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.
Max,
I showed the calculation in 3041. It is based on your logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 concentrations. It applies on a simple minded theory for any doubling of CO2.
Why simple minded? What you are saying is that if you double CO2 you get N degs C temperature rise. Double it again and you get another N degs.
My question to you is: what are the limitations of this formula. What happens if we halve CO2. It goes down N degs. Right? Halve again. Another N degs fall. Of course you can halve an infinite number of times and each time you get an N degs fall. Do you really think that this is how it works?
It is an interesting question as to the length of time that it might take for CO2 levels to double from what they are now. The world economy doubles approximately every 20 years. It does not necessarily mean that CO2 emissions double every 20 years but in the past they have not been far behind.
Of course, and as I have previously pointed out, doubling or halving of emissions isn’t the same as doubling or halving of CO2 atmospheric levels but, of course, emissions do drive the changes.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for finally getting a bit more specific and confirming the basis for your calculated warming from 2xCO2.
You have apparently arrived at a 2xCO2 warming of 1.74C.
Unfortunately, your calculation (3041) is flawed for two main reasons.
You start off with: “Delta T since pre-industrial times = 0.8 degC”
The Hadley record shows that this is not 0.8C, but 0.65C from 1850 to 2008. Please refer to earlier posts.
Then you have failed to subtract the warming that was not caused by CO2 from the total warming.
Several studies by solar experts have shown this to be 0.35C from solar warming over the long-term time period.
(You apparently assume ALL warming was caused by CO2, which is obviously absurd.)
So you are left with 0.3C for warming caused by CO2 (since all other anthropogenic factors cancel one another out according to IPCC, the self appointed experts on anthropogenic warming).
This is based on an increase from 285 ppmv in 1850 to 386 ppmv in 2008.
C1 = 285 ppmv (1850)
C2 = 386 ppmv (2008)
C2/C1 = 1.354
ln (C2/C1) = 0.3033
dT total = 0.65C
dT solar = 0.35C
dT CO2= 0.3C
for 2xCO2
ln (C2/C1) = ln2 = 0.6931
dT for 2xCO2 = 0.3 * (0.6931 / 0.3033) = 0.69C, say 0.7C
So your “2xCO2” warming of 1.74C should actually be 0.7C, based on the actually observed facts.
Please advise if you do not understand or agree with this calculation, and, if so, on what basis you do not agree.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Firstly you are trying to fit a straight line to a graph that is better described by an upward curve. Naturally you get a lower figure.
Of course, if you didn’t, you’d be quite happy to go with the curve! But just for once, try not to fool yourself, and get a good estimate of the increase. You are keen on the idea that the relationship between temperature and CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear but yet you insist on putting a straight line through 150 years worth of data. Put the data into Excel, create a chart, and click on ‘add trend line’ on the line in your chart. You don’t have to choose a straight line, you know!
Secondly, the assumption isn’t that CO2 is responsible for every feature in the temperature record for the past 150 years but, and as the IPCC chart shows, that there are other positives and other negatives that do approximately cancel out.
If you don’t want to make these approximations then take a look at the paper by Stott el al which I referenced in 3091. They come up with very similar figures showing an increase in temperature of another 2.5 degs C between now and the end of the century. Any criticisms on that or do you accept their findings?
It’s worth just mentioning that there will be other centuries after this one. We’ll all be dead by 2100, so why not have just a bit of a thought for the years 2200, 2300 etc too? They are all equally important.
Finally, I don’t think that you are so unintelligent that you can’t understand the concept of thermal inertia. For example, if you had a very large aquarium, it might take a week or more for the temperature to reach a new equilibrium after a small heater was immersed into the water. If you were smart enough, you might be able to calculate what the final temperature might be after a couple of days of observation but you’d have to be particularly obtuse to claim that there was ‘no evidence’ to suggest that the temperature would continue to rise, unless you knew for sure that a state of equilibrium did exist.
PS Any thoughts on how many times you could halve CO2 levels, at least in theory, and still get the same temperature drop?
Max,
I’ve not checked all your solar references but are there any that actually support your claims?
I thought this one form “Nature” would be worth reading:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
And it was. It says “….It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global
warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.”
Or, is this what you are saying too?
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “I’ve not checked all your solar references but are there any that actually support your claims?”
I suggest you do actually check them, Peter, in order to confirm for yourself that my “claims” are in fact based on these studies.
You will see that they all agree that solar forcing has played a significant role in driving 20th century climate due to solar activity, which was unusually high (highest for several thousand years).
The studies generally agree that the unusually high level of solar activity could not have caused all of the observed warming based on the mechanisms known to date.
The studies ranged from 0.2C to 0.5C solar impact with the arithmetic average solar impact of all the studies at 0.37C.
Check it out, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Just to make it a bit easier for me to check, can you provide a figure for each one of your references?
For instance, when Solanki says “….at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.” I’m wondering if I really need to ask just how you interpret that!
Hi Peter,
I have not fallen into the trap of moving away from the overall long-term trend into shorter multi-decadal periods, but the statement by Solanki et al., which you quoted, appears to make sense and would check with the many other studies.
The period 1850-1970 includes two major multi-decadal warming cycles and three multi-decadal cooling cycles. Including all these “ups and downs”, it accounts for around one-third of the total linear 1850-2008 warming.
This is 0.65C per Hadley record.
So for 1850-1970 we have
0.333 * 0.65 = 0.22C total warming (assume 100% caused by solar)
The period 1970-2008 is essentially all a warming cycle (with the exception of the latest short cooling period since 2001). It accounts for around two-thirds of the total linear 1850-2008 warming.
So for 1970-2008 we have
0.667 * 0.65 = 0.43C total warming
Assume this is 30% due to solar forcing
0.3 * 0.43 = 0.13C
Adding the solar warming 1850-1970 to that for 1970-2008 we get:
0.22 + 0.13 = 0.35C
So Solanki’s statement appears to be reasonable.
But I am sure you will agree that the overall long-term 1850-2008 look is more important than just the short-term 1970-2008 look (as you have told me before when I pointed out the multi-decadal “up and down” swings that do not correlated with CO2).
Are you now ready to accept based on the many solar studies I have cited that the long-term solar warming has been around 0.35C out of a total 1850-2008 warming of 0.65C as these studies have shown?
If so, we can move on.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You can easily check the studies yourself, but here are the numbers as I pulled them out and averaged them:
0.5C Baliunas + Soon
0.35C Dietze
0.4C Geerts + Linacre
0.5C Georgieva et al.
0.225C Gerard + Hauglustaine
0.35C Lockwood + Stamper
0.33C Scafetta + West
0.47C Shaviv + Veizer
0.2C Solanki et al.
0.37C Arithmetic average of all studies
In addition, the Leeds lecture #9 (not included in above average) showed a figure of 0.26C.
If Leeds is “averaged in” the figure would be 0.35C.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
JZ and Peter
I’ve moved two of your comments that raise interesting points about economic policy as well as AGW (almost) to Peter’s post here where they appear as #33 & #34.
Hi Peter,
You asked, “For instance, when Solanki says “….at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.” I’m wondering if I really need to ask just how you interpret that!”
I “interpreted” Solanki’s “maximum” impact of 100% of 1850-1970 warming caused by solar as 60% “probable” impact.
I “interpreted” Solanski’s “maximum” impact of 30% of 1970-2000 warming caused by solar as 60% of 30% or 18% “probable” impact.
So I ended up using 60% of the “maximum” of 0.35C (per earlier post) or 0.2C as Solanski’s estimate. Since this was the “low ball” estimate of the group, I figured it was not overstated.
Does that answer your question?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I don’t really know what to do with your ramble #3128, but since it does not have anything specifically to do with what we are discussing, I will ignore it.
You still have to explain to me why you personally believe that the solar impact is not a major part of the total forcing as has estimated by solar scientists.
Take your time on this, but don’t get sidetracked with “logarithmic/linear” discussions and other diversionary tactics.
Regards,
Max
OOPS,
Angela Merkel turns her back on green dream of EU, German premier insists that carbon credits will be free until 2020 to safeguard German industry, with a further 10 years of cooling the Green dream is I believe unraveling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5321469.ece
Peter says,
For example, if you had a very large aquarium, it might take a week or more for the temperature to reach a new equilibrium after a small heater was immersed into the water. If you were smart enough, you might be able to calculate what the final temperature might be after a couple of days of observation but you’d have to be particularly obtuse to claim that there was ‘no evidence’ to suggest that the temperature would continue to rise.
Over the past 50 years the sun has been at it`s most active for the past 1500 years, given that the sun is the small heater and the oceans are the aquarium you’d have to be particularly obtuse to claim that there was ‘no evidence’ to suggest that the temperature would continue to rise releasing CO2 and heat into the atmosphere.
Re Angela Merkel’s change of heart, you may be interested to see my post (and TonyN’s and my follow-ups) here. The Dominic Lawson article to which I refer is here – note especially his reference to Professor Gwyn Prins, who incidentally is not a GW sceptic.
My #3139 was addressed (of course) to Bob – and referred to his #3138.
This report-from a surprising source-seems to admit that ‘its the ocean currents stupid.’
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/
TonyB
Hello everyone
Sorry I have not been contributing much over the last week or two but Peter should particularly enjoy this;
As I may have mentioned I am taking my son on the rounds of University interviews where he will be reading Physics. The latest was at Cambridge on Tuesday-we arrived on Monday evening.
It all started to go horribly wrong on Monday night when I was reading the biography of GS Callendar, only to find that his father had gone to the very college my son was applying to…
In the morning I walked round Cambridge and into the Cambridge University Press bookshop only to find piles of IPCC reports for each working group, bound and in full colour and retailing at an eye watering £35 each.
Accompanying them were numerous books by various assorted AGW sympathisers.
I drove a short way to eat my sandwich and the car started to misfire so badly I had to stop-outside the ‘Callendar research centre…’
I coaxed the car back to life and drove a short way before it broke down again -in Keeling Drive.
Groaning, I managed to drive the car a short distance where it died again-in Tyndall road.
I tried to reach civilisation and stopped in a non scientifically named road and walked to the corner to try to get a signal on my mobile phone which promptly broke down as it saw I was in Arrenhuis way…
So they got their revenge on me and I had to spend £180 on a new coil!
The only good news is that before these disasters happened I saw my Christmas present which no doubt one of you -Peter probably- will want to buy me.
Its called ‘The Viking World’ by Stefan Brink and Neil Price ISbn 978-0-415-33715-3 It’s 700 pages are full of Viking information photos and maps, including research on the 700 farms that existed in Greenland during the Medieval warm period, investigations into the sand farm, details of the Viking bodies still frozen in perma frost and hundreds of items of a scholarly nature concerning the certainty that there was greater warmth during this period than now.
Its only £175-who wants to put their name forward to get it for me?
TonyB
Remember the convergence problem with Mann`s Hockey stick, see link below.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/co2andtreerings.jpg
Cephalonia island in Greece appears to have NO temperature trend from 1860 to 2008, strange that, is it rural, odd how tree rings grow with co2, odd how Briffer stopped his Hockey stick tree ring proxy graph around 1980 when tree rings are available up to 2008.
Study,
We are investigating the possibility that the fir trees are experiencing a fertilization effect from increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Climate analysis of the tree-ring data indicates that growth is favored by cool and wet conditions during growth, particularly in the month of June. Climate trends since the mid-20th century are marked by increasing June temperature and aridity, which should have a negative influence on growth. Despite this, overall growth has accelerated, particularly since 1990
http://akoutavasresearch.googlepages.com/mediterraneantreerings
Hi TonyB,
You wrote about the book ‘The Viking World’ by Stefan Brink and Neil Price, “Its only £175-who wants to put their name forward to get it for me?”
Hey, I’ll put up 20% or £35, if you give us a summary on this site of the most important sections.
Any other takers among our little group?
Regards,
Max
Hi Bobclive,
You are much too logical for the average AGW aficionado.
Increased atmospheric CO2 levels bringing increased fertilization effect and plant growth (thereby providing a natural “negative” feedback and reducing atmospheric CO2 levels)?
Slightly higher ocean temperatures releasing more CO2 (like a warm CocaCola), thereby increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (rather than the other way around)?
This is all too complicatd for the AGW cats. Biology and Physical Chemistry never were their strong points.
But they sure know how to program disaster scenarios into their computer models.
Regards,
Max
My posting 4143 was here,
http://64.233.183.132/search?q=cache:Rij_QXJo_PAJ:www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N49/EDIT.php+cephalonia+island+global+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
Late 20th-Century Acceleration in the Growth of Greek Fir Trees.
CO2 science 3rd Dec 2008
In a study recently published in Dendrochronologia, Koutavas (2008) writes that “tree rings are the primary archive used in annually resolved climate reconstructions spanning recent centuries to millennia, and as such their response to non-climatic factors requires careful evaluation.
WHERE IS CO2SCIENCE.ORG it seems to have vanished.
Bobclive
Still here
http://www.co2science.org/
TonyB
Late 20th-Century Acceleration in the Growth of Greek Fir Trees, pdf.
http://athankoutavas.googlepages.com/Koutavas_Dendro_2008.pdf
ww.co2science.org could not be found. Please check the name and try again.
Who would have thought that melting Antarctic ice could prevent climate change?
This link looked as though it was a piece of comment spam when it came in, but it is actually quite interesting. Climate science evidently hasn’t quite managed to unlocked all the intricacies of climate feedbacks yet, and there are implications for the GCMs too.
Max,
Your treatment of Solanksi was reasonable, when you say interpreted Solanki’s ‘maximum’ impact of 100% of 1850-1970 warming caused by solar as 60% ‘probable’ impact. And I “interpreted” Solanski’s “maximum” impact of 30% of 1970-2000 warming caused by solar as 60% of 30% or 18% “probable” impact.
However, if you are going to make a distinction, between the pre and post 1970 periods you should take a separate linear regression for each one.
This means that the amount caused by solar warming is likely to be around 60% of 0.31deg C for the first period. And 18% of 0.61deg C for the second period.
OK. I wouldn’t disagree too strongly with that. However, I think it might well turn out to be that the warming of the early 20th century is more due anthropogenic causes than is generally realised. The first ppmv of CO2 build up does have a stronger effect than the last, and it has been around to heat the earth for a longer time.