows no warming.
And I can compare that with the curve of atmospheric CO2 concentration based on Mauna Loa measurements since 1958 and some more doubtful ice core data prior to 1958, which shows almost no CO2 growth during the first two warming cycles, then picking up during the mid-century cooling cycle and increasing even more after 1975, at a CAGR of a bit more than 0.4% per year since Mauna Loa.
When I compare the two curves, I see very quickly that something other than atmospheric CO2 has been driving our temperature. Statistical analyses have confirmed that there is no robust statistical correlation, but more of a “random walk”. This is not good news for those who wish to suggest a CO2/temperature causation, since the case for causation is extremely weak when there is no robust statistical correlation.
How would you draw the theoretical curve? Like the actual curve? Or would it look different?
Max
PeterM
A picture is worth 1,000 words…
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5551986903_f7068323cc_b.jpg
As you can see the CO2/temperature correlation looks pretty good for the period 1975-2000 (IPCC’s “poster period”), but there is no statistical correlation for the rest of the long-term record.
Max
Hi Max
I have posted something on the Arctic over at Judith’s as you suggest.
tonyb
Max,
OK. To take it in baby steps
, wouldn’t this be the picture?
Say the sun suddenly became slightly more active, for example, would you expect that the temperature would follow the change like this?
Yes/No?
PeterM
Forget the theoretical “baby steps”.
Let’s discuss the actual observations, not theoretical “baby steps”.
Actual observations showed that it took a bit less than a year for global temperature to respond to volcanic eruptions.
Actual observations ahowed us that the temperature response to El Nino events occurred over a period of a few months, as we have seen during the major El Nino events of the 1990s.
So it looks like actual observations show us that there is a lag between “forcing” and temperature response, which can be measured in months.
Actual observations since 1850 also show no statistically robust correlation between CO2 and temperature (as I pointed out). IOW temperature went up when CO2 hardly changed, temperature went down when CO2 started to increase more rapidly, etc.
This is a major problem for your “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, for where there is no statistically robust correlation based on actual observations, the case for causation is weak.
The long term CO2/temperature record also shows CO2 lagging temperature by several centuries, rather than being the driver of temperature change. The record shows several periods of high CO2 concentration during which temperature began to fall and others of relatively low CO2 concentration during which temperature began to rise. So there is no case for causation there either based on (reconstructed) actual observations.
This is the issue we need to discuss, rather than getting off into theoretical side issues.
Why do the actual observations not support your premise of dangerous AGW?
Max
Max,
Yes you’re right. Actual observations showed that it took a bit less than a year for global temperature to respond to volcanic eruptions. And then over a period of a few years the volcanic ash dissipated and the climate forcing was removed.
But, isn’t there is a difference between noticing an initial response to a forcing factor and knowing what the final equilibrium conditions will be if that forcing factor remains constant?
PeterM
Your question is a bit convoluted to me.
We see that El Nino changes result in global temperature increase over a period of months and that volcanic eruptions also take a few months to change global temperature, whereby it takes a year or two for the ash, etc. to clear up and the cooling to reverse again.
“Final equilibrium” versus “initial response”?
Sounds a bit too hypothetical.
The concept of “equilibrium” in our planet’s climate is a bit of an oxymoron to start off with.
But in the case of the El Nino as well as the volcano, the “final equilibrium” and the “initial response” were the same, and they occurred after a few months, so it is logical to assume that changes in solar activity will also result in temperature changes within a year or so. Whether you choose to call this the “initial response” or the “final equilibrium”, I believe that’s just semantics.
Max
Pachauri………another brain donor………
IPCC’s Pachauri claims 17cm of sea level rise made the Tsunami worse, but let’s check……
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/23/climate-craziness-of-the-week-ipccs-pachauri-claims-17cm-of-sea-level-rise-made-the-tsunami-worse/#more-36475
Brute
We can all laugh about Pachauri’s absurd statement about global warming making the Japanese tsunami worse or Hansen’s ranting about tipping points caused by coal death trains, but the problem is that there are some (gullible) people out there that actually believe this garbage.
I guess the good news is that among people who actually think for themselves (rather than just believe anything they read) these stupid statements just make them more skeptical of the whole dangerous AGW premise.
Max
Hi everyone, I have been away trying to learn (or relearn) everything about radiation. I’m still trying to wade through the misinformation and disinformation that surrounds this subject. How is this linked to climate science?
Well it’s like this. Studies of real live subjects, ie Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl tell one story, a very consistent story showing low dose radiation as being beneficial to life, and on the other hand the rhetoric and nonsense from the news media, from politicians, and from anti-nuclear groups telling quiet another story of dangers from any radiation. We basically have the establishment ignoring the science and working off unfounded theory. Now where have we heard that story before?
“We have conventional scientific wisdom rejecting the studies, from these nuclear events and a multitude of other real-life studies, in favour of what is known as the “Linear No-Threshold Assumption”. Under this assumption, all exposure to radiation, no matter how small, is harmful in direct proportion to the dose. There is no proof of this assumptions validity, and In fact, the scientists who espouse it freely admit that no proof for their assumption can ever be had because the risk is too small to measure statistically. In the absence of proof, they say, the only safe course is to assume danger.” Paraphrased from an article by Lawrence Solomon. Sounds familiar doesn’t it.
We see today at WUWT a study about the greening of the planet, due to increasing CO2 levels, and whilst I haven’t fully digested the article, it is in line with others I have read where the researchers have looked carefully at this subject. You know it make sense because it an obvious fit with how we expect life to behave and evolve. CO2 being dangerous doesn’t make sense when we apply this test. And the findings about low dose radiation “make sense” because we have evolved life on a planet being bombarded with radiation, and perhaps it just low at present for some reason. Certainly it has been much higher in the past and “life” has needed to adapt to radiation.
I guess the real message here is about how the green movement and certain elements of the establishment manage to convince otherwise intelligent people of their point of view. As an example of this close to home my eldest (the doctor) was home for the weekend and whilst we were sitting watching the news my wife asked me to explain something about the leaked radiation. The exact question is not relevant but it was not an easy question to answer without a bit of explanation and relating the actual levels to x-rays and MIR for example. Before I got anywhere “the Doctor” cut me off, told me I didn’t know what I was taking about, she was a doctor etc etc. You can image how conversations go in families where there is little inhibition. I’ll leave it there but I was shocked at how closed minded “the doctor” had become to anything that challenges what they are taught as doctors. Remember she is a fully paid up DAGW sceptic, so on the whole not prone to “religious belief” syndrome. Several hours later I expressed to her my shock at her reaction and lack of objectivity on this subject and she promised to read some of the material I had sent her.
This is not an isolated instance and both my wife and I have expressed concern at some of the stupid things that are taught to our medical students that are just so wrong, especially to those of us with a few years under the belt. Education is the key, and it has gone horribly wrong. I have agonised over this, and come to the conclusion that unlike in the so called age of discovery, teachers are teaching as if we know everything and students are not taught there is anything to learn. Uncertainty is not part of the vocabulary which is very wrong. Students now leave school or University thinking there is nothing more to learn, whereas we left school and university thinking we knew it all but thinking about learning more.
Peter Geany
Welcome back!
Interesting observation concerning the exaggeration of radiation exposure risk.
Since the Japanese earthquake and tsunami there has been a general panic reaction in Europe, with people rushing out to buy Geiger counters and potassium iodide pills. A few alarmists plus the anti-nuke lobby have been fueling the hysteria via the media, but there are also serious reports by medical experts telling us that there is nothing to worry about, since the levels of radiation are so low.
Probably the biggest fallout from all this is the fact that it will become even harder to build new nuclear power capacity at the same time that old nuclear plants come under pressure to shut down.
In Europe we have the advantage that we can always sign supply contracts with France, who can become Europe’s source of electrical power. And the USA really doesn’t have a problem; there’s plenty of natural gas and enough coal to last several hundred years if the nuclear option is closed.
Max
PS Your comment about the arrogance of “know-it-all” educators who are brainwashing children with the certainty of future climate disaster if we don’t immediately change our ways applies here as well. Increasingly children here are not being taught to think things out for themselves rationally and logically, but rather to simply swallow and regurgitate what their teachers are telling them.
PeterG,
There is a wide gulf between popular perception on nuclear safety and the mainstream scientific position.
Its a bit like global warming really! Except the culprits for spreading disinformation are largely on the left in one instance and on the political right on the other!
Incidentally, there is no need to start claiming that small doses of radiation are a good thing, per se. From an individual perpective, it probably isn’t. However, it occurs naturally and there is nothing that can be done about that. It’s quite likely, due to an increased frequency of natural genetic mutations that’s its had a beneficial effect on the evolution of life on the planet but that’s not quite the same thing.
But anyway just stick to the scientific line, on both issues, and you won’t go far wrong.
PeterM and PeterG
I’d agree with PeterM to “stick with the science” (i.e. the observed facts).
They don’t support alarm over very small doses of radiation as we might see in Europe from the Japanese nuclear problem.
They also don’t support alarm over very small absolute increases of an essential trace gas.
Max
Max,
If the difference between an initial and final response sounds too “convoluted” to get your mind around, I think, instead of ponticating on issues which you freely admit are beyond your sphere of your intellectual compass, you should consider switching your blogging activities!
PeterM
Thanks for tip, but until you explain to me exactly what the hell you are talking about, I’m afraid I can’t start too much with it.
The observed time lag between forcing (volcano, El Nino, La Nina, solar activity) and global atmospheric temperature response appears to be several months to a year.
Do you have a problem with that?
Is that too difficult for you to grasp?
Please advise whether or not this is “beyond your sphere of your intellectual compass”?
Max