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
The imminent Harmless Sky ski party to your house has turned into a disaster!
Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten to have advised us of your address, nor told us where we will all be sleeping, nor even told us what menu choices will be available for each of our three meals. Also we do not know how you will be getting us from Zurich airport (had you booked the helicopter?) nor how you will get so many of us to your local ski resort each day. There are 52 who had booked expecting a ski holiday of a lifteime at your house at your expense, and in view of your lack of comunications I have had to cancel it and they are VERY unhappy.
Unfortunately there were 10 lawyers as part of the party and they are threatening to sue both of us for breach of contract! However,they say they will drop all proceedings if you give really good detailed answers to a number of questions they have about climate change
1 Let’s asume that temperature rises first and co2 follows. What time scale do YOU think is involved and why-800 years? 8 months? 8 years?
2 When temperature falls again, do co2 levels fall at the same rate as they rose?
3 They are very interested in Becks work and the theory that co2 levels are highly variable. Assuming substantial natural temperature variations occurs, does the physics or chemistry exist to demonstrate that co2 levels can drop from say 380ppm to say 290ppm in the space of 1 or 2 years and then rise again to similar levels as quickly?
What degree of outgassing or absorption does that involve? In other words is Becks theory of highly variable co2 levels scientifically plausible bearing in mind modern levels vary by only 2ppm or so a year and consequently no modern record of substantial variation exists.
4 A number of the party are warmists and they insist that the IPCC is right and that co2 levels were a constant 280 ppm pre industrial, and that we have added nearly 100ppm over the last 100 years. This increase has apparently been the main cause of the substantial temperature rise according to global temperatures back to 1850, with much more to come…in other words they claim temperature is very sensitive to co2 levels.
If that is so, the very variable temperatures pre 1900-at times higher than and lower than today- means these considerable temperature changes were achieved despite the lack of fluctuating co2 to drive them. Therefore other climate drivers must have been unusually powerful in order to overcome the lack of the incredibly potent co2.
Can you tell the lawyers what the prime climate drivers must have been in the past, and how much more powerful they would need to be than they currently are in order to overcome the lack of variable co2? They have asked that you be specific, for example the sun would have needed to be 45% stronger than we have previously observed it to be, or that Enso is 55% more powerful than we believed, or even that there were unprecedented and continous El Ninos that might overcome the lack of warming co2
5 They are also convinced that the ice cores must be right-obviously they must believe Peter has the better arguements (glad the trip is off as I think we would have been arguing with them all the time) So what reasons can you suggest -methodology or the physics- that might convince them that the ice cores are unreliable?
The party are keen to reduce their carbon footprint and are happy for you to recycle any answers you may have previously given in this forum.
So Max, no presure at all (and deal with ‘topic A’first) but our future financial well being is in your hands as these are VERY good lawyers and they are VERY unhappy with both of us. In fact I am going into hiding for a few days in our favourite sking village in Switzerland until Sunday- leaving tomorrow morning
http://www.leysin.ch/F/indexh.html
so hope you can give me answers on my return in a few days so I can persuade them to lift their pending legal action. It’s the last time I’ll try to organise a trip that includes lawyers and warmists!
TonyB
Hi Tony B,
Sorry to hear that the imminent Harmless Sky ski party to our house has turned into a disaster. My wife had already purchased 17 kg of raclette cheese and 35 kg of potatoes in anticipation, so it looks like raclette will be on our menu here for the next several months.
I did have problems booking the helicopter, since they are all in service rescuing people from the recent massive snowfall (which we all know has been caused by global warming).
I will try to answer the global warming questions in order to placate the disgruntled lawyers among the group.
Question 1: Let’s assume that temperature rises first and co2 follows. What time scale do YOU think is involved and why-800 years? 8 months? 8 years?
Glad the group asked this question. I did a small experiment in my kitchen with a bottle of a CO2-containing beverage, Coca-cola (an article which we normally do not carry here, but which I purchased specifically for this experiment).
Upon heating this CO2-containing beverage, it immediately began outgassing (within 0.8 seconds), to the point that Coca-cola squirted all over the kitchen floor (much to the dismay of my wife, who is still irritated about my snow machine acquisition with her Christmas present money – see previous post).
So adjusting for the size of the Coca-cola bottle versus the ocean and for other factors (altitude here versus sea level, etc.), I have calculated (without the benefit of a multi-million dollar tax-payer funded supercomputer) that the answer to your question is 8 months ± 2 months.
Question 2: When temperature falls again, do co2 levels fall at the same rate as they rose?
I was unable to test this with my Coca-cola (since my wife had strongly advised me to clean up the kitchen floor), but I suspect (based on the laws of physics of which I am somewhat albeit only superficially aware) that the re-absorption of CO2 might occur at a somewhat slower rate (limited by the degree of CO2/water interchange).
The learned Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck uses statistical mass transfer calculations to shed some light on this question. To quote, “As the diffusional mass transfer from the backmixed surface to deep ocean water is slow, the continuous increase of the carbon content of the backmixed surface layer of the ocean will increase the equilibrium partial pressure at the boundary layer of the ocean, thus reducing the enhancing effect of the increased atmospheric concentration on the mass transfer rate from the air to the ocean. On the other hand, the diffusional mass transfer rate from the surface layer to the deep ocean will also increase due to an increase of the concentration gradient. However, if the diffusion to the deep layers is assumed to be a very slow transient process following Fick’s second law of diffusion absorbed carbon dioxide continuously reduces the otherwise increasing gradient.”
I must admit that I was unable to contact Fick to discuss his second law of diffusion more explicitly, but I would conclude from the above discussion and the fact that the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere (in the absence of any guidance from the 2,500 IPCC scientists who only confused me with their computer-model generated “climate-carbon cycle coupling” postulation) that the re-absorption will occur more slowly than the original outgassing.
Question 3: They are very interested in Becks work and the theory that co2 levels are highly variable. Assuming substantial natural temperature variations occurs, does the physics or chemistry exist to demonstrate that co2 levels can drop from say 380ppm to say 290ppm in the space of 1 or 2 years and then rise again to similar levels as quickly?
What degree of outgassing or absorption does that involve? In other words is Becks theory of highly variable co2 levels scientifically plausible bearing in mind modern levels vary by only 2ppm or so a year and consequently no modern record of substantial variation exists.
The Coca-cola experiment was of no help whatsoever here, since my wife had thrown the bottle into the trash (fortunately in the environmentally appropriate recycling container for PET bottles).
The fact that the ocean contains over 50 times the amount of CO2 as the atmosphere (40,000 vs. 750 GtC or 147,000 GtCO2 vs 2,750 GtCO2), Ahlbeck’s learned discussion on the reduced effect of the increased atmospheric concentration on the mass transfer rate from the air to the ocean and the unfortunate experience of the rapidly outgassing Coca-cola onto the kitchen floor did together give me a tip that a 50ppm/year change in atmospheric content is equivalent to:
50 / 385 * 750 = 357 GtCO2, which represents 357 / 147,000 or around 0.24% of the CO2 contained in the ocean.
So, even without a Coca-cola physical substantiation, I would agree that this change is “peanuts”. (Peter might disagree, but then he would have to back up his point of view with some facts.)
Question 4: A number of the party are warmists and they insist that the IPCC is right and that co2 levels were a constant 280 ppm pre industrial, and that we have added nearly 100ppm over the last 100 years. This increase has apparently been the main cause of the substantial temperature rise according to global temperatures back to 1850, with much more to come…in other words they claim temperature is very sensitive to co2 levels.
If that is so, the very variable temperatures pre 1900-at times higher than and lower than today- means these considerable temperature changes were achieved despite the lack of fluctuating co2 to drive them. Therefore other climate drivers must have been unusually powerful in order to overcome the lack of the incredibly potent co2.
Can you tell the lawyers what the prime climate drivers must have been in the past, and how much more powerful they would need to be than they currently are in order to overcome the lack of variable co2? They have asked that you be specific, for example the sun would have needed to be 45% stronger than we have previously observed it to be, or that Enso is 55% more powerful than we believed, or even that there were unprecedented and continous El Ninos that might overcome the lack of warming co2
This question obviously stretches the limits of my Coca-cola experiment (which my wife has strongly advised me not to repeat). I can only call upon personal physical observations and reports by scientific experts regarding solar climate forcing factors.
On a personal basis, I have observed (over many years) that daytime periods (when the sun is shining upon the piece of our planet which I am currently occupying) are warmer there than nighttime periods (when this is not the case). I have also observed that periods of cloudiness (when the sun is blocked) reduce this warming from the sun. I have observed that this cooling occurs rather rapidly. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the 2,500 scientists who occupy themselves with such questions, I must assume that the diurnal variations in global atmospheric CO2 levels are relative small, so I conclude that these physically observed temperature fluctuations are not a result of varying atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but rather on varying degrees of solar “forcing”.
When I read several reports from solar scientists, which tell me that slightly more than half of the warming experienced from 1850 to 2008 can be explained by an unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (the highest in several thousand years), I accept this to be true. One of these studies has concluded that a 0.4 percent change in solar forcing over many decades as was experienced would produce global temperature change of about 0.5ºC. So recalling my own personal physical observations on the direct impact of the sun on temperature I conclude that these guys must be right.
Question 5: They are also convinced that the ice cores must be right-obviously they must believe Peter has the better arguments (glad the trip is off as I think we would have been arguing with them all the time) So what reasons can you suggest -methodology or the physics- that might convince them that the ice cores are unreliable?
The party are keen to reduce their carbon footprint and are happy for you to recycle any answers you may have previously given in this forum.
So Max, no pressure at all (and deal with ‘topic A’ first) but our future financial well being is in your hands as these are VERY good lawyers and they are VERY unhappy with both of us. In fact I am going into hiding for a few days in our favourite skiing village in Switzerland until Sunday- leaving tomorrow morning so hope you can give me answers on my return in a few days so I can persuade them to lift their pending legal action. It’s the last time I’ll try to organise a trip that includes lawyers and warmists!
Yes, Leysin is great. We lived for many years in the French-speaking part of Switzerland and went there occasionally.
As far as pending legal action from the disgruntled lawyers is concerned, I can recommend you contact Robin, who knows the intricacies of the UK legal system well.
The disgruntled warmists should be no problem, since being disgruntled is inherent in the warmist “Lebensanschauung”. They are “disgruntled” (as well as alarmed) when it gets warmer and they are “disgruntled” (as well as dismayed) when it fails to do so. When it actually cools off a bit, they are not only “disgruntled”, but are also totally unable to physically see that this it has cooled (refer to the disserattions of Thomas Kuhn for an explanation of this phenomenon).
Now to ice cores. Here I am totally out of my depth. I tried putting ice cubes into my beaker of Coca-cola and was amazed that it began outgassing rather than rapidly sucking up more CO2 from my kitchen atmosphere as it cooled, in defiance of all the theories on CO2 solubility versus temperature. So I discarded this data point as an “outlier”.
BobFJ has done a bit of studying on this topic, so I can only suggest that you consult him. Maybe Peter has some specific thoughts here, as well.
Hope this has answered your questions. Have fun on your ski trip. We’ll miss you on this site while you’re gone.
Regards,
Max
Robin, your 3225:
Apparently the ‘talking points’ have been issued by the IPCC. Note this article in the Guardian:
Surprising that they chose a relatively cooler period (1951 – 1980) as a reference.
No respite as wintery storms spread over nation
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQD88OqbgOdE8KoAp1_0WQ6L0RPwD953OTPG0
We’re getting beat up pretty badly over here also. Unusually cold weather for this time of year……all due to global warming.
Max,
I guess what you are trying to do is make the most of whatever you can find to maximise the solar contribution to 20th century warming, minimise the amount of warming that actually occurred, add in a few extras like the ‘heat island effect’, throw in a few arguments about long term ‘multidecal’ temperature cycles, and whatever else you can think of to try to cast doubt on the position of the IPCC. Which you guys seem to feel is part of a general UN conspiracy against US interests.
The graph you posted up on the other thread, gives you hope that you’ll be able to collect on our bet. If you do win on that, I do agree I will have a bit of rethinking to do. When El Nino reappears and and Solar cycle 24 gets under way the world temperatures should, if we are right, make another jump. Lets see.
Does anyone else want to have a bit of a flutter alonside Max?
Bob_FJ,
Look you’ve drained me dry on the subject of hockey sticks! I’ve never played the game either on ice or on a field, I really don’t know what else you are wanting me to say.
Over at Gristmill, Dear ol’ Joseph Romm, provided THIS link as a devastating source of information from NASA JPL
I’m actually a bit shocked because, I have previously seen some good rational stuff from this division of NASA, but in this case, very much NO! In this release they address five disparate matters, ALL of which, I think, either contain crap, or need explanation why other sources contradict their assertions, or as to why they do not justify replacement of other GOOD data sources which are arguably more relevant, and whatnot!.
Let me take their second item of an illustration of sea-ice cover in the Atlantic.
Why is it different to at least one other source, and why do they compare apples with bananas?
If no image above, click: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/3114542337_8eee9793f5_o.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Max,
I’d like you to look at the first item in that NASA link, because it is more in your alley.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TonyB,
Do I read in the fourth NASA JPL item that Mauna Loa CO2 levels may also be dropping recently?
Max
Thanks for your reply. I will contact the lawyers upon my return and hope it placates them. I like raclette cheese so please send 2KG over in the post.
One last thing to throw in before I leave-when I adapted my mencken graph to put on the sun spot cycles showing a reasonable but not perfect fit to climate change, someone commented that it was the electro magnetic fields that were the main effect-linked to sun activity.
There is very little sun activity at present so consequently this is interesting. It just shows we don’t know everything.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-magnetic-field-has-massive-breach-scientists-baffled/
Bob
I noticed a drop from daily (but not monthly total) co2 levels a month or two ago but it then corrected ittself because I was going to forecast a lower end to the year than the start. However we shall see, as adjustments are common
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You wrote (3230): “I guess what you are trying to do is make the most of whatever you can find to maximise the solar contribution to 20th century warming, minimise the amount of warming that actually occurred, add in a few extras like the ‘heat island effect’, throw in a few arguments about long term ‘multidecal’ temperature cycles, and whatever else you can think of to try to cast doubt on the position of the IPCC. Which you guys seem to feel is part of a general UN conspiracy against US interests.”
Wow! What a loaded chain of thoughts. Let‘s do a quick reality check. I will ignore the last sentence as meaningless and totally irrelevant to our discussion on the relative natural and anthropogenic contributions to the long-term warming our planet has experienced.
“I guess what you are trying to do is make the most of whatever you can find to maximise the solar contribution to 20th century warming…”
Wrong, Peter (and, of course you know it, to be honest). I have cited several studies by solar scientists on the solar contribution to our long term warming resulting from the unusually high level of solar activity. The stated impact varies from 0.2C to 0.5C, with an arithmetic average of 0.35C. These are the facts as reported by people who are expert in this field, a field where IPCC concedes that its “level of scientific understanding” is “low”. [So you “lost” this one.]
“minimise the amount of warming that actually occurred add in a few extras like the ‘heat island effect’, throw in a few arguments about long term ‘multidecal’ temperature cycles…”
Wrong again, Peter. I have taken the entire Hadley record 1850-2008 as published (with no adjustment for any UHI effect that may have distorted this record a bit).
IPCC prefers to use the linear trend line in establishing longer term warming trends, but you apparently do not like this approach too much, because the result seems “too low”, so would rather not look at linear change over the entire period, but just a “spot check” of the beginning and end of the record.
2008 had a global anomaly of +0.304C according to Hadley. But wait! The year is not over; this is just a 10-month average (since Hadley has not yet published November data).
OK. So let’s take the average of the past 12 months (November 2007 through October 2008). This average is +0.279C.
1850 had a global anomaly of –0.402C according to Hadley.
So over the 158-year period we had a warming of 0.279 + 0.402 = 0.681C (based on this “spot check”)
Golly! Looks like the linear trend line isn’t that far off, after all!
And since it is the approach used by IPCC to establish long-term temperature trends, let’s stick with it for consistency’s sake. [So you have “lost” this part of the argument, as well.]
As far as arguments about “long term ‘multidecal’ temperature cycles” are concerned, it is YOU (3150) that brought up the late 20th century warming period, not I. I have simply taken the long-term overall look at our climate from 1850 to today. [So you have also “lost” this part of your argument.]
So let’s summarize:
The Hadley record shows 0.65C overall linear warming over the entire period 1850-2008.
Several solar scientists agree that the sun made a major contribution to this warming; the arithmetical average of their estimates is 0.35C.
This leaves 0.3C for “anthropogenic” factors (primarily CO2, since IPCC tells us the other anthropogenic factors cancel each other out).
A check of the IPCC assumptions on radiative forcing from these factors (1.6 W/m^2 total from 1750 to 2005) and the greenhouse equations arrives at the same 0.3C increase based on the CO2 increase from 285 ppmv in 1850 to 386 ppmv in 2008.
So, Peter, you have wiggled and squirmed around all this, but I have shot down all of your arguments as meaningless or erroneous.
Sorry. The only thing left for you now is either to admit that the 0.3C anthropogenic warming makes sense or to be obstinate.
Take your pick.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob,
As far as Joe Romm’s sea level graphs are concerned.
The short-term graph is based on satellite altimetry readings. These are so inaccurate (Carl Wunsch and NOAA scientists themselves) and have been subjected to so much “adjustment” and “manipulation” (Nils-Axel Morner) that theu can de discarded as meaningless. Tide gauge records are no longer being published regularly, so it is difficult to check anything after around year 2004.
The long-term graph appears to be an artifact. I have plotted the Proudman data reported by Simon Holgate and it is clear that the early 20th century had a more rapid increase in sea level than the second half.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2690464396_3a2b975c7e_b.jpg
Since the rate swings up and down on a multidecadal basis, it is difficult to find any meaningful trends. Romm’s 3.4 mm/year is a satellite-derived joke. Carl Wunsch estimated this at 1.6 mm/year (conceding that the satellite data are suspect), Nils-Axel Morner estimated it at close to 1 mm/year, Proudman has two reports: in one the rate was 2.0 mm/year in the other it was -0.3 mm/year.
So take your pick, but forget Romm’s stuff. It’s junk science at its best.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob,
Back to sea level.
Simon Holgate (Proudman) has published a study of 20th century sea level. The cumulated sea level increase is plotted in this curve (which sort of looks like Romm’s long range sea level curve).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/3115011399_7f5720f299_b.jpg
Romm states that the overall rise was around 2.0 mm/year, whereas the actual record over the 20th century showed 1.74 mm/year. Since Romm’s curve starts in the 19th century, this could mean that sea level rise was a bit faster back then than today, in order to make the long-term average 15% higher. Or it could mean he pulled his 2.0 mm/year from some dark place.
Most interesting is not what Romm says; it’s what he DOESN’T SAY.
For example, the rate of rise in the first half of the century was 2.03 mm/year or 40% higher than the rate in the second half of the century at 1.45 mm/year.
One can only wonder why Joe Romm failed to include this important trend information on his graph?
Regards,
Max
Pete,
You wrote:
Yes Pete, Max is all wet.
Next he’ll be telling us about a group of politicians that managed to convince a nation through repetitive propaganda and scientific mumbo jumbo that their race was “superior” to all other races providing the impetus to invade their neighbors….. prompting a war that involved nearly every nation on earth and resulted in the death of 60 million people…..such mass manipulation of millions of people is a complete fallacy and could never, ever happen. Anyone who would put forth such a far fetched notion is obviously a paranoid conspiracy theorist…..part of some lunatic fringe group that shouldn’t be taken seriously……..something like the scenario I mention could never happen. Another facet of this imaginary scenario is that strict adherents to the philosophy recruited and indoctrinated their fellow citizens perpetuating the lie creating a self renewing pool of disciples fanatically following the political doctrine. But again, something like this could never, ever occur…….anyone who would suggest that this situation could possibly happen is off his rocker. Another curious phenomenon is that the people that bought this lie actually believed that their involvement and promotion of the doctrine was completely harmless, (at the time).
Maybe he’ll begin to regale us with notions of another conspiracy…….a premise put forth by the leader of a nation, Congressmen and Senators of the nation’s governing body, proclaiming that some imaginary Middle East dictator was secretly accumulating weapons of mass destruction using the premise to justify a “war on terror” and overthrow the evil, maniacal, middle east despot in an effort to steal the region’s natural resources. The conspiracy runs so deep and is so insidious that the politicians manage to persuade other nations to join them in their false crusade…….could never happen.
Or maybe he’ll tell us about a group of politicians that created a “false flag” situation where one of it’s nations warships was “fired upon” justifying a southeast Asian proxy war in order to satisfy the greed of a manipulative, out of control industrial military complex.
Or how about a couple of “scientists” that fabricate fossil evidence in an effort to prove a “missing link”, managing to hoodwink the scientific community for over 40 years before someone actually takes a good hard look at the “evidence”. Accolades and riches are bestowed upon the charlatan scientists……they become the “toast of the town” and travel in the most influential circles with numerous papers proclaiming the authenticity of their find and evidence…….their scientific breakthrough prompts new insights and creates a entirely new field of scientific endeavor which garners millions of dollars to like minded adherents…..
No, these things are simply too far fetched to ever happen.
Hi TonyB
You are probably up on the slopes by now, but will send this response to your 3232 anyway.
Your link to the report on the breach in the Earth’s magnetic field is interesting. It is still to early to know how the 2,500 IPCC consnsus scientists will categorize this phenomenon.
With the Goddard Space Flight Center folks in the act, it will probably be classified as a “positive feedback” from increased anthropogenic CO2 levels if it results in a warming of our planet.
If it results in a cooling, it will most ikely be classified as an unusual one-time natural anomaly that is temporarily “masking” the underlying warming trend from AGW.
Let’s wait and see.
Regards,
Max
Tony B,
It seems that you have some people out there that agree with you. Ah, affirmation!
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855
Hi Bob,
BTW my statement (3235) that the first half of the 20th century (when there was little increase in CO2) showed a higher rate of sea level increase (2.03 mm/year) than the second half (1.45 mm/year, despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 increased “dramatically”) is not MY observation alone.
If you check the report on sea levels from Simon Holgate (of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory) you will read:
“Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), [when atmospheric CO2 increased by around 20 ppmv], in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003), [when atmospheric CO2 increased by 62 ppmv]. The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (?1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.” [CO2 increase inserted by me.]
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
Looks like Romm failed to do his homework – or is he possibly “cherry picking” the data that prove his point (for shame!). You can make up your own mind on this question, Bob. (Based on his past record I have zero respect for this jerk; I personally believe that he is a total liar and charlatan).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Now that we have (finally) closed the chapter on the long-term warming attributable to natural (solar) and anthropogenic (CO2) forcing, we can move on to your post # 3221 on the causes for earlier ice ages.
For a simplified summary of the ‘Milankovitch hypothesis’ of ice ages see:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ice-age.html
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/nd97/alacarte.asp
This quotation gives a good summary, “The triggering of ice ages remained a mystery until recent discoveries confirmed that their timing matches recurring changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. These cycles cause long-term climate changes by altering the amount and distribution of sunlight on the planet.”
A pertinent quotation of more recent confirmation of this hypothesis is, “In the last twenty years geologists and oceanographers have developed methods that enable them to measure indirectly, the past course and variations in the melting and freezing of the ice caps. The more refined these measurements have become, the better they fit Milankovitch’s model predictions of the waxing and waning of the ice ages of the past 2 million years.”
You have written:
“There are a lot of unknowns about causes of previous ice ages, but we can calculate that the changes in the solar flux reaching Earth are, in the last two cases (“the tilt of Earth’s rotational axis”, “changes in the orientation of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun” and “changes in the shape, more round or less round, of the elliptical orbit”) very small. In first case it is actually zero. A change in the earth’s tilt just doesn’t make any net difference. The reduced flux in the colder winters is exactly equal to the increased flux in the warmer summers.”
Your reasoning is flawed here, Peter. If you read the write-ups on the ‘Milankovitch hypothesis’ of ice ages, you will see that your statement, “a change in the earth’s tilt just doesn’t make any net difference” is not correct. There is, indeed, a significant forcing from solar changes (as Milankovitch calculated and proposed) and the impact of this “change in the earth’s tilt” on climate is explained.
It could well be that some of the mechanisms at play are still unknown to us (as are a whole lot of things about our planet’s climate (as TonyB’s recent post #3232 demonstrated) and can therefore not be calculated directly. One possible example of a yet-to-be-proven hypothesis is the cosmic ray / cloud connection proposed by Svensmark, which will soon be investigated at CERN.
Now to your statement:
“This does suggest that the Earth’s climate is not at all stable and that a small push can produce a big change as the climate cycles in and out of glaciation. In other words the climate does contain inherently large positive feedbacks.”
This is inherently an unsubstantiated “statement of faith”. (Sorry, Peter, it sounds like a Hansen regurgitation to me).
Yes, there could also have been the “feedback” from an increase in reflection of incoming solar energy due to greater ice coverage, but some major forcing factor had to start the greater ice coverage in the first place and this was presumably solar.
As to other postulated net “large positive feedbacks” from water vapor and clouds, etc., it is pure speculation to suggest that these had any impact on ice ages or on today’s climate, as there is no evidence for such feedbacks.
Inasmuch as we have not seen the impacts of these “large positive feedbacks” in the recent 150+ year warming of our planet (as we have demonstrated in our earlier exchange), it is silly to assume “a priori” that they played a major role in earlier climate fluctuations.
Regards,
Max
Max,
The solar flux is known to be unchanged since the 1950’s. Whatever the percentage of temperature rise that may have been attributable to solar effects before then, it doesn’t change the evidence that solar change wasn’t responsible for late 20th century warming.
It should be possible to have a sensible discussion with sensible people about the contribution of solar effects, and that would include those who advocate very similar figures to your own. However, it isn’t possible to to engage in any sort of seriousness with those whose rabid minded opinions which, as Brute has put it, lead them to ‘put forth such far fetched notions’ and are ‘obviously paranoid conspiracy theorists’.
The guys at climateaudit obviously know that too, and that those who reject the CO2 record are of that category. Sensibly enough, they don’t seem to take the view that there is an even bigger story than the Hockey stick to be pursued!
So would you say that you are more like Steve McIntyre or do you line up with the more nuttier elements such as Tim Ball?
You are right about explanations given for ice ages. It is often stated as being obviously true that any change in the angle of tilt of the earth’s axis should have a large effect on the earth’s climate. I’m not saying that it doesn’t, but it’s far from obvious. Just think about it for a minute. If the earth is perfectly spherical the amount of solar radiation incident on the earth’s surface is clearly unchanged as the tilt angle varies. Now, I know that the earth is not a perfect sphere, but the difference and resultant effect is tiny. Much less than the GHG effect which we have spent so much time discussing.
Hi Peter,
You just wrote (3241): “The solar flux is known to be unchanged since the 1950’s. Whatever the percentage of temperature rise that may have been attributable to solar effects before then, it doesn’t change the evidence that solar change wasn’t responsible for late 20th century warming.”
Peter, you are beating a dead horse here with your statement. I have provided the links to several studies that directly disagree with your statement that “The solar flux is known to be unchanged since the 1950’s.”
It is generally known from these many studies that the 20th century was a period of unusually high solar activity, with longer-lasting periods than normal (the highest in several thousand years). This significant positive trend continued into the late 20th century.
As to what was “responsible for late 20th century warming”, most studies concluded that only the solar impact, based on known mechanisms alone, could not have caused all of the warming.
But it certainly makes more sense to look at long-term trends rather just concentrating on a brief 25+ year segment (as IPCC has done ad nauseam in its 1,000-page AR4 report to justify a strong forcing from AGW). You, yourself, Peter, have repeatedly told me to look at long-term trends, rather than shorter multi-decadal cycles. Follow your own advice.
The long-term conclusion is that AGW caused 0.3C warming over the whole 150+ year Hadley temperature record (as the greenhouse theory and the stated radiative forcing of 1.6 W/m^2 per IPCC confirm) while solar effects caused 0.35C (as the many solar studies have confirmed). The total observed linear warming was 0.65C, so we have a fit.
You have been unable to show that this conclusion is incorrect. Making an unsubstantiated (and largely irrelevant) statement “The solar flux is known to be unchanged since the 1950’s” does not change all this.
You followed up this unsubstantiated statement with a curious philosophical observation, “It should be possible to have a sensible discussion with sensible people about the contribution of solar effects, and that would include those who advocate very similar figures to your own. However, it isn’t possible to engage in any sort of seriousness with those whose rabid minded opinions which, as Brute has put it, lead them to ‘put forth such far fetched notions’ and are ‘obviously paranoid conspiracy theorists’.”
Are you implying that the many authors of the solar studies, which I cited, hold “rabid minded opinions” or “put forth far fetched notions” or are “obviously paranoid conspiracy theorists”? Or are you possibly referring to me here?
I have been trying for several posts to “have a sensible discussion with sensible people about the contribution of solar effects” (in the assumption that you are a “sensible person”).
In so doing I have shown you that one can explain all the warming of the past 150+ years with the anthropogenic factors as estimated by IPCC plus the solar factors as estimated by many solar experts.
You have “weaved and dodged” around the subject but have been unable to refute these studies and conclusions.
So the conclusion stands and we can move on to the “past ice ages” discussion.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Back to ice ages.
Your “angle of tilt” reasoning seems logical, although I do not accept your unfounded postulation that “the difference and resultant effect is tiny. Much less than the GHG effect which we have spent so much time discussing.”
But the problem with our planet’s climate is that what seems logical is often an oversimplification that ignores factors that may not be so logical or simple or may not even be understood by scientists today.
Let’s take glaciation as an example. The “tilt” theory in one of the cited references postulates: “Summers turn cooler when Earth is farthest from the sun and the axis is less steeply tilted toward it. Unmelted winter snow and ice accumulate from year to year, and an ice age can begin.”
It is much like the glaciers today. There is a dynamic process at work here, as well. When the glacial flow and melting exceed the amount of winter snow (as has been the case in many alpine glaciers over the past 150+ years), the glacier begins to recede and lose mass. The relationship is often not directly attributable to temperatures alone (the logical simple explanation), since warmer winters may result in heavier snowfall and net glacial growth.
Sometimes I have to laugh at pro-AGW press releases that talk of record calving of polar glaciers as “evidence of mass loss” (caused by higher temperatures resulting from AGW, of course). It is as silly as looking at the massive outflow of the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico and saying, “boy this river is going to run dry if this level of outflow keeps up.”
Applying oversimplified logic to analyze something as complex as our planet’s climate is fraught with danger.
Cranking these oversimplified assumptions into multi-million dollar computer models and expecting to get out a meaningful prediction on what our planet’s climate will do over the next 100 years is pure insanity.
Regards,
Max
Here is a link that may interest those of you who are discussing Co2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7769619.stm
Financial meltdown defrocks deceit of man-made global warming
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5734
Hi Brute,
This chart shows how well IPCC can forecast.
If they can’t even get the next 8 years right, how in the world do they expect us to believe their forecasts for 2100?
Looks the the wheels are coming off of the global warming bandwagon and the whole AGW gravy train is headed for the ditch (as your article pointed out).
Regards,
Max
Excellent graph Max.
I’ll pass that one around to all of my right wing, fascists, paranoid, conspiracy theorist, polluting, materialistic, (taxpaying), friends.
By the way, bitter cold winter weather has inundated us here in America……record snowfall in Las Vegas yesterday……yes, Vegas. Bitter cold and massive winter storms from Canada down into the southern States. The snow is piling up in New England which is great for our planned “Inauguration” ski trip. We’ve decided to rent one of the wings of the Brute palace to some out of town suckers that want to stand in the cold for the swearing in of their new Messiah. They rent for a week netting us $8,000.00 which should cover our ski trip to New Hampshire and a portion of our midwinter cruise to Cozumel Mexico.
Not to worry, we’re keeping warm here in the Brute palace, just threw another log into the new Brute woodstove and have even worked out a deal with a local provider to take a couple of truckloads of shredded automobile tires to shovel in with the firewood once in a while to save on the cost of collecting wood and spending unnecessary dollars on gasoline/oil for my chainsaw. I also have more time on my hands, which I would have used to cut down groves of trees….. to enjoy ourselves watching the Nature Channel on our new widescreen television.
So you see Pete, I am an environmentalist at heart…..I’ve removed tons of unused waste automobile tires from the landfill stream and I’m saving money………and burning less gas/electric which otherwise would be adding to the global warming impact.
Max,
No the sort of people that I had in mind, the rabid ‘foaming at the mouth’ types, were the sort of people who write for “canadafreepress” and similar. Such as this one:
“Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?
By Dr. Tim Ball
I guess that the good Dr Ball wants to believe that he was “told otherwise” as part of some evil plot to destabilise western capitalism. Although AGW is a problem that affects us all, capitalist and socialist alike.
I don’t think you have proved anything by your ‘law of averages’. There are lots of papers saying that , whereas earlier warming can be explained by the sun, it can’t be for the late 20th century warming. Such as this one:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
The authors concluded, in 2005, that “during these last 30 years the solar total radiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.” I can give lots more references if you need them.
There is an interesting new take on AGW from Wisconsin Uni suggesting that AGW has been taking place longer than generally recognised and historically has not been such a bad thing.
http://newswise.com/articles/view/547541
“Human-induced climate change began not 200 years ago, but thousands of years ago with the onset of large-scale agriculture in Asia and extensive deforestation in Europe. What’s more, according to the same computer simulations, the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age”
It’s an interesting concept, and if true, does suggest that climate and atmospheric management
is going to be a necessary part of keeping the earth inhabitable for future generations.
Hi Peter,
As far as I am informed, Dr. Timothy Ball is a Canadian scientist with an extensive background in climatology, especially experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations and the impact of government policy on business and economics.
Together with several other scientists in this field, he does not believe that human CO2 is causing (or will in the future cause) any serious problems for our planet. He is opposed to carbon taxes or other policy measures aimed at reducing human CO2 emissions, as these will have no noticeable impact on our climate.
Sounds like a pretty reasonable guy to me.
Certainly more reasonable than another climatologist, Dr. James E. Hansen, who warns us shrilly of imminent “tipping points” that will lead to imminent inundation of all coastal cities, extinction of many species and destroy our world as we know it, unless we subscribe to carbon taxes immediately and shut down coal-fired power stations.
In contrast to Dr. Hansen (whose proclamations seem a bit squirrelly to me), I have not seen any evidence to show that Dr. Ball holds “rabid minded opinions” or “puts forth far fetched notions” or is “obviously a paranoid conspiracy theorist.” If you have any evidence pointing in this direction, I would be interested in seeing it.
Regards,
Max