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,
Historical CO2 Temperature correlation postd again (in larger size).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote (2870): “You wouldn’t have said that AGW had stopped in 1996 looking back on the previous few years temperature figures? OK If you say so. That’s fair enough, of course.”
You are correct. Using the Hadley record, had I looked back 8 years (the same length of our current cooling period) in 1995 or in 1996, I would have seen a slight warming of around 0.02C, rather than a cooling (as we have witnessed over the past 8 years), so I would not have said “that AGW had stopped”, but rather “that AGW had slowed down a bit”.
You are beating a dead horse here, Peter.
The current cooling period is “unequivocally unprecedented” since the end of the last cooling period in 1976.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
There is a decimal error in the linear coolng from 2001 to 2008.
The decadal rate is -0.024C/decade (rather than -0.002C/decade) and the linear cooling measured over the period is -0.02C (rather than -0.002C).
Sorry. (No change in the conclusion, however.)
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Your latest post (2873) is very interesting.
As I look at it, your latest historical composite curve makes a reasonable case for a “broad brush” correlation between CET and atmospheric CO2 concentration over a prolonged period of time (a major portion of which was “pre-industrial”).
It raises the question of causation, however.
Since human CO2 emissions do not correlate at all prior to around 1950, it appears that a logical explanation of causation (if the correlation is not purely coincidental) would be that the higher CET (as a proxy for global average temperature) caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, rather than the other way around.
Conversely, one could imaging that major natural sources of CO2 (volcanoes, outgassing from underground fissures, etc.) could have caused sharp increases in atmospheric CO2, which then caused greenhouse warming. There are, however, no records of such major volcanic events.
In either case, it would raise serious questions concerning the anthropogenic cause for changes in our climate.
Am I looking at your results correctly?
Regards,
Max
HI Max
I would read it that looking ast the degraded co2 figure shows any correlation is sdmall oparticulasrly prior 1950
THat a reading of 280ppm can cause as hiogh temperatures as m,uch higher readings .
THat the graph badly misses additional co2 spikes to explain the temperature spoikes
That temperature rioses precede co2 increases
That the 1920-50’s curve is steep and it drops back sharply at the time of Keelings fiorst meassurents
As a treat I thought you might be interested in this 1920 document that I believe influenced GS Callandar profoundly, who in turn greatly influenced Charles Keeling
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/048/mwr-048-09-0535.pdf
Now is that suggested increase in temperature from a doubling of co2 (by whatever means-man or natural emissions) starting from the 280ppm as suggested by the IPCC, or the numerous readings of around 350ppm taken around the time of the 1920 article? Either way the author suggests co2 has a minor impact on climate change.
TonyB
Sorry for the numerous spelling mistakes in above post #2880-I was hurrying to get it finished before dinner.
I havent even got Max’s excuse that I’d been drinking the local red wine!
Here it is again in a more readable form;
Hi Max
I would read it that;
* Looking at the degraded co2 figure shows that any correlation is small, particularly prior to 1950
* That a reading of 280ppm can cause as high temperatures as readings of 380ppm .
* That the graph badly misses additional co2 spikes to explain the temperature spikes
* That temperature rises precede co2 increases
* That the 1920-50’s curve is as steep as the modern one, and that it drops back sharply before the time of Keelings first measurements
As a treat, I thought you might be interested in this 1920 document that I believe influenced GS Callandar profoundly, who in turn greatly influenced Charles Keeling
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/048/mwr-048-09-0535.pdf
Now, does the authors suggested increase in temperature from a doubling of co2 start from the 280ppm- as suggested by the IPCC- or from the numerous readings of around 350ppm taken around the time of the 1920 article?
Either way the author suggests co2 has a minor impact on climate change.
TonyB
Hi Max,
I’m sure that teachers of all slow learning students feel that they are “flogging a dead horse” at times. I certainly do with you lot!
However, let’s not give up. I’ve simplified the graph for you:
I’ve shown 5 cooling periods in the 60’s,70’s,80’s, 90’s and 00’s. I’ve numbered them 1 to 5.
1)Can you place them in order? The strongest cooling period first.
2)Which is the weakest cooling period?
Can I have the answers in by first thing tomorrow morning please?
Hi TonyB,
With or without “typos” I get the message.
It appears that the oversimplistic AGW hypothesis suggested by IPCC is not supported by the longer-term historical record (as I have shown it is also not supported by the shorter term 1858-2008 record).
Whether we are observing (a) an increase in atmospheric CO2 from some as yet unexplained naturally caused temperature increase, or whether we see (b) a temperature increase resulting from some as yet unexplained naturally caused increase in atmospheric CO2 or whether we are observing (c) two totally unrelated phenomena remains an open question.
The shorter term record (1850-2008) would lead me to believe that (c) is the most logical choice, although I could not exclude (b), but would logically give (a) the lowest probability, with human-caused warming due to fossil CO2 (AGW) a real long shot.
I hope you can publish your findings for others to see.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You are indeed beating a dead horse with all your “simplified” graphs and rationalizations.
The Hadley temperature record shows us that the 8-year cooling period from 2001 to 2008 was “unprecedented” since the cooling period which ended in 1976.
Other records show this even more graphically.
This is no big deal, Peter. Global warming stopped in 2001 (as Hadley and the other records tell us).
Whether it will resume again in the future is anyone’s guess.
There is no question that we have seen a general trend of overall warming since we recovered from the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century (with or without human CO2).
It is quite logical to assume that this general natural trend of recovery will continue, although solar scientists have some doubts on this.
I hope they are wrong, because I think you and I both agree that we definitely do not need or want another Little Ice Age, which would be significantly more problematic for humanity that a few tenths of a degree additional warming.
Forget the AGW hysteria, Peter. It’s cooling now. It may warm again later. But it’s really no big deal (and certainly nothing we can change, regardless of what we do).
Can you accept that, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Let us assume that you cannot accept that AGW is a myth.
Let us assume that you truly believe that AGW will cause our planet and humanity a major problem from global warming in the near future (next 100 years).
Let us assume further that you truly believe we (mankind) can do something to avert this disaster.
If these assumptions are correct, then what do you think specifically that mankind should do?
What quantified impact will this have over the next 100 years?
On what scientific relationships do you base this estimate?
Please, Peter, try to be specific.
If you cannot answer these very basic questions with some real specifics, then I must assume that your AGW belief is based more on blind “religious” faith than on scientific reasoning.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Thanks for your well thought out 2867, quoting Wesley Pruden.
As Albert Einstein once said, ” The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance”.
IPCC has displayed both in its latest AR4 and SPM 2007 reports.
Regards,
Max
Peter, reur graphs on your 2780, and 2882
I notice that others here did not show much interest in your graphs, and/or could not be bothered to check their validity, maybe because they contradict other more reliable data presentations.
However, I feel it is appropriate to continue in an educational vein for you, because I think that one of the reasons that you don’t understand the science in GW is that you don’t understand the science. (and thus cannot rationalize the scientific arguments)
Commenting on your graph:
The first thing to be considered when selecting a smoothing method on noisy data is to assess how much smoothing is desired, and the final selection depends very much on the type and general pattern of the noise, and is quite arbitrary. I see that you have selected some kind of 5-year smoothing, and the outcome remains in my opinion too noisy; if the purpose was to show an underlying trend. That is probably why Hadley use a 21-year smoothing, with a simplified Gaussian weighting. What was your purpose Pete? Do you know?
Any scientist worth his weight, will, after applying algorithms or whatever to data, and in presenting a graph, WILL THEN TEST such work for reasonableness both in absolute terms and with any other comparable work…. whatever. In the instance of your graph, there are two obvious things that are wrong with the “red worm”. The first is that by simple “eyeball” assessment, the “red worm” is way-out of sync with the raw data.
Secondly, the start and end points of the “red worm” are too far right by several years. (different left and right)
Given your lack of understanding and sloppy practice above, there could well be other basic errors in your work, but I don’t have the time or interest to explore that.
There is also a dearth of references, for instance what level of Hadley data, (which is constantly changing), authorship and dates etc.
Pete, you have a lot to learn about basic science, and method etc, but here I go again, trying to advance your education, free of charge.
Pete, Reur 2868, with another strange graph and weird argument:
Uh?
I have been in contact with Beck again and asked him for fifteen historic Co2 readings -high and low-that he believes are completely valid, which he has provided.He has also specifically suggested that others should be considered unreliable due to the circumstances surrounding the measurements.
I intend to look throughly at each one he has supplied to try to determine how reliable I believe them to be. Beck is very up front with his information-it is a pity other scientists are not always as forthcoming and some need FOI requests to try to prise information out of them.
tonyB
No alternative to my graph in posting #2882? The data is taken from Hadcrut and you can check it all for yourself if you feel I have misrepresented the data.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.csv
It can be easily imported into a spreadsheet and there is one here to help you get started, if you need it.
http://www.rfshop.com.au/Portals/22/supp/tmp2.xls
You can change the five year averaging if you would like something different. In Excel there is a function “add trendline” which you get by selecting a noisy trace, with the right mouse button. You can then add a line with a running or moving average set to any value you choose. The larger the averaging, the more noise is removed. On the other hand you’ll lose some
of the fine detail too, so you need to strike the right balance. 5 years is pretty good in this respect.
If you feel the graph that I have shown is oversimplified then just add some more detail.
It’s quite easy to see the pattern of warming and cooling spells of the last fifty years. Cooling spells occur approximately every decade. Unfortunately they are getting weaker. The current one being the weakest, not the strongest as Max would have us all believe. On the other hand the warmings occurring between them are getting stronger.
If you would like to disagree, please produce a graph of the last fifty or sixty years showing how the previous cooling spells have been weaker than the current one.
Pete, Reur 2890:
You wrote in part:
Is this waffle of yours in response to Max’s 2884, or my 2887, or both?
I have mentioned this to you before that it is not always clear in your posts, (e.g. typically you give no post # ref), as to whom or what issue you are responding to.
Will you take notice of your errors that I identified in my 2887, or is it just that you don’t have the scientific comprehension to understand what I explained to you?
The Hadcrut RAW data that you quote is apparently a definable source , it is just what you presented based on that data that is wrong, as I explained in my 2887.
BTW the link you provided for the raw data includes the date 2006.… It is now late 2008.…. Are they recent or old data?
If you are interested in older Hadley 2006 info, here is something from my archive compared with later stuff around May 2008. UEA/Hadley seem to have had a greater smoothing practice back in 2006. Maybe 21 years unweighted? Who knows? (Who cares?)
<img src=”
” width=”905″ height=”312″ alt=”Global T UEA 2006 V 2008″ />
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/3054644241_e50d8a50ba_o.gif
TonyN
In response to the exchange immediately above from Peter and Bob, Climate Audit has a useful function whereby you can click on a post number and this then provides a link that can be followed from the ‘leave a reply’ section.
When someone then makes a new comment they can make the link and the reader can immediately go to it and see what they are referring to.
This becomes particularly useful when the poster might be refering to something that happened some time previously.
Is there also a hidden facility to search ours-and others- posts? For example I was looking for a reference Peter had made some time previously and I had to scrawl individually back through hundreds of posts to find it.
TonyB
Re: 2892, TonyB
You can link to individual comments. Hover over the number, right click, select ‘Copy link location’ and then set up the link in the usual way:
Link to comment
You will notice that the comment number in the link is different to the one on the page. This is because WordPress assigns a unique number to comments behind the scenes so that if a comment is moved or deleted – and the numbering on the page changes – the link will stay the same.
The more sophisticated routine that CA uses is part of their WordPress theme and isn’t available on the one that I use.
The standard search facility within WordPress (top RH corner of window) is rudimentary, but I have been looking at a plugin that is supposed to be better. I may install it sometime within the next few days.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=20#comment-6221
OK I can do it as a ‘copy shortcut’but not sure yet if that works. However although I use XP I dont seem to have the same commands as you and still cant post graphics-which might be an advantage!!
TonyB
TonyN: When you right click over am image you should get a drop-down menu that includes the ‘Copy image location’ command. If this does not happen, then that sounds like an operating system problem with which I cannot help.
Interesting report from a research station about evidence of previous warming and cooling
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf
tonyB
Message to TonyB
Some thoughts on CO2 on which I would appreciate any comments or ideas you might have:
AGW theory suggests that our planet’s carbon cycle is essentially “in balance”, except for the impact of man, which has thrown the natural cycle “off balance”, leading to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and, as a result, greenhouse warming.
This theory is quite simple (possibly overly so).
Human CO2 emissions are a very small percentage of our planet’s total carbon cycle, and represent an infinitesimal fraction of the total carbon content of the atmosphere, the lithosphere, the remaining fossil fuels, the soils, the upper and deep oceans and plant and animal life.
This very small difference between several very large numbers makes it very difficult to pinpoint the “human impact” with any degree of certainty.
When comparing CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time, it becomes clear that the amount of CO2 emitted by man does not correlate well with the recorded changes in atmospheric CO2 content:
· Over a period of several years (20-30 years) only around 50% of the CO2 emitted by humans “remains” in the atmosphere and the rest “disappears”
· If taken over a longer period of time (50-100 years) the percentage remaining in the atmosphere is even lower, at around 40%
· In comparing annual values it is apparent that the percentage remaining in the atmosphere varies widely from year to year, from under 20% to over 90%
A graph showing this correlation:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/3056843022_d1d107fb78_b.jpg
Studies have shown that the percentage that remains in the atmosphere is much lower in strong El Niño years than it is in La Niña years.
These observations raise some questions:
· What happens to the “missing” CO2 emissions?
· Why do the annual human CO2 emissions show very little correlation with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on a year-to-year basis?
· Why do ENSO oscillations appear to cause such wide swings in the percentage of emitted CO2 that stays in the atmosphere?
· Why does a longer-range comparison show a lower percentage retained in the atmosphere than a shorter-range comparison?
Let’s address these questions one at a time.
What happens to the “missing” CO2 emissions?
Climate scientists have referred to this as the “missing sink” (roughly 3 GtC/year unaccounted for). The theory says that the upper ocean absorbs the “missing” CO2. IPCC (2007 SPM) warns us, “Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remain in the atmosphere.” In the IPCC models this is only temporarily “stored” in the upper ocean and will soon come back to haunt us as the upper ocean warms up. “For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming by 2100 by more than 1°C. Assessed upper ranges for temperature projections are larger than in the TAR mainly because the broader range of models now available suggests stronger climate-carbon feedback.”
This hypothesis is rather complicated. What’s more it has not been validated by any physical observations and is supported only by climate models, which have been programmed with these assumptions.
A simpler and much more logical explanation of the “missing sink” is that the upper ocean does absorb the net “missing” CO2 as a part of its much larger (90 GtC/year) cold water absorption / warmer water degassing cycle, but that it is then exchanged internally with lower ocean waters where it remains indefinitely. Since the lower ocean is a gigantic carbon sink, containing 40,000 GtC, as compared to the upper ocean at around 1,000 GtC and our atmosphere at around 750 GtC, the small amount of added CO2 (3-4 GtC/year) is infinitesimally small and has no impact on the ocean.
There is also the question of enhanced photosynthesis resulting from higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations as well as slightly higher temperatures. Photosynthesis is estimated to absorb 110 GtC/year, which is essentially offset by a slightly lower CO2 generation from plant decay, plant fires and respiration. Studies have shown that the higher CO2 concentrations (and marginally warmer temperatures) could result in a 6% increase in photosynthesis, which would, by itself, explain the “missing sink”. This explanation is also much simpler than the IPCC “climate-carbon cycle feedback” suggestion.
Why do the annual human CO2 emissions show very little correlation with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on a year-to-year basis?
Although AGW theory ties these two together in an assumed “cause and effect” symbiosis, this is really an oversimplification. Earth’s annual carbon cycle is 25 times as large as annual human emission. The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is based on a very small difference between some very much larger numbers, so it is very difficult to draw any direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and human CO2 emissions.
Why do ENSO oscillations appear to cause such wide swings in the percentage of emitted CO2 that stays in the atmosphere?
At first glance this seems to be tied to atmospheric and ocean temperatures. El Niño years (such as the all-time record year, 1998) tend to be warmer than La Niña years. Warmer seas should absorb less (or emit more) CO2 than cooler years. A closer look shows that there is more than just the globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly at stake here. Some El Niño years with high percentage of the CO2 going into (or remaining in) the atmosphere were actually cooler than La Niña years where almost no CO2 stayed in the atmosphere. So there must be some other factor related to ocean currents and temperatures, etc.
Why does a longer-range comparison show a lower percentage retained in the atmosphere than a shorter-range comparison?
IPCC has a simple explanation for this (see above). As we have warmed, the oceans have been less able to absorb CO2, leaving a higher percentage to remain in the atmosphere. There is, however, another explanation that is just as logical. It has been shown that CO2 (like all trace gases in the atmosphere) has a limited life or “residence time” in our “climate system” (either to be dissipated into space or absorbed and locked up by the gigantic carbon sink of the lower ocean and sediments). IPCC models assume that this life is several hundred years, but there have been many studies that show a residence time of much less.
I do not know if you have looked at any of these questions in your study of the historical CO2 / temperature correlation, but I would be interested in your thoughts on all this.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
More by Tom Segalstad on CO2 in the atmosphere / oceans and on its role as a climate driver. Please remove {parentheses}.
{http}://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_ISMA_CO2.pdf
{http}://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
{http}://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e
{http}://energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/the-deniers/the-deniers-part-xxix-models-trump-measurements
Regards,
Max
TonyB, Reur 2895
The Sakasofu report at a quick read was very interesting, and WRT his conclusion (iv):
It’s also interesting that Klyashtorin and Lyubushin came to a somewhat similar conclusion, using data available back in 2002, and forecasting surprisingly well, what we appear to be seeing develop right now. See my 2871
I also found Sakasofu’s fig 15c interesting, (as should Pete) and went to the source @
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Dear Ol’ Phil Jones shows a later version of his 2006 graph that I showed to Pete in my 2891, and that thick black worm, the end bit of which I suspect is intuitive, (certainly not a true multi-point moving average/filter) appears to be starting to dive down. It will be interesting to see the 2008 version, and whether Hadley again change the smoothing method or whatever.
BTW, I don’t understand why Phil does a different presentation under his own name, from that of “Hadley”.
Max
Thanks for your very interesting and thoughtful post. I think you are being far too logical. Any sentence you write with the words ‘carbon’ in them ought to have ‘theroretical’ and ‘no one really knows’ also inserted!
I don’t think we know the total amount of carbon there is in each of Eli Rabbetts ‘boxes,’ whether there are more ‘boxes’ waiting to be discovered, nor how much is released when the earth and Oceans warms or cools, nor what ‘equilbrium’ really is.
In respect of ‘boxes’ this article on black carbon is interesting
‘The findings are significant because soils are by far the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/20/climate-models-missing-black-carbon-and-resultant-co2-emission/
I read a report that queried whether the Amazon was actually a source or a sink. http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4509&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Scientists%20Study%20Sink%2C%20Source%20Roles%20of%20Amazon%20Rain%20Forests&Cache=False
And this
http://www.tropenbos.nl/files/Verweij/010Nobre.pdf
In short there are still huge uncertanties. What is apparent is that mans activities are a very small part of the carbon cycle and in the context of overall greenhouse gases miniscule, and the notion of equilibrium being disturbed purely by man is highly speculative.
I think the impacts of phytoplankton are greatly underestimated
‘No one really knows where the carbon trapped by fertilization ends up. In one iron-fertilization experiment in warm equatorial waters, chlorophyll increased 30-fold in a week, and there was increased carbon sedimentation down through 100 meters. But the bloom shortly dissipated, the fate of the carbon in deeper waters wasn’t followed, and long-term effects weren’t measured.’
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sea-carb-bish.html
Now these organisms appear interesting as they absorb carbon then presumably either release it (if they are in the top layer of the oceans) or sequester it by falling to the ocean floor, so in effect removing carbon from the effective cycle.
This experiment had hoped to find out
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-13952.html
Now my research shows that phytoplankton’s and its various relations have been common in warmer times-not surprising as warmer temperatures cause warmer oceans cause increased growth. Those warmer times include way back to the Roman Empire whose generals recorded great blooms in the Mediterranean and the North Sea. This is a very interesting paper on the subject
http://folk.uio.no/thort/personlig/thesis.htm
So the warmer it gets the more carbon sequestering algae growth we get, which either holds on to it and releases it at the ocean surface, or drops it into the deep oceans.
Besides all this activity man seems a very insignificant factor and the notion we have disturbed the equilibrium must be queried.
TonyB
Bob_FJ and Max,
I did update the data on my graph to include the year 2007 which is the last full year for which data is available. Just change the 2006 to 2007 to get the updated version. The only criticism that I would make of the the Hadley graphs is that they are over smoothed. You and Max are always suggesting that it is a good idea to revisit the original data. Why not follow you own advice?
Are neither of you capable of producing your own 50 year graph from the data to support your arguments?
NASA use the 5 year averaging technique too. Their graphs show exactly the same features.
Who besides Max thinks that cooling spell #5 is “unequivocally unprecedented”?
I’ve decided that Max has to wear the dunce’s cap for this silly statement!
