Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

1. manacker says:

   26/03/2010 at 6:41 pm

   PeterM

   the most likely explanation for the measured empirical global warming is the 40% increase in CO2 and other GHG’s…

   “Warming”: empirical

   “Most likely explanation”: conjectural

   Keep trying, Peter.

   Max
2. manacker says:

   26/03/2010 at 6:54 pm

   JamesP

   BTW, Bacchus’ wise saying “in vino veritas” actually meant that the truth about past climate can be found by checking where wine was grown.

   Michael Mann obviously missed that part of history, preferring to chop down North American bristlecone pines in order to establish past global climate trends (while “hiding the decline” if it happened to disprove his preconceived notion of how the results should look).

   IMHO Bacchus had it right. And he didn’t need to sacrifice any 1,000-year old trees.

   Max
3. manacker says:

   26/03/2010 at 9:47 pm

   TonyB

   Attached is a scanned partial text of the 1976 Peter Craigmoe article, “Do We Face an Ice Age?”

   After discussing some of the disturbing signs pointing to colder climate, such as expansion of Arctic ice, killer cyclones in Pakistan and Australia, drought in Europe, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America, crop failures in the Soviet Union and severe winter storms in Europe, the article continues.

   Warnings. These and other weather extremes have prompted many climatologists to issue dire warnings. “The evidence is clear,” said Dr. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin, “that climate is changing in a direction that is not promising.” Bryson, who once predicted the possibility of an onset of a new ice age by the mid-21st century, describes weather in the 20th century as the most abnormal pattern in a thousand years.

   “Bryson is the most important figure in climatology today,” says Dr. Kenneth Hare, University of Toronto, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society. “I take what he says seriously.”

   Dr. Hubert H. Lamb, East Anglia University, Norwich, England, adds, “Bryson and I have an almost identical view of this.”

   What prompted these dire predictions? Probably too much progress in too short a period of time. In the last decade, computers and space telescopes have had a profound effect on the world of climatology. The computer suggested the world was on the verge of runaway glaciation, and for awhile satellite cameras tended to agree. Meanwhile, solar astronomers were nudging their way into the territory staked out by climatologists. Small wonder there was controversy, but out of the dissent may emerge a more basic understanding of global weather patterns.

   Perspective. Climate is always changing. About 1000 B.C., there was a sharp cooling after 5,000 years of climatic optimum. Scandinavian winters became so severe as to inspire legends about the winter fimbulvetr – that heralded the end of civilization on earth.

   By the time of the Roman Empire, world climate was stable again: warm and dry. Then, from A.D. 550 to 800, the climate grew cold. This and other evidence suggested that changing climate might be the cause of many ups and downs in civilization. Could bitter winters be the cause of the Dark Ages?

   After A.D. 800, there was a remarkable warming that restored mild temperatures all the way to Greenland, which probably favored Viking expeditions across the Atlantic. Then came what is now called the Little Ice Age. Symptoms appeared in Europe in the 13th century and elsewhere soon after. Severe phases followed around 1430 to 1470 and between 1550 and 1700. The Norse colony died out. Chinese farmers abandoned orange growing in the southern province of Kwangsi. Winters were so severe in Ireland that famine became the norm. In a bout of gallows humor, the satirist Jonathan Swift suggested a solution to poverty on the Emerald Isle: that the British eat Irish babies.

   By 1850, the cooling reversed, and a warming trend continued until the mid-1940s. Summer rains came to the Sahel pastures south of the Sahara. The summer monsoon rains seldom failed in India. Then, after World War II, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere began dropping, recently reaching the level of the late 19th century. Although the mercury drop averaged only one degree (C.), climatologists warn that another degree or two of cooling could remove Canada from the world list of major grain producers. Temperatures were only six degrees lower during the last ice age.

   Balance. The earthly atmosphere is a dynamic arena, and climate is influenced by many factors. Clouds and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are largely transparent to incoming short wave solar radiation, but they trap outgoing long wave (infrared) radiation in the atmosphere. This so-called Greenhouse Effect helps maintain earthly heat and keeps us from freezing.

   On the other hand, reflectivity of the planet – called albedo – prevents solar heat from being absorbed by the earth. Snow, ice and clouds increase albedo, cooling the earth.

   [If the current cooling continues for a few more years, we may have a resurgence of these articles, and Peter will have a new problem to fret about.]

   Have you contacted Craigmoe yet?

   Max
4. tempterrain says:

   26/03/2010 at 11:59 pm

   Max and Robin,

   Einsteins theories of relativity, both Special and General, can be measured and remeasured by experimentation. Light from the sun can be seen to bend as it is influenced by the gravitational field of the planet Mercury. Atomic clocks can be flown around the world, and compared with a control clock on the ground, and the ‘moving clocks go slow’ result can be empirically and accurately measured.

   The ultimate test of the equation E=mc^2 can be clearly seen in an Atomic explosion.

   These kind of experiments fit well into what might be descibed as the “classical’ scientific method.

   Climate science doesn’t fit so well. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures by 3 deg according to the best current scientific estimates. Can that be determined by experimentation? Well yes it can, if we wait another 80 years or so but is it a good idea to do that? But of course someone will no doubt come along and say that the temperature will have warmed anyway. So, to do the experiment we’d need a control. Another Earth, in which the CO2 level was kept at lower levels.

   Is this the kind of scientific standard which you are demanding?
5. Brute says:

   27/03/2010 at 1:47 am

   ……….and who delegated related tasks to the goddess Nympha……

   I always liked Goddess Nympho……she’s one of my all time favorites.
6. Bob_FJ says:

   27/03/2010 at 7:39 am

   Brute,
   Reur 70, where you seem to despair that Arctic ice expansion may imply increasing cold; it is apparently all due to the wind gods, (as concurred by NASA and recently elaborated in WUWT), of which deities Wikipedia lists these:

   There are many different gods of wind in different religions:
   Aeolus, the ruler of the winds in Greek mythology.
   Anemoi, the Greek wind gods Boreas, Notus, Eurus, and Zephyrus.
   Ehecatl, one of the creator gods in Mesoamerican creation myths documented for pre-Columbian central Mexican cultures, such as the Aztec.
   F?jin, the Japanese wind god and one of the eldest Shinto gods. According to legend, he was present at the creation of the world and first let the winds out of his bag to clear the world of mist.
   Njord, in Norse mythology, is the god of the wind. There are also four dvärgar (Norse dwarves), named Norðri, Suðri, Austri and Vestri, and probably the four stags of Yggdrasil, personify the four winds, and parallel the four Greek wind gods.
   Pazuzu, the demon of the South-West wind and son of the god Hanbi in Assyrian and Babylonian mythology.
   Stribog is the name of the Slavic god of winds, sky and air. He is said to be the ancestor (grandfather) of the winds of the eight directions.
   Vayu, the Hindu God of Wind, Hanuman’s father.
   Venti, the Roman gods of the winds, were essentially renamed Anemoi, borrowed from the Greeks.
   Hunaman, the Indian god of wind, who was said to have almost consumed the sun.

   But fear not; things are looking up on the solar front, as of 27/March, with a touch of activity:
   http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/latest.jpg
   

   BTW, you mention that your favourite goddess is Nympho; mine has long been Jacqueline Bisset!
7. tonyb says:

   27/03/2010 at 8:28 am

   Max#78

   Yes I did contact Craigmoe but have had no reply as yet. Will try again.
   Thanks for the scanned article.

   Thanks also for the sea level stuff on the other thread. Chapter 5 is poor science, poor statistics and quite deliberate obfuscation of the facts. It warrants an article in due course.

   tonyb
8. Robin Guenier says:

   27/03/2010 at 8:37 am

   PeterM:

   “The kind of scientific standard which [we] are demanding” is this: your acceptance of the basic principle that, until the dangerous AGW hypothesis is verified by the Scientific Method (#67), it remains no more than an unverified hypothesis. Your protest that, unlike every other branch of science, it is in a special category exempting it from the Scientific Method is pathetic.
9. Robin Guenier says:

   27/03/2010 at 8:53 am

   Something remarkable happened yesterday evening: the BBC allowed Jon Holmes on the Now Show to ridicule the IPCC and this evening’s daft “Earth Hour”. Listen to him here (about 19 minutes and 20 seconds in).
10. tonyb says:

    27/03/2010 at 9:42 am

    Yes Robin I heard the NOW show last night in complete amazement. It was a good job Marcus Brigstock wasnt there or there would have been a fight!

    tonyb
11. tempterrain says:

    27/03/2010 at 12:06 pm

    Robin,

    You seem to be under the misaprehension that there is “the scientific method”.

    Contrary to popular opinion there is not a singular scientific method. Science is not a series of exact steps but rather a strategy for drawing sound conclusions.

    You may like to disagree with the conclusions drawn by mainstream science as detailed in various IPCC reports but the notion that they have somehow failed to follow “correct” scientific procedures is just a distraction. A diversion disseminated by the more hardcore of contrarians.
12. Brute says:

    27/03/2010 at 1:48 pm

    Peter,

    This ultra politically right wing publication seems to be ringing the skeptism bell. I guess you were correct in that political ideology has shaped the debate!

    NYT: ‘Cap-and-Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice – ‘Today, the concept is in wide disrepute’

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html?src=me
13. Brute says:

    27/03/2010 at 2:52 pm

    Slowly deflating

    The overwhelming sentiment is that it is a tax-raising “scam”, part of the continuum of dishonesty perpetrated by self-serving politicians who are concerned only to line their own pockets. Interest is evaporating – it is just another political scam to add to the rest.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/slowly-deflating.html
14. Robin Guenier says:

    27/03/2010 at 3:19 pm

    PeterM:

    So the Scientific Method is, in your view, “a diversion disseminated by the more hardcore of contrarians”. What utter nonsense.

    The Scientific Method was developed during the Enlightenment (Darwin’s work, contrary to your “understanding”, is an excellent example) and codified in a landmark paper by Karl Popper in 1934. Here’s a summary:

    A problem is identified, a testable (i.e. refutable) hypothesis explaining it is published and the hypothesis is thoroughly tested against empirical (physically observed, not theoretical) evidence. If the evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is validated. But even that validation fails if the hypothesis is subsequently proved (usually by independent scientists) to be false: as Popper (and Einstein) showed, a scientific theory can never be finally confirmed by experimental testing whereas a single counterexample (commonly a failure to make accurate prediction) is logically decisive, showing the hypothesis to be false.

    That approach that’s been the bedrock of science for 300 years: some “diversion”! It’s a tough discipline. But it’s a discipline that’s proved to be a powerful tool in learning how the universe works. However, it’s obviously very inconvenient for proponents of the dangerous AGW hypothesis, as they cannot even get to the empirical evidence stage. So what do they do? Simple: they decide that its high standards don’t apply to them. And that really says it all.
15. manacker says:

    27/03/2010 at 7:29 pm

    PeterM and Robin

    Regarding posts #86 and 89, I have to conclude (as a neutral observer) that Robin has won this debate hands down.

    The “scientific method” as pointed out by Robin is what we all learned in school that it is, and the “dangerous AGW premise” should not be excluded from its rigor, any more than other hypotheses, such as “creationism” or “intelligent design”, regardless of whether an “overwhelming consensus” among climatologists exists in support of this premise.

    Attempts to do so, such as those proposed by applying the concept of “post-normal science”, as espoused by Jerome Ravetz, would represent a clear surrender to agenda driven “pseudo-science”.

    The logic is not on your side in this debate, Peter.

    Max
16. manacker says:

    27/03/2010 at 8:36 pm

    PeterM

    Let me address your post 79.

    We have already discussed the concept that the “dangerous AGW” premise must be subjected to the same rigors of the scientific process as any other hypothesis, and I believe that Robin’s post summarizes this rationale very well.

    You wrote:

    Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures by 3 deg according to the best current scientific estimates. Can that be determined by experimentation?

    Let’s see if we can try to answer your question.

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 390 ppmv today, as measured at Mauna Loa. IPCC has estimated, based on ice-core studies, that it was 280 ppmv in “pre-industrial” year 1750, and around 285 ppmv in 1850, when the modern record of “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (with all its warts and blemishes) started.

    Over this 160-year period, this global temperature indicator increased by 0.65C.

    GH theory tells us that the GH relationship is roughly logarithmic.

    Solar scientists attribute around half of this warming to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years), and, as we are seeing today, there are many other natural factors that can also affect our temperature.

    But let us see if we can get an empirical validation of the GH impact of CO2.

    IPCC tells us (based on various theoretical deliberations and model simulations) that the radiative forcing from CO2 alone is roughly equivalent to that from all anthropogenic sources (as cooling from aerosols and land use changes cancel out warming from other GHGs), so that simplifies our investigation.

    Using the logarithmic relation, the warming from the CO2 increase we have seen so far should represent around 45% of that from a doubling of CO2.

    So let’s look at two cases:
    a. the solar scientists are right, and half of the observed warming can be attributed to solar impact
    b. the solar scientists are wrong, and all the observed warming can be attributed to human CO2

    Solving the equation gives us a 2xCO2 temperature impact of
    a. (0.65 – 0.325) / 0.45 = 0.7C
    b. 0.65 / 0.45 = 1.4C

    So the empirical evidence shows us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could cause a temperature increase of 1.05 ± 0.35C (not 3C, as you have postulated, based on theoretical deliberations and model simulations).

    The big unknown here, of course, is the impact of natural variability (a.k.a. natural forcing factors).

    We know that the unusually high level of El Niño activity in the late 20th century caused some increase in the global temperature, while La Niña activity is now being blamed for the more recent cooling.

    In addition, solar activity has dropped to a very low level since 2007, as Solar Cycle 24 is having a hard time getting started.

    So getting a fool-proof empirical confirmation of the 2xCO2 GH warming impact is next to impossible to achieve, but it appears more likely than not that this is around 1C.

    Max
17. tempterrain says:

    27/03/2010 at 10:26 pm

    Max,

    It sounds like what you may have learned at school may have been an oversimplification.

    I’ve just skip read what is available of this book and it seems to take a more mature view of the topic. You may like to move on to the next grade!

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NN7E3r_w09IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=scientific+method&source=bl&ots=bhvJOemB6m&sig=x-9h5VeT5P1JPwaCHwuQRvMmGcA&hl=en&ei=4GquS5LZEo7u7AO-w6yyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Robin,

    Climate Science is no exception to the rest of science as you claim. There is great deal of empirical evidence that the earth is warming: Satellite and ground measurements directly of temperatures, and also indirectly of effects such as melting polar ice caps and glaciers. This correlates with rising CO2 levels. The correlation is not perfect because there are other short term, and long term, factors are involved too.

    But what you are saying is that correlation doesn’t always mean causation. In other words the evidence is at best circumstantial. You say “If the evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is validated”. In this case I would say that the evidence does support the evidence but “validated” is too strong a word. “Not invalidated” would be better. Validated would imply close to 100% confidence whereas the IPCC say 90%.

    There are other forms of evidence too. The mechanism of how CO2 warms the Earth is well understood , unlike say the way smoking may cause cancer, and was first investigated by Arrenhius at the turn of the last century. Without the use of any computer modelling he came up with a range of values, for CO2 climate sensitivity, based on his experiments and empirical observations which were remarkably close to present day calculations. Although he may have been a bit lucky as the errors in his method did tend to cancel themselves out.

    So there is an abundance of evidence, which I agree is not proof, both empirical and otherwise, which all lead to the conclusion being drawn that CO2 and GHG’s from human sources are changing and will continue to change the Earth’s climate.

    You mention experimental testing. Is the extreme difficulty of doing climate experiments on such a large scale behind your objections? Not all scientific methods require experimental testing. For instance, Astronomy can only be based on observations of distant stars and Galaxies, but nevertheless it is still a science. Just as Climate science is largely based on more local observations.

    Finally I should just point out scientific methods have nothing to do with Climate contrarians. I’m not sure where you got that from. My only advice would be to at least try to understand what they are before you try to misrepresent them.
18. Brute says:

    27/03/2010 at 11:04 pm

    Earth Hour In North Korea A Stunning Success!
    
19. Brute says:

    27/03/2010 at 11:11 pm

    Now it’s CowGate: expert report says claims of livestock causing global warming are false

    It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unravelling.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100031389/now-its-cowgate-expert-report-says-claims-of-livestock-causing-global-warming-are-false/
20. Brute says:

    27/03/2010 at 11:28 pm

    Obama Energy Sec. Chu: ‘We don’t understand downward trend that occurred in 1900 or in 1940. We don’t fully understand the plateau that’s happened in the last decade’

    http://algorelied.com/?p=3935

    Flashback 2009: Obama’s ‘Climate Astrologer’: Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows ‘what the future will be 100 years from now’ — Morano Counter: ‘Shouldn’t Chu be touting these scary predictions of the year 2100 on a boardwalk with a full deck of Tarot Cards
    http://www.climatedepot.com/
21. Brute says:

    28/03/2010 at 2:38 am

    German fear of losing climate change

    http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwissenschaft%2Fnatur%2F0%2C1518%2C685946%2C00.html&sl=de&tl=en
22. manacker says:

    28/03/2010 at 6:48 am

    PeterM

    Sorry, but all your verbiage does not lend scientific support to the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a serious potential threat. The empirical evidence to support this premise is lacking.

    I’ve shown you (91) how the 3C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 as derived by model simulations and as used by IPCC as the basis for potentially dangerous AGW has been falsified by the observed data. These show us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have a theoretical warming impact of around 1C, so nothing to get very excited about.

    For a good summary explaining how the hypothesis of potentially dangerous anthropogenic greenhouse warming has been tested and has failed, read the summary below by a countryman of yours.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/CarterMyth/carter_myth.pdf

    Open your mind, Peter, and don’t stay stuck in the old, out-dated IPCC paradigm.

    Max
23. tempterrain says:

    28/03/2010 at 8:34 am

    Max,

    Ah yes our old friend Bob Carter. I notice the first quote he gives is from his boss of the right wing think tank the so called “Institute of Public Affairs”. Got to keep his sponsor happy!

    He carefully explains how CO2 concentrations have a logarithmic effect then quotes Richard Lindzen that a doubling of CO2 levels should produce an warming of about 1 degree.

    He’s saying, in effect, that the equation is DetaT=3.32* log([CO2]/280)

    He then claims that current levels of Co2 are about 380 and that this means that we are 75% of the way to a doubling. However the correct answer is 44%.

    Australians do unfortunately tend to be considered not very bright by the Poms, and Bob Carter having reached university professor level unfortunately hasn’t done anything to counter that.

    Normally I would listen carefully to what a university professor might have to say but if he can’t do basic arithmetic, why bother? We’d be just as well reading what Brute might have to say on AGW theory.
24. tonyb says:

    28/03/2010 at 8:36 am

    Peter

    Sorry, I didnt catch your answer to my simple question.

    “Do you believe in GLOBAL warmimg-that is all parts of the globe have been warming since at least 1900.”

    Presumably you take the IPCC line on this who believe it is-with the exception of South Greenland and a very few places in the Tropics. Do you agree with their viewpoint?

    tonyb
25. tempterrain says:

    28/03/2010 at 9:58 am

    TonyB,

    NASA have this website which I’ve just discovered and looks pretty good:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/

    This page probably answers your question:
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003674/index.html

    Its not what I believe that matters. I’m happy to defer to NASA.

    Incidentally it might be interesting to apply the point that Bob Carter was trying to make to these maps. If CO2 levels are allowed to double, the warming for the year 2009 can be multiplied by 1/0.44 = 2.27

    So areas where the warming has been 2 degrees will become 4.54 degrees warmer. In time the warming will become more even, so 3 degrees of warming overall may well turn out to be somewhat of an underestimate.

    Note: I would like to assure readers that no computers were used in these calculations! Just a desktop calculator.