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 TonyB,
Back to your 3023. Even the greenhouse theory does not support Peter’s suggestion that “every 25 ppm increase in CO2 levels increases the temperature by about 0.2 degC.”
Since the relationship is logarithmic the first 25 ppm increase would theoretically have a higher impact than the next, and so on.
Secondly, there was no 0.8 degC (4*0.2 degC) linear increase in temperature from 1850 to 2008, despite the 4*25 ppm increase in CO2. The actually measured linear rate of temperature increase from 1850 to 2008 was 0.65 degC, and, thirdly, solar scientists have informed us that over half of this (0.35 degC) was caused by unusually high levels of solar activity in the latter 20th century.
As painful as this may be for Peter to accept, we are left with 0.3 degC increase (possibly) caused by CO2 from 1850 to 2008 (rather than Peter’s 0.8 degC); this corresponds to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 over this same time period.
Based on the logarithmic relationship, the first 25 ppm would have caused an increase of 0.084 degC (rather than 0.2 deg C), and the last 25 ppm an increase of only 0.067 degC (with all four 25 ppm increases causing a total increase of 0.3 degC).
So Peter’s numbers are a gross exaggeration of the actually observed facts, based on the oversimplified assumption that all warming since 1850 was caused by anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote (3025), “You don’t say who these “many people “ are who “have pointed out the pitfalls of relying too heavily on ice core evidence.”
They would no doubt be from the more nutty elements of the denialist blogosphere. M&M obviously don’t want anything to do with them and I doubt that Lindzen and Spencer would want to get too close.”
Peter, I hate to put it this bluntly, but you are obviously losing your objectivity here.
Reconstructed ice core evidence is certainly less accurate than actual analytical measurements taken at the time. It would truly require “more nutty elements” of the AGW blogosphere to deny this fact (and I do not put you into this category yet, despite some rather “nutty” comments you have made).
Whether you “doubt that Lindzen and Spencer would want to get too close” to this suggestion is immaterial and totally unsubstantiated.
Sorry, Peter, stick with facts if you can and not with silly opinions.
Regards,
Max
For a slightly different slant on the “pros and cons” of AGW, below is a well thought out discussion of the risks and benefits to human health resulting from global warming, written by a medical doctor and PhD in physics. This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its determination whether or not CO2 emissions should be regulated under the Clean Air Act as potentially having an adverse effect on human health.
Dear Colleagues — Following is my response to the EPA request for arguments on whether CO2 emissions should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Regards. Howard Maccabee, PhD, MD, Board of Directors, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, Presenter, First Intl. Conf. of Climate Change, Clinical Faculty, Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Medical School
RE: Comments on EPA Proposed Rules on Regulating Carbon Dioxide, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
SUMMARY
The EPA should not regulate carbon dioxide. There is no evidence that CO2 harms human health directly. There is evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can act as a “greenhouse gas,” and can cause increased temperatures at the earth’s surface. There is substantial scientific dispute about the importance of anthropogenic CO2 as an influence on climate, as compared to other completely natural influences such as solar magnetic variations.
If increasing average temperatures are actually harmful to human health, the Clean Air Act may give authority to regulate human activities that contribute to the process. In fact, however, even for worst-case temperature increases predicted by the IPCC and the Unified Synthesis Product (USP) of the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), direct effects on humans are expected to be beneficial overall.
There is extensive scientific evidence that overall mortality rates decrease as temperatures increase, especially in the US and Europe. (See Scientific Support, to follow.)
The Department of Health of the UK, part of their Health Protection Agency, recently published “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2008,” edited by Sari Kovats. This was an update of their report of 2001/2002, and concluded “the overall trend in combined heat- and cold-related mortality during climatic warming from 1971 to 2002 was beneficial.”
Since anticipated climate warming (as related to CO2 or other causes) will not be harmful to health in the US (and may be beneficial), the provisions of the Clean Air Act are not satisfied. There should be no Federal or other regulation of human CO2 emission.
SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT
INTRODUCTION
The threat of possible severe climate change, including predictions of global warming from political and media leaders, based on international scientific publications, has aroused worldwide concern about potential effects on human health. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2007 that multiple computer model predictions were consistent with significant climate warming by the year 2050, and potentially disastrous warming by 2100, depending on various “scenarios” of increasing “greenhouse gases” especially CO2, in the atmosphere. These models are based on the “anthropogenic hypothesis,” that the most important variable in climate predictions is the human contribution of increasing CO2 from burning fossil fuels, with smaller factors such as methane production from farm animals, etc.
There is significant scientific dissent on the question of causation of climate change, since human historical records show temperature variation profoundly affecting agriculture and worldwide human activity for centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, ice cores and other paleontological records show violent variations of temperature, CO2 and methane for hundreds of thousands of years before human civilization.
This response cannot resolve whether current climate change is predominantly caused by human activity or natural cycles. Our purpose is to describe and quantitate the effects of warming (and/or cooling) on human health. We limit this survey to direct effects of temperature change. Claims of indirect effects due to vector-borne diseases, e.g. malaria, have been refuted by Reiter, et al. (Ref. 2008) Indirect effects due to tornadoes, floods, lightning and hurricanes, have shown decreasing mortality during the temperature warming of 1979-2002. [See Figure 1] (Ref. Goklany 2007.)
BACKGROUND
The IPCC computer models predict increases of average global surface temperature of 1.0 to 1.9 °C by the year 2050. These models calculate temperature rises of 2.0 to 4.5 °C depending on CO2 emission estimates of trends stabilizing downward from 5 gigatons per year or increasing up to as much as 28 gigatons per year by 2100.
Prior temperature records show that humans have been exposed to temperature shifts of similar magnitudes. The cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1970 was estimated at about 0.2 °C, and the warming from 1970 to 1998 is estimated at about 0.7 °C by the IPCC in 2007. The average surface temperature in the decade since El Nino in 1998 has not increased significantly, and physicists who study solar effects on climate are predicting possible cooling because of the decrease in solar activity (e.g. sunspots) at the time of this writing. Indeed, record cold is already being reported in many locations worldwide for October 2008.
Singer and Avery (2008) have compiled extensive reports on prior temperature fluctuations, with examples of past climate cycles showing increased temperatures of more than 1 °C in the Medieval Warm Period and decreases of 0.3 °C in the Little Ice Age. South African data from stalagmite temperature proxies indicate temperature increases of up to 4 °C in the Medieval Warm Period.
URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECTS
As population continues to concentrate less in rural areas and more in cities, people are more exposed to increased temperatures because of the “Urban Heat Island Effect.” This is caused by increased amounts of buildings with roofs that absorb more solar infrared than the countryside, more pavement, and more heat generated by industry, power plants, residential heating, and yes, air-conditioning itself. Large cities have shown average temperature increases as much as 3 °C (e.g. Tokyo 1876-2004) to 4 °C (New York City 1822-2000).
These data are relevant because we can evaluate potential health effects of future climate changes by comparison to human exposures to prior or current temperature changes.
PRIOR RESEARCH ON HEALTH EFFECTS
Scientists have been speculating about health effects of climate change since the concept of global warming became widespread. In 1992 and 1995, (UN) IPCC members expressed concern that increases in heat waves could cause a rise in deaths. The 1992 report found that temperature increases were more prevalent in the winter and at night , which diminishes health effects of extreme cold weather, and summer temperature increases have fallen, which diminishes deaths from heat waves. This could explain the 1995 acknowledgment that global warming would result in fewer cold-related deaths.
In 1995, Thomas Gale Moore published the first of his pioneering efforts, “Why Global Warming Would be Good for You,” and in 1998, “Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming.” He estimated that a temperature increase of 2.5 °C in the US would cause a drop of 40,000 deaths per year from respiratory and circulatory disease, based on US Mortality Statistics as a function of monthly climate change.
In 1997, the Eurowinter Group (W. R. Keatinge, G. C. Donaldson, et al) published “Cold Exposure and Winter Mortality from Ischaemic Heart Disease, Cerebrovascular Diseases, Respiratory Diseases and all Causes in Warm & Cold Regions of Europe.” This was a landmark study which elucidated the mechanisms of serious illness from cold, which are dominated by hemoconcentration, which increases blood viscosity (“sludging”). This can cause death from blockage of vessels serving the heart and brain tissue, accounting for half of all excess cold-related mortality.
This was followed by “Heart Related Mortality in Warm and Cold Regions of Europe: Observational Study” in the British Medical Journal in 2000. These two studies provided data on mortality rates as a function of mean daily temperature in Athens, Greece, London, England and Helsinki, Finland, providing the most comprehensive collection of evidence that mortality decreases as temperature increases, over most of the current climate range in Europe.
&nb sp;
In 2006, A. J. McMichael and his colleagues published “Climate Change and Human Health: Present and Future Risks.”
This was an attempt at a comprehensive evaluation of health risks of warming, both direct and indirect effects of warming, including infections and vector-borne diseases such as malaria. The malaria claims have been challenged by experienced experts such as Paul Reiter, and the other indirect effects are beyond the scope of this response, except as noted above. The direct effects predictions were based on a model of the shape of the relationship of mortality with daily temperature, extrapolated from the data of prior investigators such as Keatinge, et al and the Eurowinter Group, noted above.
McMichael et al assume that the maximum daily mortality in higher temperature periods will be equal to or greater than the maximum mortality in cold periods, resulting in heat related deaths increasing far more than the lives saved by warming of the cold periods. This hypothesis does not stand up to previous data from the US which showed that mortality in winter due to cardiac, vascular and respiratory disease in winter is seven times greater than summer. This ratio is about nine to ten in Europe, from the data of Keatinge, et al.
The most comprehensive data on US daily mortality, from all causes, as a function of the day of the year, was furnished by Deschenes and Moretti in 2007. [See Figure 2] The data show a clear relationship, with maximum mortality in January and minimum mortality in the warmest months of July and August. This data strongly indicates that warming of average daily temperatures would cause a decrease in mortality in winter far greater than the slight increase of mortality from summer heat.
In early 2008, the Department of Health of the UK released “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2008,” an update of previous reports from 2001/2002, edited by Sari Kovats. They used IPCC models that predicted increase of mean annual temperatures in the UK between 2.5 and 3°C by 2100. They found that there was no increase in heat-related deaths from 1971-2002, despite warming in summers, suggesting that the UK population is adapting to warmer conditions. Cold-related mortality fell by more than a third in all regions. The overall trend in mortality for the warming, (from 1971-2002) was beneficial. They state, in summary, that “winter deaths will continue to decline as the climate warms.”
QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES OF BENEFIT
The data from the Eurowinter Group (Lancet 1997) on mortality versus temperature, can be used to estimate mortality benefits from climate warming. The authors actually drew “straight-line” fits to the slope of the data. The slopes for Athens, Helsinki, and London vary between one to two percent decreased mortality per degree Centigrade increased temperature. This would lead to an estimated decrease of 25 to 50,000 deaths in the US per year for a 1°C temperature rise. This can be compared to 30,000 deaths per year from breast cancer, 30,000 for prostate cancer, or about 40,000 from motor vehicle accidents.
Consider that heat deaths often represent “displacement” i.e. weakened people die a few days or weeks before prior expectation, but deaths due to cold usually result in months to years of life lost. Thus the benefits in life expectancy from warming in cold periods may be much more than nine times greater than lifespan lost in warm periods.
MORE SEVERE CLIMATE CHANGE
The slopes of the data on mortality versus temperature are fairly linear over temperature variations of more than 20° C. Thus the benefit of warming (and the risk of cooling) should be fairly proportional to the temperature change, for climate shifts of more than two to four ° C.
Increasing urbanized populations have already been exposed, and presumably adapted, to warming of 2-4° C, because of the “urban heat island effect,” as described above.
There is no similar “rural cold country side effect” described in scientific literature, so we can not be as optimistic about the effects of cooling. A major drop in climatic temperatures could be more devastating, especially in rural and less developed societies.
CONCLUSIONS
The direct effects of possible climate warming on mortality are likely to be beneficial, and of substantial magnitude by comparison to mortality from disease and accidents. The impact on human life expectancy may be proportionally more significant, due to the different characteristics of death due to cold versus heat.
Quality of life and health may also improve. We have already seen the results of voluntary migrations of large populations from the Northern to the Southern US. This means exposure to increase of average temperatures by more than 5° C, resulting in improved health and life expectancy. There are similar effects beginning in Europe.
It is reasonable to expect better health and better health statistics in the industrialized world, with moderate climate warming. The consequences of widespread climatic cooling are likely to be much more threatening.
We need more research on direct and indirect health effects of climate change, and more effort in adaptation, given the impossibility of preventing natural events.
The attempt to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO2 would be extremely costly, and would have a negligible or negative effect on human health, even if the disputed UN IPCC computer models prove to have some validity in predicting climate events decades or even a century into the future. Therefore, attempts to regulate CO2 as a “pollutant” would be highly deleterious. The Clean Air Act only gives authority to regulate substances harmful to human health. CO2 does not meet that definition, as its hypothetical effect in warming the climate would also be of net benefit.
H. Maccabee, PhD, MD 11/24/08
References in Order of Citation
Department of Health/Health Protection Agency, “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2008,” An update of the Department of Health Report 2001/2002 (February 2008).
Reiter, Paul, PhD, “Climate Change and Vector Illness” Proceedings, 2008 Intl. Conf on Climate Change, The Heartland Inst., 3/2-4/2008, New York City.
Goklany, Indur M. (2007) “The Improving State of the World,” Cato Institute, Wash., DC
Singer, S. Fred and Avery, Dennis T. “Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years, Lanham, Md., Rowman & Littlefield (2d Ed. 2008)
Moore, Thomas G. (1995) “Why Global Warming Would Be Good for You” The Public Interest (Winter) 83-99
Moore, Thomas G (1998) “Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming” Economic Inquiry 36(3) July: 471-488
The Eurowinter Group, c/o Keatinge, W.R., Donaldson, G.C., et al (1997) “Cold Exposure and Winter Mortality from Ischaemic Heart Disease, Cerebrovascular Disease, Respiratory Diseases and all Causes in Warm and Cold Regions of Europe: Lancet v.349 (May 10) pp.1341-1346
Keatinge, W.R., et al (2000) “Heart Related Mortality in Warm and Cold Regions of Europe; Observational Study” British Medical Journal (16 Sept.) v.321, pp. 670-673
McMichael, A.J., Woodruff, R.F. & Hales, Simon (2006) “Climate Change and Human Health: Present and Future Risks,” Lancet v.367, pp 859-869
Deschenes, Olivier & Moretti, Enrico (2007) “Extreme Weather Events, Mortality and Migration,” Working Paper 13227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13227, ©authors
Max,
“Since the relationship [between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature rise] is logarithmic the first 25 ppm increase would theoretically have a higher impact than the next, and so on.”
That’s not quite true. For instance, if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere putting zero in the equation that we both use, would give a temperature fall of ‘-infinitity’. So it can’t be universally true. If there were 1 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere, doubling it to 2ppmv would not give the same increase as doubling it from 280ppmv to 560ppmv.
There is a linear and a logarithmic region and where we now is somewhere on the boundary. It doesn’t make that much difference if you take it to be linear at 280ppmv.
The farm in the Greenland permafrost is interesting. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that the world as a whole was much warmer than it is now, in the MWP.
The climate of the North Atlantic region is heavily influenced by ocean currents. For instance Madrid and New York are on the same latitudes but have quite different climates. London is well to the north of Montreal and Toronto but has much milder winters.
Its more quite possible that changing ocean currents played a big part in the collapse of the Viking settlements in Greenland.
Max,
You say “Reconstructed ice core evidence is certainly less accurate than actual analytical measurements taken at the time”
Why is it? The results for “actual analytical measurements taken at the time” vary between about 250ppmv to 500ppmv. They can’t all be right. The spread of results indicates a very large innaccuracy.
Maybe you can back up your assertions with some references on the topic.
My 2969/20 showed ENSO against Global T’s, overlaid from 5 sources @,
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/3076905772_b8d0dceafc_o.gif
and my 2998/20 showed ENSO & PDO against Hadley SST’s @
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/3078712018_fcd5faa0b6_b.jpg
Because this resulted in some interest and references particularly to Pete, (TonyW & Max), here follows a related interesting comparison (I think) between Hadley SST and Hadley Global.(from last May)
I was very surprised back then to see how closely the global T’s followed the SST’s, but that in recent decades the general level of Global T generally deviates upwards relative to the SST. (Hmmmm!?)
It seems remarkable that this coincides with ever-increasing urbanisation. (and also those political and resource changes in the former USSR)
If no image, try: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/3083896540_ab23a8fb53.jpg
Pete, Reur 3007,
It’s good that you finally agree that 1998 is a good starting point for assessing the plateau/cooling since that time, because the time span of almost eleven years then becomes rather more significant, even when using straight-line mathematical trending.
You and others may be interested in the following graphic comparing different approaches to trending that raw data
If no image, click: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/3083565365_a1572ca04d_o.gif
This is just to present some basic considerations to trending noisy raw data, for your consideration.
This is PART 1 of 2.
TonyB & Everyone,
In my 3031 above, for TonyW, please read TonyB.
SORRY
Bob
Your latest graphs.
I had previously asked if your ENSO graphs had taken into account the pressure differnce between Tahiti and Darwin which was said to be a major cause of trade winds which in turn one corresopondent from CA had linked to ENSO.
This from Wattsup.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/04/la-nina-is-back/
The trade winds were used of course by various clippers such ships as Cutty Sark to improve their journey times. It would be interesting to look at ‘record’ journey times, ENSO and trade winds to see if there was any correlation. We had quite a correspondence about this several pages back.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Believe you made a rather silly and unfounded statement when you wrote TonyB that physical analyses taken in situ at the time are not “science”, while ice core reconstructions made several years later are “science”.
If you study Beck’s summary a bit more closely, you will see that there are many consistencies and there are not only random variations beteween 250 and 500 ppm for readings taken at the same place and the same time as you have highlighted. [BTW, which specific location showed readings of 250 and 500 ppm at the same time; I could not find this in Beck’s summary?]
Is CO2 really a “well-mixed” greenhouse gas in our atmosphere? Are there locations where one would expect higher than average CO2 concentrations? Was Point Barrow, Alaska such a “higher than normal” location when values higher than those of today were measured over a significant time frame there in the 1940s? Does Mauna Loa really give us a representative CO2 reading for the entire planet?
There are many open questions. To arbitrarily throw out the many analytical results reported by Beck because they do not fit the expected or desired result would be the exact opposite of “science”.
And that has been TonyB’s point all along.
Get the point?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Your “linear/logarithmic” ramble using examples of 1 ppm, etc. is an evasionary tactic. At the ranges that we are experiencing, the relationship between increased atmospheric CO2 concentration and radiative forcing from this increased CO2 is logarithmic, with the RF in W/m^2 (according to IPCC, Myhre et al.) being 5.35 * ln (C2 / C1).
It is really very simple, Peter. It tells us that a “25 ppm” increment in CO2 concentration will have a slightly decreasing impact on temperature as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase.
We have seen that a 100ppm increase over the past 158 years (from 285 to 385 ppm) has caused an observed linear temperature increase of around 0.3C, once the estimated 0.35C warming from the unusual 20th century solar activity has been subtracted from the observed total 0.65C linear increase.
We see that this checks pretty well with the theoretical warming that would be expected based on the greenhouse theory (IPCC, Myhre).
So I believe we are all in agreement, right?
Regards,
Max
TonyB
A printout of your #3022 has joined a printout of your #2830 which has been sitting on my worktable for the last fortnight with a view to a post. Very useful; thanks.
There seems to be growing circumstantial evidence that organisations like the Met Office and WMO have now got at least one foot firmly in the service sector, and that the market for their products depends largely on AGW alarmism. I wonder what public reaction would be if a pharmaceutical company attempted to create panic over an imaginary disease and then launched a very expensive product to treat it? And what would this do for the credibility of medical research?
Re: #3031, Bob
I assume that you are familiar with Ross McKitrick’s paper which suggested that the global historic temperature record relies heavily on data from areas that have seen the greatest degree of industrialisation in order to establish the 20th century temperature gradient.
Hi Peter,
You are falling into a dangerous trap when you fall back to the old AGW saw “yeah, there was a warmer MWP, but it wasn’t global”.
So Newfoundland, Greenland, England, Switzerland, etc. are all part of a local North Atlantic anomaly?
Why local? Do you have any historical records that show colder temperatures in other regions? Please be specific.
Are Chinese records of oranges growing much further north than they can be grown today proof that China is also part of the “local North Atlantic anomaly”?
Or was there another “local Northeast Asian anomaly”?
How about records from parts of western Asia?
Was there another “local anomaly” there?
Then, of course, there are lots of “proxy studies” showing a global slightly warmer MWP(particularly those not relying on tree-ring data, which have been shown to be suspect).
Don’t just “stick your head in the sand” and become a “MWP denier”, Peter.
What difference does it make that there was, indeed, a period around 1,000 years ago that was a bit warmer globally than today? Or that there was another such period around 1,800 years ago?
IPCC has fallen onto a silly trap by insisting on writing in its 2007 SPM report, “Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.” It then goes on to say that the last time polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period of time was 125,000 years ago!
These statements are not well founded as many studies have shown. And it has absolutely no bearing on the current situation whatsoever, so it is actually stupid of IPCC to make a meaningless claim that can be as easily shot down as this one.
Regards,
Max
Re Pete’s 3006, recommending converting Excel files to .png:
Based on my experience on my OS/ software settings, for some reason puzzling to me, Flickr DOES NOT LIKE .png, and you may be better off to go for .jpg or .gif
Will explain more over at Admin when I have time
Max,
Possibly we are moving to some agreement. I see that you’ve subtracted 0.35 degC from the temperature record because of solar effects. That’s a little on the high side.
If you were really interested in accuracy you might well have added something back on to allow for the effect of particulates and volcanic activity. It does seem to work out that the non CO2 effects , both + and – , do cancel out each other to pretty good approximation.
If you insist on doing the calculation logarithmically:
[2 x CO2] = Delta T x 0.301 / log [CO2]1/[CO2]2
Delta T since pre-industrial times = 0.8 degC
(see graph on 3003)
Therefore 2x CO2 = 0.8 x 0.301 / 0.138 = 1.74 deg C
This is on the lower end of the IPCC predictions but as has already been said, this calculation doesn’t take into account the time delay. Its like trying to predict the final temperature of a kettle after it has been on the stove for 30 seconds.
If it is all ‘very simple’ then perhaps you would like to explain why the temperature of the earth would not go down to absolute zero if the concentration of atmospheric CO2 were reduced to zero? If the CO2 levels were halved, then halved again, would the temperature keep falling by the same amount each time?
Its always useful to look at the limitations of whatever models, either mathematical or otherwise that are being used.
Max 3035
Thanks for your support.
I am preparing a much longer post on this but just lets step back and see what others have been saying-which in effect is that co2 analyses prior to 1957 should be disregarded
They are also saying that co2 levels were a constant 280ppm prior to 1750 and only reached 295ppm in 1900-a blatant piece of cherry picking pefectly evident from anyone that reads Callendars archives.
Incidentally, I am still awaiting a rational explanation from someone as to how a constant low co2 level in the past produces wildly fluctuating temperatures in the past. If temperatures go up and down -and if co2 is a big factor- then those co2 levels should surely go up and down as well. It is illogical to suggest anything else.
Anyway, to get back to historic readings;
* From Sausure onwards in 1820 scientists have been able to produce accurate readings-in some circumstances a few may need to be discounted, in some circumstances a few need to be adjusted- as they are done every hour on Mauna Loa. I will post separately my thoughts on the 12 I have researched from Becks references
*Some high readings were deliberately taken in known ‘polluted areas’ such as mines, in order to determine if the legal limits were being exceeded. Generally Beck has not used these.
*Very many of these scientists were leaders in their field and several were nobel winners. They are by no means stupid.
*Co2 readings were very commonly taken in connection with the Mines act, the Factories act, are mentioned in government ‘blue’ papers, in Hansard, in hospital records, and by botanists. Florence Nightingale was well aware of the effects of c02 back in 1859 and as a statistician she was fundamental in trying to improve ventilation in hospitals.
* Taking co2 readings was said to be eaasier than taking oxygen readings. The precise measurements enabled scientists as far back as the 1840’s to identify ‘a missing gas’- not identified for another 60 yearsas Argon.
* In the early days Co2 readings were performed as ‘partp pieces’ in front of eager audiences. Faraday is said to have been one of many to do these for his annual Christmas lectures.
*Readings were compiled into various books- including ‘Air and rain’ referenced here dating from 1872 that BOB went WOWEE! about WOWWEE! indeed, I suggest others read it also.
* This commonplace information was supplemented by other papers also referenced here from F Benedict in 1912 through others in 1917.
*It is complete and utter nonsense to believe that Keeling-a not very good chemist who stumbled into his job and had no previous knowledge of climate science or taking co2 readings- was the first person in the history of the world to take accurate co2 readings in 1957!!
Let’s repeat this assertion so it can be laid open to examination;
“No one, prior to 1957 had taken an accurate co2 reading.’
Read Keeling’s autobiography, read Callendars archives, read the available books and literature on the subject, research the previous chemists and the equipment they used, research the circumstances under which they were taken, research the social circumstances of the time that precipitated the Mines and Factories Acts THEN tell me why anyone should still believe Keelings 317ppm should be considered the gold standard.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Rather than nit-picking about other anthropogenic forcing factors, I think we can leave it as IPCC has stated. The other factors beside CO2 essentially cancel one another out.
CO2 had a RF of 1.66 W/m^2 and total net anthropogenic had 1.62 W/m^2 (p.4 of IPCC 2007 SPM).
The 0.35C for solar is the mean value of all the studies by solar scientists which I have cited, so there is no need to quibble about that, either.
If we accept the greenhouse theory as valid, CO2 caused 0.3C warming over the 158-year period, pretty much in agreement with the theory and the RF numbers cited by IPCC.
That’s it, Peter.
Simple and straightforward.
Now one could argue that this is too simple, since we have ignored the ENSO impact, which Bob_FJ has shown us appears to have had a greater temperature impact than CO2, but let’s leave that out for now and just consider the sun and CO2.
Regards,
Max
TonyB
I’m in agreement with your comments about accuracy for CO2 methods and how the old bench tests etc using wet methods would have been accurate.
However, there are dramatic time of day variations (I’ve seen a paper on some german cities and also near agriculture in Switzerland I think). We have to be cautious about assuming that just because higher levels were (accurately) measured in the past, that this means that the wide-range average background level was that high.
Max,
Good to see you quoting IPCC figures with such enthusiasm!
Bob_FJ,
Are you trying to goad me into produce a graph starting in 1998 to the present?
Are the figures from this link OK for you?
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
Max himself uses these so they must be OK.
Is the same linear regression method that Max used for his graphs good enough for you too?
I’m sure that Max can vouch that I’ve done it all correctly. As he says himself, its all quite simple. If you have a problem with the way Excel calculates and plots either linear regressions or running five year averages maybe you’d like to take it up with Bill Gates?
What was that you were saying about “the time span of almost eleven years then becomes rather more significant, even when using straight-line mathematical trending” ?
Actually I’d say that the graph shows that the temperatures have been pretty flat for the last decade. Lets see what happens next.
Anyone care to make it interesting with a little bet on the 1998 peak being exceeded in the coming 4 years?
Hi Peter,
“Anyone care to make it interesting with a little bet on the 1998 peak being exceeded in the coming 4 years?”
We already have that bet, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “Delta T since pre-industrial times = 0.8 degC
(see graph on 3003)”
The linear increase over the entire period 1858 to 2008 according to the Hadley record was 0.65C and not 0.8C.
Please see the graph below for which I already provided a link in 3010.
Regards,
Max
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/3079820242_1f35e5196f_b.jpg
Re: #3045, Peter
Can you guarantee a stewards inquiry if the result looks dodgy?
Luke 3044
You are right of course about the variations during the day. They were perfectly well aware of this from around 1815, and when taking meaasurements for scientific research took a complete series over hours, days, and even months. These are referenced elsewhere here in some detail and are also mentioned in Air and Rain and also in Benedicts work.
TonyB