THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Peter,
Back in the innocent early 2008 days of Whitehouse/Lynas, there was a heated discussion concerning the possible end of global warming.
Time has moved on since then.
All four records now show that global warming has indeed stopped since 2001, and that the 21st century is starting off with a period of global cooling, at an average linear rate of -0.087°C per decade and a linear cooling over the 8-year period averaging -0.07°C.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/3039747708_30c641f64c_b.jpg
This cooling trend is quite obviously “unequivocal”!
What’s more, it’s truly “unprecedented”! (There have been no 8-year periods of cooling since the last “new ice age” scare ended in 1976 and Stephen Schneider et al. switched from warning us of disastrous anthropogenic cooling to disastrous anthropogenic warming.)
But wait! How can this be?
All of the obscenely expensive taxpayer-funded Global Climate Models cited by IPCC told us it should be warming at 0.20°C per decade, not cooling at around half this rate.
How could the “mainstream consensus of 2,500 scientists” be so dismally wrong?
I am shocked and extremely disappointed. But, while I am relieved that we will not all be fried to death due to imminent climate “tipping points”, I am still a bit uneasy about a “global cooling trend” (remembering what Schneider et al. warned us about just a short 30 years ago). I also recall that the late climate pioneer, Reid Bryson wrote many years ago that periods of harsh, cold weather have historically always been a lot rougher on our planet plus humanity than balmy warm periods.
So I have a real dilemma.
Maybe we should scrap all these 1,000+ page IPCC reports and go back to “The Farmer’s Almanac” for forecasts of “globally averaged land and sea surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies”.
What do you think, Peter?
Regards,
Max
The world has never seen such freezing heat
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
This article should have a headline that reads; Why I’m a “climate crisis” skeptic………………
Two conclusions can be drawn from this situation……
Conclusion # 1: It was a mistake; which leads to the question of; how could numerous highly paid, supposedly qualified, government scientists, make such a conspicuous error. What other errors have they made in past datasets? Is there any shred of quality control or oversight of these agencies?
Conclusion # 2: It was falsified purposely; which leads to the question of; why are government funded scientist purposely trying to bamboozle the public?
Comments?
The world has never seen such freezing heat
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
This article should have a headline that reads; Why I’m a “climate crisis” skeptic………………
Two conclusions can be drawn from this situation……
Conclusion # 1: It was a mistake; which leads to the questions of….. how could numerous, highly paid, government scientists, make such a conspicuous error? What other errors have they made in past datasets? Is there any shred of quality control or oversight of these agencies and the information that they publicize?
Conclusion # 2: It was falsified purposely; which leads to the question of; why are government funded scientist purposely trying to bamboozle the public?
Now, I’m certain that Peter will dismiss this as “an honest mistake” and “much about nothing”…..but this type of information soaks into the public psyche. Shouldn’t responsible, capable, credentialed scientists of integrity express outrage of such sloppy work?
TonyN,
I’ve attempted to post the same comment twice…..Have I been banned?
The world has never seen such freezing heat
{http}://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
This article should have a headline that reads: Why I’m a “climate crisis” skeptic………………
Two conclusions can be drawn from this situation……
Conclusion # 1: It was a mistake; which leads to the question of; how could numerous highly paid, government scientists, make such a conspicuous error. What other errors have they made in past datasets? Is there any shred of quality control or oversight of these agencies?
Conclusion # 2: It was falsified purposely; which leads to the question of; why are government funded scientist purposely trying to bamboozle the public?
Now, I’m certain that Peter will dismiss this as “an honest mistake” and “much about nothing”…..but this type of information soaks into the public psyche. Shouldn’t responsible people and capable, credentialed scientists express outrage of such sloppy work?
Max,
Your graphical skills seem to be improving. Can I put in a request for you to do a similar graph for the early nineties? Try to imagine that you’d been transported back in time to 1996. What would be you saying, at the time, to all those who were just starting to become ‘AGW alarmists’?
I hope this record survives so we can all look back in another twelve years time. It may even survive long enough for future generations to read. If I turn out to be wrong I won’t mind too much. But if you turn out to be wrong your grandchildren will be cursing your existence for helping to cause them such problems.
Brute,
You ask “Have I been banned?” I suspect not, but we can all hope:-)
You need to add to your 2778
Conclusion #3
Mainstream science has basically got it right. However there are a small comitted broup of people who are trying to spread as much doubt on solid and compeling scientific evidence that AGW is a real problem to be taken seriously. They wish to mislead and confuse the public so that they don’t know what to believe.
Brute, Reur 2778
The world has never seen such freezing heat
{http}://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
Gee, I enjoyed that, so much, that I Emailed-it-on-from-site to some friends. I would liked to have Emailed it to Obama, (and a few others), but doubt he or his staff would know Bob_FJ etc.. However, you Brute are “over there”: got any ideas how it could be done, internally or if it might be better/less attention seeking via overseas?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What an amazing rate of response from the world public, to that British newspaper! Incidentally, many posts are signed as from Americans, OR contain American/Canadian spellings. For instance:
I didn’t explore far into the huge number of responses, because many were banal and lacking science, but I quite enjoyed the following, without checking to see if was true:
(Americano)
Max in his 2764, wrote in part to Pete:
Perhaps I should expand on what Max said:
What I did (back in May) was to highlight a 2003 paper by some Russians, that had sensibly identified what seems to be an underlying sinusoidal cycle in the then published increasing Hadley T trends. From this, THEY made some projections that we will be experiencing cooling for a few years yet beyond now.
All I did was compare their 5YO projection with the LATER Hadley data back in May 2008, and I showed that the Russian’s projection had VERY GOOD FIT to that Hadley data, with a continuing downward trend being a strong indication, by virtue of repetition of past cycles that they had identified.
Whilst it becomes more tortuous what with Hadley continuously moving the T goal-posts, it remains a remarkable coincidence that the projections by those Russians, seem to be rather close to actual observations, SO FAR.
Here follows the latest version of my graphical comparison, following a lively debate at the ClimateAudit Bulletin Board. (an academic site)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2500690620_0b6bf111f5_o.jpg
Remy 2781
I check-opened my graphic link and found that it was unreadable unless zoomed to 125% on my system. You may need to experiment if you wish to read it!
SORRY
Re: #2779, Brute
I de-spammed two of your comments this morning. Please let me know if they are listed now.
TonyN,
Thanks but I got it on the page. It rejected the link that I had included. I had to surround the address with brackets (#2780).
Conclusion #3
Pete,
How wonderful that you support inexact scientific methods. Do you apply the same standards to the products that your company produces? I certainly pray that whatever your electronics firm produces, it has nothing to do with life safety.
Young Goracle spent his youth at an exclusive private school in Washington D.C……St. Albans smoking marijuana, not in a tarpaper shack producing tobacco. His father rented a suite of rooms for him at an opulent downtown Washington hotel on embassy row.
Max #2773
Plus Robin and Bob, perhaps you can help?
Previously Max wrote that Man has introduced around 1740gt Co2 into the system by burning fossil fuels that were previously ‘locked up’ and also illustrated how much fossil carbon was still available to burn.
Nature creates around 600gt per year. In very rough terms therefore, since 1750AD nature has theoretically created around 150,000 gigatons.
However as the carbon cycle is in effect closed, that means we must be ‘recycling’ the available carbon dioxide, and therefore in the 150000GT we are double counting what are in sinks, such as the oceans, plant growth and in the atmophere itself.
What I am trying to get to so I can start my series of graphs, is how much ‘natural’ carbon there is in this closed system before man starts to add to it?
The formula is;
xGT(total available carbon)-1740GT(man made) =yGT (amount of natural carbon)
So what is x?
There are lots of papers on this but most seem to contradict each other as they continually want to talk about man disturbing the ‘equilibrium’ rather than deal with the actual figures. The Van hoof paper doesnt seem to deal with this, and the Beck papers really need to be read in their entirety again-which I would rather not do at present. Consequently I am hoping someone can give me a short answer.
Thanks
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “Can I put in a request for you to do a similar graph for the early nineties? Try to imagine that you’d been transported back in time to 1996. What would be you saying, at the time, to all those who were just starting to become ‘AGW alarmists’”?
Always glad to oblige in the interest of increasing knowledge, Peter.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/3041103930_32f3b2aa90_b.jpg
Ah, yes. The heady days of the late 20th century, when Global Warming truly seemed real.
After a previous period of lackluster warming, we had magnificent warming rates! (One could almost say that it was “unequivocal” that they were “unprecedented”.)
The world listened in awe as we gave dire predictions for the future. Yes we AGW climatologists were truly on a roll. Research funding started flowing in like it was going out of style. The media started picking up on our story, helping us create a whole generation of “AGW alarmists”. It was all so “sexy” and “in”. And we felt noble in our conviction that we were “doing something to save our planet”.
The solar guys were telling us “it’s the sun, stupid!” and warning us that it might all come to an end, but we knew better: it was man-made CO2. After all, our tax-payer funded zillion-dollar computer models couldn’t possibly be wrong.
But then came the hard, cold facts of the new millennium.
Just as irreversible “tipping points” seemed almost within grasp, it simply stopped warming.
The sun stopped playing along with us and even ENSO deserted us after giving us a real boost.
So after a few early attempts to hide this dismal fact from the world with 20-year leveling techniques, diversionary sidetracks to Arctic sea ice developments and other tricks, it seems that we are in danger of losing our AGW support group.
Sure, the die-hards won’t give up: they knew that evil industrial man was destroying our planet and killing off species long before we even had any computer generated data.
But all those people out there who can think for themselves a bit? These are the ones that are the most dangerous to our cause.
Let’s hope and pray that whatever has caused warming to stop goes away before everyone realizes that the whole AGW hysteria was just a bubble.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
The sources I have actually figure out to a cumulative man-made CO2 contribution from fossil fuels and cement production of around 1940 Gt CO2 to date (rather than 1740).
Other sources show that the optimistically estimated total remaining fossil fuels on this planet would generate 5270 Gt CO2; adding in 230 Gt from cement production would put the absolute total at 5500 Gt. At current consumption rates these remaining fossil fuels will last us around 160 years.
From this site I read: “The Earth maintains a natural carbon balance. When concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) are upset, the system gradually returns to its natural state. This natural readjustment works slowly, compared to the rapid rate at which humans are moving carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Natural carbon removal can’t keep pace, so the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases “
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/carbon01.jsp
This is sort of the simplistic standard hypothesis used to support the notion that human CO2 is the cause for AGW.
You wrote, “Nature creates around 600gt per year. In very rough terms therefore, since 1750AD nature has theoretically created around 150,000 gigatons.”
Is this a “net” creation? I always thought the theory is that animal respiration plus plant decay or burning is essentially offset by photosynthesis (with photosynthesis absorbing just a bit more CO2, particularly as global temperatures warm ever so slightly and atmospheric CO2 levels increase, causing an acceleration in photosynthesis).
I also thought that the ocean/atmosphere cycle is also roughly “in balance” with cold ocean waters absorbing CO2, which is then released as the waters warm up due to natural circulation. (This seems logical, but I do not think there are any hard facts to prove it is so.) Is the ocean a “net” generator of CO2 to the atmosphere or a “net” CO2 absorber and “sink” (in animal shells, etc.)
If the upper layer of oceans warm ever so slightly, could this cause a “net” release of oceanic CO2 to the atmosphere as IPCC suggest with their computer model created “climate-carbon cycle coupling” suggestion (latest figures based on Argo satellites seem to show there is no net warming of the upper oceans, however, so we can probably discard the IPCC suggestion).
The same is true, I thought, for soils, which also absorb and release CO2, but again I have seen no figures for a “net” carbon generation or reduction through this mechanism. Absorption of CO2 to produce limestone and weathering also contribute to the cycle, but I do not know if anyone has figured out that there is a “net” contribution over time.
Then there are the theories (mostly from Russian scientists) that fossil fuels are being regenerated near the border of Earth’s crust and mantle. Bob_FJ had some information on this, but I do not know to what extent it would affect the carbon cycle.
So I think it would be difficult to find hard numbers on a “net” natural increase of atmospheric CO2.
I have seached the Internet for info on this, but have not been able to come up with anything. Sites like CO2Science might have something useful.
I agree with your idea that the carbon cycle is in effect closed and the “human”contribution is not the whole story, since only 40% of the “human” CO2 “remains” in the atmosphere long term, and no one can show definitely where the rest goes.
Lots of luck with your study to attempt to define how much natural carbon there is in the “system” (oceans, atmosphere, soils, minerals, plant and animal life, fossil fuels, etc.) and how this shifts over time. I’m sorry I can’t give you anything more definitive.
Regards,
Max
I enjoyed this.
Max 2790
Nice graph and highly relevant comments.
My own graph if viewed from around 1980 also shows that it is all our fault and even captures the ‘hockey stick. Zoom out though and see it in perspective and all of a sudden the relationship between high co2 levels and high temperatures is suddenly put in a better context. http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
This is why I’m trying to put it all into an even broader perspective by zooming out further.
Your 2791
Thanks for your help-my understanding is the same as yours, but the information out there seems sketchy or contradictory. Hard figures seem impossible to come by. There must be a figure for ‘x’ somewhere out there. I will read through your link and the Co2 science web site before I tackle the vast amount of references that Beck has assembled or delve into the IPCC.
TonyB
Hi Max
I think the answer to total co2 is here.The earth observatory link has a good graphic. These look like IPCC figures to me, so I intend to double check.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=258277
It depends on whether the deep ocean sinks are taken into account, in which case total natural co2 appears to be around 90000Gt-exclude that sink and it is around 9000Gt. However presumably the deep ocean is always turning over, even if the time scale is hundreds rather than tens of years as it is for the ocean surface. So the 2000Gt human emissions figure since 1750 is around 3% of total co2 and around .15% of total greenhouse gases.
Does that sound right?
TonyB
Note to TonyB
Back to studies referring to the natural carbon cycle:
Citing several references on the subject, a 2002 study by C.R. de Freitas deviates from the standard “in balance before man” hypothesis in touching on Earth’s carbon cycle and the human role.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf
While some of the temperature data are outdated, other sections of de Freitas’ paper are still relevant.
From the section on CO2:
“Carbon dioxide emissions caused by human use of fossil fuels are small compared to the natural carbon exchange between the atmosphere on the one hand and the terrestrial system and oceans on the other. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon of 750 Gt. The vast majority of CO2 fluxes are natural. The magnitude of the natural reservoirs of carbon between ocean, atmosphere and land and the rates of exchange between them are so large that the role of humans in the natural carbon budget is unclear. So great are the difficulties in quantifying the natural carbon budget and the uncertainties with which the numbers are estimated that the source of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 has not been determined with certainty (Keeling et al., 1996; Tans et al., 1990; Adger and Brown, 1995). The fact is that there are no reliable models relating CO2 emissions to atmospheric concentrations because it is not clear how the two are related.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied widely over geologic time, but we are unable to fully explain why. The atmosphere is a result of the outgassing of the Earth, and this outgassing was largely accomplished as volcanic activity. The rates of outgassing, however, are highly irregular.”
“There are many other factors that influence atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are not well understood. For example, the current increase in atmospheric CO2 follows a 300-year warming trend, during which temperatures have been recovering from the global cool period known as the Little Ice Age (Lamb, 1982). The observed increases in CO2 are of a magnitude that can, for example, be explained by oceans giving off gases naturally as temperatures rise (Dettinger and Ghil, 1998; Segalstad, 1998).
It is known that equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of atmospheric CO2. The net flow per year amounts to 0.7 to 1.5 Gt of carbon – about what is emitted in the United States – of which up to 72% emanates from the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The Southern Ocean is modeled as both a source and sink of as much as 1 Gt of carbon per year. Owing to changes in sea surface temperature during the 1991 to 1994 El Niño period, the annual flow of CO2 was 30 to 80% of normal (Feebly et al., 1999). This has a significant effect on global CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.”
Based on cited studies, de Freitas points out graphically that the response of plants to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations is significant.
De Freitas then goes on to discuss the relationship between changes in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature: “Recent trends in global air temperature are not well correlated with changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, air temperature measurements taken at the surface of the Earth show that average temperature of the globe has increased by about 0.6°C over the past century. Most of this rise occurred before 1940 (Fig. 5), but over 80% of the CO2 entered the atmosphere after 1940. In fact, from the late 1930s to the late 1970s the Earth’s atmosphere cooled despite increasing levels of CO2.”
De Freitas then points out that paleo-temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have correlated such that the CO2 follows the temperature, rather than leading. He points to other research where temperatures were high when CO2 concentrations were low, and vice versa, concluding “The results of these studies do not support the notion that CO2 is the all-important driver of climate change that some have made it to be.”
The studies cited by de Freitas may give more insight into the historical relationship between atmospheric CO2, human CO2 emissions, natural CO2 fluctuations and our planet’s temperature, so might be a good source of additional information.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB
Your 2794 on the deep ocean sink of CO2 does point out how relatively insignificant human emissions are in the overall scheme of things.
Regards,
Max
Robin 2792
Thanks for link. I always enjoyed George Carlin. Sad that he died so early, but he sure left us a lot of good (non-PC) laughs. This one’s a classic.
Max
Sorry TonyB.
The link to the de Freitas paper (2795) should be:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf
This recent Spencer paper gives a good summary of some of the key weaknesses in the AGW hypothesis as suggested by James E. Hansen and others.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Hansen suggests, “Positive feedbacks dominate. This has allowed the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. Huge natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak, very slow forcings, and positive feedbacks.”
Rather than having an inherently unstable climate being whip-lashed from one extreme to another by “positive feedbacks” (as Hansen suggests), Spencer demonstrates that we actually have a climate that regulates itself with what he calls “nature’s thermostat”.
Spencer’s earlier physical observations demonstrating that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative (i.e. cooling) rather than strongly positive (i.e. warming) as assumed in all the climate models cited by IPCC, is cited as one piece of evidence for this natural “thermostat”. Changes in humidity and precipitation patterns are cited as another piece of the puzzle.
Spencer points out that “the theory that our current warmth is manmade is largely the result of not having good enough global observations over a long enough period of time to rule out natural causes”.
I believe this paper is a “must read” for anyone who really wants to know what is driving our climate and where this will lead, rather than simply swallowing the proclamations of the IPCC and other AGW-aficionados.
Max
Note to TonyB
You have probably read some of the standard “chicken and egg” rationalizations by AGW-believers in response to questions concerning the observed lag between temperature rise and atmospheric CO2 from paleoclimate studies:
Something else (?) may have inititated the warming, which then caused higher atmospheric CO2 levels due to ocean degassing, but these then caused more greenhouse warming, which caused even more atmospheric CO2 in an alarming “positive feedback” cycle (as the models show we will possibly experience now, due to human CO2 emissions).
Duh!
To swallow this bit of circular reasoning requires true “blind faith”.
But, believe it or not, there are supposedly “scientific” sites, such as RealClimate, that are trying to sell this mumbo-jumbo to the world.
Amazing!
Max