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,
Yes, I think I understand the IPCC chart. I think I understand how you operate too. It seems a bit odd that it’s you who are suggesting that I should read their reports carefully. This is the IPCC, remember?
I don’t have any problem with IPCC reports. They are maybe a bit too cautious if anything.
So what’s the catch?
Bob_FJ,
I don’t think I have mistakenly cited NASA/GISS’s data when I meant Hadcrut/Hadley, or vice versa, but if you can show me where I did that I’ll grudgingly apologise if it stops you getting too upset :-).
I don’t have a reference for GISS data in tabular format. Can anyone oblige?
Thanks.
Peter Martin, Reur 3101
You wrote in part to me:
My responses:
[1] Perhaps you could try reading my 3083, 3096, and 3099 more carefully for starters, and here is a specific key question for you:
Do you deny that what has been referred to as “the graph on the right” ends at full-year 2006, and NOT 2007?
[2] Grudgingly apologise? Me upset? No, I’m entertained, partly because other readers are observing all this, and can form their own opinions!
[3] You can get tabular data etc @ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Brute/Max: you wonder if there might be an international or national tribunal dealing with scientific fraud. Well, there is no such international body and I am unaware of any national one. And that is probably just as well: if there were it would inevitably be funded by governments (i.e. taxpayers) and staffed largely by bureaucrats and compliant lawyers and scientists. And you know what that would mean – an attempt to muzzle “maverick” scientists who do not toe the current party line.
We all know the party line adopted by Western politicians: the modest warming experienced in recent years is man-made and potentially catastrophic, meaning that fossil fuel production and use must be curtailed. Fortunately, as there is no such tribunal, the views of maverick scientists can still get through. That, coupled with the realities of pending economic disaster and the fact that major developing economies are unconcerned about global warming, is inevitably changing Western politicians’ minds – although not yet changing their public position. Consider, for example, the recent EU agonies in Gdansk over a climate change deal and note how, according to this article in the Wall Street Journal, Obama is changing his view. A quote:
Er – I seem to remember that was the much-derided Bush proposal.
All,
I just came across these these lecture notes from Leeds Uni. They look really good and as they are free for all to use, maybe I should thank TonyB, Tony N, Robin and others for paying their UK taxes which supports their publication.
http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture1/lecture1.html
There doesn’t seem to be an automatic link to the next lecture but its not too hard to figure out.
Bob_FJ,
Yes, the ‘graph on the right’ does look like it ends at 2006. 2007 wasn’t much different in temperature, and I was really referring to previous cooling periods of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s so it doesn’t make much difference to the point I was making.
I can’t remember when I posted that graph or what I said at the time.
Thanks for the supplied link, though.
In trying to find a good hockey-stick image for Pete over at his Anthro-blog on this site, I came across a coupled pair of 2001 IPCC images @
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/images/wg1figspm-1s.gif
which seem to be relevant to the current interest of “bending the scientific truth within AGW”
Anyhow, I’ve taken that image into MS PAINT and highlighted some issues that I hope are of interest..
If no image try:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3114/3095224544_832875cf8a_o.gif
Hi Peter,
You just wrote:
“Yes, I think I understand the IPCC chart. I think I understand how you operate too. It seems a bit odd that it’s you who are suggesting that I should read their reports carefully. This is the IPCC, remember? I don’t have any problem with IPCC reports.”
Good, you DO understand that IPCC has informed us that the net forcing from all other ANTHROPOGENIC factors beside CO2 (other GHGs, soot, land use changes, aerosols, etc.) cancel each other out, so can be ignored.
The net total anthropogenic forcing (from pre-industrial year 1750 CO2 level of 280 ppmv to year 2005 CO2 of 379 ppmv is stated by IPCC to be 1.6 W/m^2. Since IPCC are the “self appointed experts” on anthropogenic factors, we can take their word for this part, which also checks with the greenhouse hypothesis.
According to the physical equations supporting this hypothesis, this forcing will result in a global warming of around 0.3C.
This leaves (beside CO2): solar influence (possibly tied to variations in ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc.) and volcanoes.
IPCC concedes that their “level of scientific understanding” of solar factors is “low”, so we need to look elsewhere for a realistic estimate of these factors and their impact.
There are several studies by solar scientists (cited previously on this site) that confirm that the 20th century saw a period of unusually high solar activity (the highest in several thousand years), and that this resulted in a warming of around 0.35C (average value of the many studies made).
There are also studies that show an apparent correlation between ENSO cycles and solar activity, although the mechanism for this relationship is not yet clear. So let us ignore ENSO, etc. as a separate factor.
Studies on the type of volcanoes we have experienced over the past 150 years or so show that these have a short-term impact on climate, but no lasting effect, statistically amounting to no more than one or two hundredths of a degree of cooling over the period.
So we are left with theoretical warming of:
Solar = 0.35C (natural)
CO2 = 0.3C (anthropogenic)
This compares nicely with the actually observed linear warming of 0.65C over the entire period 1850-2008, as recorded by Hadley.
Voilà!
If we accept the greenhouse hypothesis and the greenhouse forcing factors per IPCC (Myhre et al.) as valid, we can explain the observed long-term warming to date.
Are you still with me, Peter? Please confirm that you understand the above logic.
If so, we can then move on to looking into the future.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
GISS links:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
As indicated earlier, these seem to get changed after the fact from time to time, but so far the changes appear to be relatively minor.
Regards,
Max
George Monbiot has an interesting piece in the Guardian today. It’s entitled
He’s talking about us, folks – except Peter that is.
Re #3018, Robin
I’ve never seen so many straw men gathered together in one article. And how would Monbiot survive a public debate with well informed sceptics, if ever he had the nerve to take such a risk?
Talking about straw men, and women, the Guardian reported that 5-10,000 people turned out for the climate march on Sunday. I phoned the Metropolitan Police press office who said 5000 maximum. Strange that the Guardian didn’t think of checking, it only took a moment.
Why was I suspicious? Well the organisers didn’t give a figure (they said ‘thousands’) and the BBC barely mentioned the march, so it sounded like a damp squib.
Anyway, I hope they were all well wrapped up against the cold.
More evidence of AGW. Looks like I may have to put the top up on my convertible this weekend.
TonyN and Robin,
Your discussion of the “straw men” gathered together in the Monbiot article in the guardian brought to mind a wise saying:
“When you make straw men, be sure to use fresh straw.”
Looks like Monbiot failed to follow this sage advice and there is too much of the other stuff mixed in.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Read with interest about your impending SoCal blizzard. Feel sorry for the citrus growers, but otherwise still envy you and your neighbors down there.
We’ve already had more snow this late autumn here in Switzerland than we normally get up through January and more is predicted in the next few days. The cash registers are ringing in the ski resorts (despite the global economic slump).
Regards,
Max
Hi Max,
For the record, it is sunny and breezy today, (Santa Ana conditions), with temps reaching the low 20ºC range. But I am hoping for lots of snow at least in our local mountains. Southern California is one of the few places on Earth where you can surf and ski (snow) the same day!
Thanks to AGW, this should be a great skiing year, though nothing like Switzerland, I’m sure.
I just love these idiots. Flying around the planet selling their books, enriching and promoting themselves…… all in an effort to “save the planet”. What a phony…….
The heavyweight environmentalist George Monbiot, has started a new website that claims to expose those who call themselves ‘green’, but are nothing of the sort. In the website, Monbiot argues that environmentalists ‘all want people to live by codes rather stricter than those we apply to ourselves’. Of course, when it comes to flying, environmentalists are the biggest hypocrites of them all – including Monbiot.
For example, many of the leaders of environmentalist organisations are targeting the aviation industry as a major cause for concern, and a danger to the environment – yet, these leaders have been flying all over the globe to preach their anti-aviation sermons to a worldwide audience. If Monbiot wants to ‘out’ some dodgy ‘greens’ he can start with himself – ok, he’s already done that. How about Ashok Sinha, the director of Stop the Climate Chaos, who flew to India for his holiday, and Montreal on a business trip?
Or, how about New Labour’s environment minister, David Miliband, who’s in Kenya for climate change talks? Ok, how about the chairman of the Environment Agency, Sir John Harman, who jets off to such places as Germany and Vienna for business, and likes to go to Cyprus and Croatia for holiday? Ok then, how about the organiser of a runway blockade at Midlands’s airport, John Sauven, who happens to be the campaign director of Greenpeace? Sauven likes to take his family to Italy for their holidays, and recently went on a ‘business’ trip to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil – very nice.
The director of Friends of the Earth, Tony Juniper, is also known to have jetted off to places like South Africa, Malaysia and Holland. He took his family to Slovakia last year, and is currently on a business trip in Nigeria at the moment. Or what about the Green party MEP Caroline Lucus? Lucas warned Briton’s last year (all the way from Hong-Kong) about how a typical Christmas dinner may have travelled 30,000 miles to end up on our plates. She was also away in India last month on a business trip.
I’ll leave the last words to Monbiot, who once said that ‘If even the leaders of the green movement are not prepared to live without flying for pleasure then how can we expect that of other people?’
I just love these lunatics. Flying all over the planet hawking their books; promoting and enriching themselves all in an effort to “save the planet. What a phony……
The heavyweight environmentalist George Monbiot, has started a new website that claims to expose those who call themselves ‘green’, but are nothing of the sort. In the website, Monbiot argues that environmentalists ‘all want people to live by codes rather stricter than those we apply to ourselves’. Of course, when it comes to flying, environmentalists are the biggest hypocrites of them all – including Monbiot.
For example, many of the leaders of environmentalist organisations are targeting the aviation industry as a major cause for concern, and a danger to the environment – yet, these leaders have been flying all over the globe to preach their anti-aviation sermons to a worldwide audience. If Monbiot wants to ‘out’ some dodgy ‘greens’ he can start with himself – ok, he’s already done that. How about Ashok Sinha, the director of Stop the Climate Chaos, who flew to India for his holiday, and Montreal on a business trip?
Or, how about New Labour’s environment minister, David Miliband, who’s in Kenya for climate change talks? Ok, how about the chairman of the Environment Agency, Sir John Harman, who jets off to such places as Germany and Vienna for business, and likes to go to Cyprus and Croatia for holiday? Ok then, how about the organiser of a runway blockade at Midlands’s airport, John Sauven, who happens to be the campaign director of Greenpeace? Sauven likes to take his family to Italy for their holidays, and recently went on a ‘business’ trip to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil – very nice.
The director of Friends of the Earth, Tony Juniper, is also known to have jetted off to places like South Africa, Malaysia and Holland. He took his family to Slovakia last year, and is currently on a business trip in Nigeria at the moment. Or what about the Green party MEP Caroline Lucus? Lucas warned Briton’s last year (all the way from Hong-Kong) about how a typical Christmas dinner may have travelled 30,000 miles to end up on our plates. She was also away in India last month on a business trip.
I’ll leave the last words to Monbiot, who once said that ‘If even the leaders of the green movement are not prepared to live without flying for pleasure then how can we expect that of other people?’
Another case in point:
These “environmentalists” are so obtuse that they mistook beavers doing beaver stuff for “illegal loggers”……. Must be enlightening to be “so in tune with nature” that they can’t discern the difference.
Environmentalists Accidentally Protest Beavers In Poland
Green campaigners called in police after discovering an illegal logging site in a nature reserve – and rounded up a gang of beavers. Environmentalists found 20 neatly stacked tree trunks and others marked for felling with notches at the beauty-spot at Subkowy in northern Poland. But police followed a trail left where one tree had been dragged away – and found a beaver dam right in the middle of the river. A police spokesman said: “The campaigners are feeling pretty stupid. There’s nothing more natural than a beaver.”
Brute,
Did you write 3114 and 3115 all by yourself? If you lift whole sections of someone else’s work it is usually pretty obvious!
Max,
Yes I thought there would be a catch. You pick out the bits you like and leave the rest.
There is another use of the term climate sensitivity which links tempeature rise to radiative forcing. Its generally considered to be about 0.7 Km^2/W
So 1.6 W/m^2 should give a temperature rise of 1.1 deg C. Indicating that there is still some temperature rise in the pipeline.
So where did the figure of 0.35 deg C for solar come from? You seem a bit coy about giving the reference.
Oh no: Climate change is an issue of human rights See this article in today’s Independent.
Hi Peter,
You wrote (3116),
”Yes I thought there would be a catch. You pick out the bits you like and leave the rest.
There is another use of the term climate sensitivity which links tempeature rise to radiative forcing. Its generally considered to be about 0.7 Km^2/W
So 1.6 W/m^2 should give a temperature rise of 1.1 deg C. Indicating that there is still some temperature rise in the pipeline.
So where did the figure of 0.35 deg C for solar come from? You seem a bit coy about giving the reference.”
So let’s go through your message.
I “picked out the bits” on CO2 radiative forcing from IPCC (Myhre et al.) and the greenhouse theory plus Stefan-Boltzmann equation. All pretty straightforward stuff.
Tells me tha CO2 had a RF of 1.66 W/m^2 (1750 to 2005) and all other anthropogenic forcings cancel one another out. Applying Stefan-Boltzmann this gives me a 0.3C total net anthropogenic temperature impact. If you’d like, I can walk you through the calculation, which is really quite simple.
Your “generally considered” value of 0.7C does not really interest me, since I do not see how it has been derived.
The temperature rise that is allegedly “still in the pipeline” is also of no interest to me, since I see no calculated basis or physical evidence for such a suggestion.
Now to your question, “So where did the figure of 0.35 deg C for solar come from?”. I have provided you this info once already, but it appears that it slipped past you.
The long-term figure of 0.35C is the average of the solar impacts from the various studies by solar experts, which I cited earlier. See posts 87 through 96 on this site for links. (BTW the arithmetic average of these impacts from the studies is 0.37C, but I rounded this down to 0.35C).
Another link, which you seem to like, is that to the Leeds lectures.
If you refer to “Lecture 9” on solar impact on climate you will see that Leeds quotes a figure of 0.26C over the long-term record, stating that this is for solar irradiance only. (If we average the Leeds number into the many studies I cited, it comes out at 0.35C, so I that we can conclude that this is a fairly well substantiated figure).
http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture9/lecture9.html
If you read the Leeds lecture closely, you will note that they mention other possible solar factors, which could make the solar impact on temperature significantly higher, possibly even accounting for most or all of the measured warming.
The statement below seems particularly pertinent for you (as well as the IPCC authors)to read: “The possibility that some or even a majority of the recent increase in temperature could be caused by natural variations in the sun’s activity remains controversial but important. It demonstrates the difficulty of making predictions of climate change.”
So from all the above we see a long-term warming of:
0.35C from solar forcing (natural)
0.3C from CO2 (equals total net anthropogenic forcing)
We also see that the actually observed Hadley temperature record shows a warming over the entire period of 0.65C, so we can confirm the theory with the actual observation (so much more meaningful and rewarding than just relying on model assumptions).
Now I have given you all the bases for my calculation of 0.3C long-term warming from CO2. (For additional detail, please refer to my earlier posts 3089 and 3106).
In your 3060 you wrote, “Its interesting that the figure that came out of treating the relationship between CO2 and Delta T to be logarithmic is 1.75deg C for a doubling of CO2. This may happen around the turn of the next century, giving a figure for temperature rise of 0.175 deg C per decade. Almost exactly what we’ve had for the last few decades.”
Let’s not shift from the long-term 150+ years view back to the short term “last few decades” blip, Peter.
Please provide you calculation bases for your “1.75deg C for a doubling of CO2”.
Are you saying here: 1.75C for 2xCO2 (from early 19th century to year 2100)?
If so, do you mean 1.1C from today until year 2100 (after subtracting the 0.65C warming we have already seen up to today)?
Upon what physical evidence do you base your calculation? (Please do not cite computer model assumptions or outputs as “physical evidence”).
Peter, I know from your past behavior on this site it is apparently unpleasant for you to do so, but please try to be specific, so we can move closer to resolving our two viewpoints on this issue.
Regards,
Max
Comments? Max? TonyB?
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Brute #3119
Good article.
What can one say other than its an extremely good piece of common sense writing which explains exactly why most of us on this site don’t believe what we are being told by some mainstream scientists.
Even on this site we argue over fractions of a degree to prove- or otherwise- some completely mythical 1850 global temperature dataset which isnt worth the pixels it is printed on. Global temperature rise is one of the four very shaky pillars AGW is built on.
We disbelieve hundreds of thousands of co2 readings taken at the time by world famous scientists in favour of a the new science of ice cores, which gives the word ‘theoretical’ a bad name and is the second shaky pillar.
We have the third pillar which sees top scientists deliberately trying to circumvent history in order to demonstrate that today’s temperatures are unprecedented.
We have film, photo, newspaper acounts, older documemts and anecdotal proof stretching back a thousand years to demonstrate that the arctic melts more often than ice in a warm cocktail on malibu beach, yet this fourth pillar is still held up as some sort of ‘proof’ that the current melting is ‘unprecedented’.
Its bad science, piled on theory, piled on circumstantial evidence and the only reason the four pillars haven’t crashed to the ground is that many people have invested too much time, money, and prestige to allow the edifice to topple over.
TonyB
Hi Brute,
Just read through the long article by James E. Peden on “GW – Fact or Hoax”.
It is well written and points out several fallacies in the IPCC take on AGW, which Peter should read in order to get a bit better informed than he is now by using IPCC as his principal source of information.
But in addition to the scientific or technical points, which Peden makes quite convincingly (from a position of his own scientific training and knowledge), the political points are compelling: censorship of “non-PC” anti AGW scientific reports, IPCC rejection of any data that do not support its AGW message, “green” school teachers frightening children with unfounded hysterical predictions, socalled “science editors” in the popular press helping to add to the general panic, etc.
The one strongly positive point that I saw was his reference to the Internet blogosphere as a powerful force in “keeping them honest”, even when the organized mass media and most “scientific” journals have “sold out” to the current AGW fad.
Peden also made mention of many climate scientists who have rejected the IPCC “party line” on AGW and are becoming more and more vocal about it.
Sure, there are organized pro-AGW sites that attempt to counter this with “pseudoscientific” articles to keep the AGW hysteria alive, as Peden mentions, but most rational observers can spot these for what they are.
A good report. Thanks for link.
Regards,
Max
I know Senator Inhohe is considered the devil by warmists but he does come up with some interesting stuff!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
TonyB
I found this blog recently, http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
Warren Meyer has put together a clear critique of AGW which is hard to fault, this I believe is superb teaching material and should run alongside Gores propaganda, students having access to this critique would then be able to research the subject from a totally unbiased position.
http://www.climate-movie.com/Global_Warming_Debate_at_the_2008_RCRC.wmv
Hi Brute,
Coming back to the Peden article, which points out how IPCC ignores (or rejects as incorrect) “inconvenient” data, here is a small example.
As part of its attempt to make CO2 a much more significant “greenhouse gas” than the greenhouse hypothesis says it is, IPCC introduces the computer-generated concept of “positive feedbacks”, which work to enhance the warming effect of CO2 alone by a factor of 3 to 4.
One of the major “feedbacks” programmed into the models is that of water vapor. IPCC makes the assumption that warmer air can (and therefore will) hold more water vapor, which, in turn, will cause even more greenhouse warming.
The assumption in the models cited by IPCC (in its 2007 report) is that the relative humidity of the air remains constant with warming, so that the atmospheric water vapor content rises with rising temperature to maintain constant relative humidity.
A 2004 study by Minschwaner and Dessler is cited by IPCC, but its findings are ignored, since they directly refute the assumption of constant relative humidity with rising temperature.
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
The constant relative humidity model is a cornerstone of the IPCC water vapor feedback assumption, which leads to a significant increase in the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
The M-D model results conclude that the increase in water vapor will be around 40% of the values assumed in the IPCC GCMs. It estimates a climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 including water vapor feedback (but excluding clouds and the surface albedo feedback) of 1.2°C, rather than 1.5°C, as assumed by IPCC.
Now this may seem like a relatively insignificant error on the part of IPCC, but it is actually a compounding of errors, as can be seen from Figure 7 of the M+D report, copied below:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2958955575_2c69450bd9_b.jpg
In the above chart, the shaded area is the linear least square fit of actually observed data with uncertainty (95% confidence limit), the dashed line shows the M+D model result and the dotted line shows the constant relative humidity assumption used in the IPCC models. Change in specific humidity per °C is 1.8-4.2 (actually observed), 8.5 (M+D model) and 20 (IPCC constant RH assumption); i.e. IPCC assumes around 2.5 times the amount calculated by the M+D model and 5 to 11 times the amount of increase in atmospheric water vapor as actually observed!
Using the actually observed increase in water vapor with warming, the climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 including water vapor feedback (but excluding clouds and the surface albedo feedback) is actually closer to 0.8°C, rather than 1.5°C, as assumed by IPCC.
There is no excuse for IPCC ignoring these data that were published long before its 2007 report.
But this is unfortunately not the only case of IPCC omissions, exaggerations and outright false claims in its latest report. Others claims that have been shown to be false are:
· Greenland ice sheet mass loss 1993-2003
· Antarctic ice sheet mass loss 1993-2003
· Accelerating sea level rise 1993-2003
· Reduction in northern hemisphere snow cover in late 20th century
· Agreement between satellite (troposphere) and surface temperature record
· More warming in troposphere than at surface, confirming greenhouse warming
· Claim that UHI distortion of surface temperature record is insignificant
· Increased droughts, floods, etc. resulting from global warming
· Increased number/intensity of tropical storms resulting from global warming
· Gross understatement of solar impact on climate
· No mention of cosmic ray / cloud relationship
· Unsubstantiated (and since disproven) claims of positive cloud feedbacks
All of these falsifications in the IPCC report go toward depicting AGW as a potentially serious threat to humanity, with alarming computer-generated forecasts for the future, when in actual fact there is no scientific basis for these dire predictions.
IPCC clearly has the political “agenda” of showing that AGW is a potentially serious problem and it uses the “agenda driven pseudoscience” in its 2007 report to achieve this political agenda.
Regards,
Max