Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Hi Peter,

    The Hadley record clearly shows that:
    · The period 1910-1944 had a linear warming of 0.53C
    · The period 1976-2000 had a linear warming of 0.38C

    This is not conjecture, Peter. It is simply what the Hadley record shows.

    Your statement, “There was about the same warming in the two periods you mention of about half a degree” is approximately correct. Both 0.53 and 0.38 are “about half a degree”.

    It’s just that the Hadley numbers show that there was about 40% MORE warming in the early period than in the late period.

    No big deal. Just the facts, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max

  2. Max (2909) and Rob (2912),

    So you enjoy black or perverted humour too…… obviously
    I’m also a sickened person, and could not resist adding more relish to that hilarious IPCC graph:

    Max's ipcc graph PLUS by fj_bob, on Flickr

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/3063138928_7692be626b_o.jpg

  3. TonyN,
    Sorry: (Reur 2919): According to Flickr the image size I posted in my 2927 was 978 x 474
    The other options they offered, (on THAT image; I don‘t know if it is universal), were:
    500 x 242 240 x 116 100 x 48 (Thumbnail) 75 x 75 (square)

    Regards, Bob_FJ

  4. TonyB, Reur 2923;
    Yet another great reference from you!
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/#comments

    I flicked through it fairly quickly, but was riveted particularly by the following comment from Richard S Courtney. I am a great admirer of him not only for his scientific acumen but also his great sense of humour. Have you read his “expert review comments” to the IPCC AR4 (2007), which were arrogantly dismissed by the lead/review authors? (Remember, in reading the following, that he has a great sense of humour)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    [From] Richard S Courtney 26/11/08
    [To] Bill Illis:
    Thankyou for this cogent analysis. I have one comment on your method and its effect on your conclusion.
    I understand your article to say your analytical method has the following steps.
    1.
    The effect on temperature of AMO and ENSO within the time series is calculated by simple regression (this is possible because AMO and ENSO exhibit several cycles within the temporal range of the data set).
    2.
    The temperature effect of AMO and ENSO is deleted from the time series to reveal a residual temperature trend in the time series.
    3.
    The residual trend is assumed to be an effect of changed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the temporal range of the data set.
    4.
    The assumption in step 3 is used to calculate the climate sensitivity to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
    This may be correct, but the assumption in step 3 is the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’. The assumption amounts to, “The cause of the residual trend is not known so it must be changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration”. (If this ‘logical fallacy’ is not clear then consider, “The cause of crop failures is not known so it must be witches”.)
    Of course, the residual trend may be a result of changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
    However, the assumption in step 3 does not concur with the implicit assumption of steps 1 and 2 that natural cycles are affecting the temperature trend.
    Other natural cycles may also be affecting the trend, and the method is not applicable to cycles with lower frequency than the time series. Such a very low frequency oscillation does seem to exist. There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP).
    There is no known cause of this apparent low frequency oscillation: some people suggest it could be solar influence, but it could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s), and it could be … . However, there is no known cause of the AMO and ENSO, either.
    Therefore, the implicit assumption of your steps 1 and 2 suggests that the residual trend determined by your steps 1 and 2 could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP.
    Indeed, since the method adopted the implicit assumption of your steps 1 and 2, consistency suggests that all the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century is recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP.
    Hence, the calculated climate sensitivity to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration obtained by your method should be assumed to be a maximum value until this possibility of recovery from the LIA is assessed.
    I hope these thoughts are helpful.
    Again, thankyou for your superb work that I trust will soon be published.
    [by] Richard [S. Courtney]
    (Scientist and humerist)

  5. Bob #2929

    i like Richard as well and I think the comment you posted sums it up.

    “4. The assumption in step 3 is used to calculate the climate sensitivity to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
    This may be correct, but the assumption in step 3 is the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’. The assumption amounts to, “The cause of the residual trend is not known so it must be changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration”. (If this ‘logical fallacy’ is not clear then consider, “The cause of crop failures is not known so it must be witches”.)

    The oceans are such a huge source and sink and so reactive to temperature changes that cause currents, that solar activty and Enso must be our worlds major driver.

    #2927 How can we take this graph seriously when it hasn’t been smoothed, averaged, sent through a gaussian filter and you haven’t subtracted your age nor added in your house number as one of the reference points of the curve?

    tonyB

  6. Re: 2928, Bob
    It’s important that you use the Img button in the Quicktags buttonbar to insert your images. I’ve edited your 2927 to correct the HTML code which seems to have got corrupted somewhere along the line, and that is why the chart was floating way off to the right.

    So far as size is concerned, this is a matter of art rather than science. The central (comments) column in WordPress is not constant width but varies depending on the size of the window it is displayed in. Try re-sizing the window and you will see. Unfortunately the size of the image does not change and my suggestion of 1000 pixels width was probably a bit optimistic. A lot depends on the type of screen that the viewer is using and how they have it set.

    It’s probably better to go for a smaller image with a link to the original which people can use if they want to see more detail.

  7. I have been having various conversations in various forums regarding co2.

    Low co2 levels coincides with low historic temperatures but does cold per se have an influence on co2 levels?

    This from a comment made to me;

    “I do not trust ice cores that tell us that pre industrial levels were 280ppm”

    “What I am trying to say referring continuously to the AIRS maps, is that maybe the ice core measurements were 280 because they were in regions where there was a dearth of CO2 a la AIRS maps. In addition I would expect that close to the ground/ ocean surface the latitude/longitude differences would be much greater, and considering that ice forms where the temperature is less than 0 centigrade I would expect a huge ocean sink next to that ice that was being formed to be later sampled and measured.

    So the ice cores might be accurate, for the arctics.”

    Any comments anyone?

    TonyB

  8. To get an image of the right size for the available width of the WordPress display, one method is to import the image into Paint. This is included in the Windows package. See under Start > Programs > Accessories > Paint Then right click on “paint” to put a short cut icon on your desktop.

    You can check the size of the image under Image > Attributes. 14cm should be the maximum width.

    To adjust the width of the image use the Image Stretch/Skew command.

  9. Following on from my previous posting:

    To include an image from your Flickr account:
    Double Click on the image in “Your photostream”. Double Click on the magnification button “+all sizes”. Copy and paste either of the two HTML options shown.

    To use an image from a pdf file:
    Use the “Fn-Print Screen” command. Paste the screenshot into Paint. Edit and size the image. Sometimes better to copy the bit you want first. Then open a new file, discard the first one, and repaste into that. Upload edited image to your flickr account.

    Avoid *.bmp files. They are too big. *.png & *.gif good for graphics. *.jpg good for photos.

  10. TonyB, Reur 2932;
    You wrote in part:
    So the ice cores might be accurate, for the arctics; Any comments anyone?
    Sheez, I don’t know where to start or stop!
    Regional: Yes; very much so, and atypical of most of the biosphere!
    Accurate: based on so many assumptions? Well who knows?

  11. Max,

    Where did the figure of 0.38 deg C come from?

  12. Rob

    It looks as though one of your comments got gobbled by the spam filtre this morning. Please re-submit and it should get through.

  13. A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing, Van Hoof et al.

    Stomata in plant leaves as a proxy.

    http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/discussion-role-for-atmospheric-co2-in.html

  14. A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing, Van Hoof et al.

    Stomata in plant leaves as a proxy.

    http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/discussion-role-for-atmospheric-co2-in.html

  15. For anyone interested in reading of the REAL history of co2 readings, have a browse through this remarkable 1872 book by renowned British Chemist R Smith.

    http://www.archive.org/stream/airrainbeginning00smitiala

    Numerous readings were taken ranging from 330 to 400ppm and the methods as to how they were taken is analysed.

    I have also been reading through the archives of GS Callendar containing thousands of his notes and correspondance to such as Charles Keeling. He is guilty of chery picking to support his hypotheses about AGW and Charles Keeling had too little knowledge in 1955 to do anything other than agree with the others poorly researched history of past co2 measurements.

    In adition I have just been sent the latest work of Ernst Beck which is a very interesting read.

    It is nonsense to believe that our forefathers weren’t capable of taking thousands of very reliable co2 readings, many of which averaged over 350ppm. I think the ice core readings are far more suspect than the numerous old readings from reliable sources.

    TonyB

  16. TonyB, Reur 2938:
    You wrote in part:

    For anyone interested in reading of the REAL history of co2 readings, have a browse through this remarkable 1872 book by renowned British Chemist R Smith.

    My response, at a quick flick through of Smith’s book is: WOW, WOW, WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ASTONISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    1872?
    Sheez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I understand that Americani hold some silly holiday thingy over the past few days, which may explain why our American friends are notably quiet or otherwise preoccupied at the moment. I hope they will return in a few days!

    Putting that aside, I think there needs to be more debate about CO2 regionalality, wind direction, and atmospheric mixing.

  17. Bob

    The rest of the book is just as thought provoking. This is the chemist who discovered acid rain so he can not be lightly dismissed.

    I came across the following comment in one of Becks papers. Now I have found him to be extremely well researched so I am coming to increasingly believe what he says. However this comment sems to have lots of implications so I wondered if you had come across it from any other sources?

    “Responsible for the relative measurements since 1958 is C.D. Keeling, University of
    California at San Diego, USA. He used cryogenic condensation of the samples and NDIR
    spectroscopy against a reference gas with manometric calibration. Today all measurements
    are done by this technique as a standard (WMO). Keeling’s laboratory delivers the
    reference gases worldwide and have the calibration monopoly. .(38, 39, 40,41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
    Measurement stations spreading over the world are mainly in oceanic areas to get air
    without contamination from vegetation, organisms and civilisation, the so called
    background level of CO2

    So his initial work mainly on the active volcano Mauna Loa (Hawaii) is todays reference”

    PS Where is Max? Anyone Know?

    TonyB

  18. Further to my post #2940. I have been discussing co2 measurements in other forum and had this comment from someone.

    ” In the link you have posted there is a small image. If you click on it you will see the only image that existed for five years with respect to this work.

    One can clearly see that there is no homogeneity of CO2, though the measurements are high in the troposphere. There is a scale of about 20ppm that covers the color differences.
    The cold regions are blue and most of the CO2 is seen over the northern hemisphere. Mauna Loa is also right on this band ( in addition to being in a volcanic area, actually right in a dead volcano, though what guarantees death is dubious for me).

    If you go to the animations, which cover from 2002 to the present you can see the world breathing, most of the CO2 coming out in the spring. Because of orthodoxy, the color scales there are not as enlightening as this simple old plot. ( which is not easy to find btw).

    There are many surface readings except Mauna Loa. They are on an archgoing down from there from a map I have seen. All the referenced papers have the same author. Keeling plus somebody else. I suppose a graduate student. This is dangerous by itself, because there is no independent coraboration. So I agree with you that Beck is doing valuable work in pointing out other people and other methods.”

    The link I posted came from here;

    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/Measuring_CO2_from_Space/History_CO2_Measurements/

    click on globe towards the bottom which shows a variation of at least 20ppm, showing mixing isn’t as thorough as often believed. Put in the comments I posted above (unproven) re all measurements being done by same methods and calibration which relied on one institutes methodology, and you start to wonder if Antarctic ice cores at 280ppm were reading substantially lower than warmer places elsewhere pre 1958 that were recorded by more traditional means but were still accurate to within one or two parts ppm.

    TonyB

  19. This (President-elect Barack Obama proposes economic suicide for US by Christopher Booker) is interesting. The opening sentence:

    If the holder of the most powerful office in the world proposed a policy guaranteed to inflict untold damage on his own country and many others, on the basis of claims so demonstrably fallacious that they amount to a string of self-deluding lies, we might well be concerned.

  20. Hi Peter,

    You asked (2936), “Where did the figure of 0.38 deg C [for the late 20th century linear warming] come from?”

    It came from the Hadley record. Actually the linear warming over the period 1976-1998 as well as the period 1976-2000 was actually 0.35C rather than 0.38C, according to the actual Hadley record. See curve (and for greater detail, see attachment).
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3072832724_6d06980773_b.jpg

    Regards,

    Max

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3072832724_6d06980773.jpg

  21. Hi Folks,

    Have been “out of pocket” for four days, and am now back. Will get caught up on recent posts and respond where appropriate.

    Regards,

    Max

  22. Max,

    How did you work out the linear regression from your quoted data?

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

    When I use exactly the same data imported into Excel the figure is greater than 0.5degC.

    The equations that Excel produces are different too.

    Can you send me, or post up, the Excel spreadsheets for both your early and late century warming regressions?

  23. Max,

    I know you like to make out that the warming in the early 20th century was more than in the late 20th century which is why you have made the claim:

    “It’s just that the Hadley numbers show that there was about 40% MORE warming in the early period than in the late period.”

    Leaving aside the question I just raised about how you have calculated your regression equations, I should just point out that the length of time you quoted for the early period (1910 to 1944) is actually 41.7% longer than for the late (1976 to 2000) period.

    It can be a valid to compare results from different periods which are of different durations, but by omitting to mention this difference, you have shown that you are more interested in spreading disinformation on the AGW issue than contributing to the debate in a scientific manner.

  24. PS

    How about producing an up to date graph for the period 1973 to 2007? This is the same length of time as 1910 to 1944.

    The extra years are mainly in a period of what you have described as “unequivocally unprecedented” cooling, so I presume that you’ll have no objection.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha