Mar 172008

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS

At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.

This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.

(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)

 

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

  1. There’s a wonderfully cockeyed article here by George Monbiot, the Guardian‘s tame AGW alarmist. After kindly describing people with whom he disagrees politically as “neocon nutcases”, he attacks George Bush’s decision to bail out the big US motor manufacturers – for doing something left-wing! He thinks, you see, that the motor industry is a prime cause of climate change and its failure would be a step towards saving the planet. After all, they deserve it: their problem “is entirely of their own making”. But that doesn’t stop him from then attacking Bush again for insisting that “the rescued manufacturers cut their workers’ wages and benefits”.

    So it’s OK to say that Detroit should be allowed to die – with totally devastating consequences for many thousands of people – yet equally OK to say that Bush is really the right-wing enemy of the working people he is saving.

  2. Hi Peter,

    You wrote: “You’ve somewhat missed the point of my last posting, which was who was making the arguments which I’m sure you’ve all heard before. They are, essentially, the position of mainstream science on the AGW issue. Which you obviously have a problem with.”

    Yes, Peter. But you have apparently missed my point, as well.

    But first to your point.

    The words you quoted were not written and published by “mainstream science”, but by a political organization called the IPCC. This is the group that “was making the arguments”, in order to “sell” to “policymakers” their version of the AGW issue.

    Now you may argue that their words represent “the position of mainstream science on the AGW issue”, but this is a claim that you cannot back up with any hard statistics.

    If one looks around a bit one finds scores of scientists who do not share this position, many of whom have gone public with their concerns that climate science is being hijacked by a political, agenda-driven process.

    So yes, just like these many scientists I also have a problem with this.

    But let’s move on to my point.

    I see that you have definitely missed the point of my last posting, which was not so much a discussion of WHO was making the arguments. It was about the ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES.

    In simply continuing your quotation to its completion, I pointed out errors, exaggeration, phony comparisons and an outright lie in the balance of the paragraph you quoted.

    Which I obviously have a problem with, as you put it. Don’t you?

    Regards,

    Max

  3. Aw, Brute, there you go again, questioning a beautiful and well-thought out theory with (shudder!) observed facts. Don’t be such a spoil-sport.

    As Peter has reassured us, multi-million dollar models driven by 2,500 climate scientists (in goose-step consensus) tell us it is warming by 0.2C per decade and will warm by up to 6C by the year 2100.

    But the thermometers out there are telling us that it is cooling; and then there are the record snows in Europe and North America.

    The physical observations must be wrong, because the theory can’t be.

    But maybe we ought to switch the name of our gambit from “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” to “anthropogenic climate change” (just to be on the safe side).

    Regards,

    Max

  4. Hi Peter,

    You seem to be implying that the quotations you posted (3265) originated “from the nuclear power lobby” (3274).

    As I pointed out to you, the quotations originated from the IPCC 2007 SPM report (p.5).

    They did NOT originate from the nuclear power lobby (which apparently quoted them verbatim later).

    Regards,

    Max

  5. Hi Peter,

    Here’s a riddle for you.

    In its latest AR4 2007 SPM report IPCC tells us that the total linear warming over the “past century” (1906-2005) was 0.74°C.

    It also states, “The linear warming trend over the last 50 years [1956 to 2005] (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years” [0.074°C per decade].

    Does this mean we have an ominous “hockey stick”?

    Or is this simply the “smoke and mirrors” of comparing trends over long and shorter-term periods?

    Let’s do a check the other way around (with the shorter-term period at the beginning rather than the end).

    As the chart shows (as you advised me earlier, “a picture is worth 1,000 words”):
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/3125294364_4a1ee133c5_b.jpg

    We see (to paraphrase IPCC) that the linear warming trend over the first 40 years [1906 to 1945] (0.135°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the entire 100 years [0.074°C per decade]. [And, incidentally a “smidgen” higher than the “last 50 year trend” quoted by IPCC.]

    In addition, the linear warming over this initial 40-year period was 0.54°C out of the total 0.74°C.

    Does this mean that one could say “most of the 20th century warming occurred by 1945”?

    Would this imply a “negative hockey stick”?

    The riddle is even more confusing when one looks at the CO2 record (which IPCC blames for most of the warming).

    The first 40 years (with most of the warming) had an increase of 17 ppmv (from 292 to 309 ppmv), while the next 60 years had an increase of 70 ppmv (to 379 ppmv).

    How can it be that most of the warming occurred when only a small percentage of the CO2 increase occurred?

    Is this evidence that CO2 plays only a minor role, at best, in our planet’s warming?

    Or is this comparison also simply the “smoke and mirrors” of comparing trends over long and shorter-term periods?

    What would you say, Peter?

    Regards,

    Max

  6. There was a “typo” on the chart I posted. Corrected version below:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/3125614694_b42312740a_b.jpg

  7. Hi Peter,

    Just for the “fun” of it, I checked out the IPCC claim of a “linear warming trend over the last 50 years [1956-2005] of 0.13°C per decade”, which was stated to be “nearly twice that for the last 100 years” [0.74°C per decade].

    Turns out that the linear warming trend over this period was really 0.126°C per decade, or 70% higher than the trend for the 100-year period.

    “A little round-up here plus a little there” help to make a bogus comparison of short and longer-term trends sound more alarming and create the impression of a virtual hockey-stick (where there is none). Great stuff!

    Regards,

    Max

  8. Hi Max

    Re; the Harmless Sky ski expedition to your house.

    Well I’m back from the snowy wastes of Switzerland. My wife fell over on ice which necessitated a visit to the famously expensive but efficient Swiss doctor (fortunately a sprain rather than a break). Due to AGW the resort was having its best start to a season in fifty years because of the depth of snow.

    But lets get down to business and talk about this impending law suit due to our alleged breach of contract following the abortive Harmless sky ski party to your house.

    I thought the lawyers were going to be big trouble, but they seemed satisfied enough with your explanations in your recent post, although a little confused by your coca cola analogy-commenting that if you doused ice bergs in the stuff surely the co2 in the beverage would be released and worsen global warming?

    One lawyer insisted that for it to be properly scientific you needed to repeat the coca cola experiment in your kitchen ten times-turns out he was a divorce lawyer hoping to create some new business! I said you were in enough trouble with your new snow machine without annoying your wife even more with sticky kitchen floors.

    Nope, the group I was still having trouble with until this afternoon were five accountants and an actuary.

    Now the actuary-as actuaries do- thought she would amuse herself by working through the entire Hadley records back to 1660 in order to see for herself the alarming warming trend over the centuries. She based her calculations on a three score year and ten life span, and worked out the average annual mean temperature enjoyed by ‘Everyman’ through each year of each decade, assuming he was born at the start of a decade and died the last year of the decade seventy years later. She murmured that it is all our fates to experience a lifetime of fluctuating temperatures, but this method would overcome the inaccuracies created by calculating only short term trends.

    These are her calculations;

    Someone born in Britain in 1660 and living to 70- Average annual temp 8.87c

    Some one in 1670 and living to 70 Average annual temp 8.98

    1680 9.01
    1690 9.05
    1700 9.19
    1710 9.21
    1720 9.17
    1730 9.14
    1740 9.04
    1750 9.03
    1760 9.08
    1770 9.10
    1780 9.07
    1790 9.12
    1800 9.15
    1810 9.13
    1820 9.14
    1830 9.12
    1840 9.10
    1850 9.14 (Start of the famously reliable Hadley global temperatures)
    1860 9.17
    1870 9.21
    1880 9.30
    1890 9.39
    1900 9.40
    1910 9.46
    1920 9.497
    1930 9.60
    1940 9.70 (projected to 2009)
    1950 9.76 a bit of a guess and assumes current trends continue
    1960 9.83 a wild guess and assumes current trends continue

    The actuary has a poetic turn of mind and decided to call the period from 1660 to 1880 as ‘LIA Everyman’ in as much they lived part of their lives during the little ice age, and those born from 1890 to the present day as ‘UHI Everyman’ (although she assures me that no adjustments have been made to correct UHI Everyman’s well known tendency to exaggerate his (or her) temperatures)

    It was at this point that the accountants became really interested-they’re at a bit of a loose end as they’re the group who audit the annual EU accounts-they’ve refused to endorse them for 12 years in a row now, and say its so easy to spot the fraud that its not a full time job anymore! Consequently they hope to get some work with the IPCC as they see them as a rapidly growing enterprise that are as fond of throwing meaningless and unsubstantiated-some might unkindly say fraudulent –numbers around as the EU are.

    They all agreed that 0.4C of a degree increase in mean average temperatures during Everyman’s lifetime calculated over a period of 300 years was so well within natural variability it was difficult to make any useful analogy, other than it was the sort of increase in average warmth that would be completely unnoticed in a life span and was unlikely to have any effect on the warmth of the clothes they wore or the day they might attempt to have their first swim in the sea of the year.

    The accountants were also intrigued by the fact that the very slight rise in overall temperatures is almost entirely due to the absence of cold winters depressing overall temperatures, rather than hotter summers. At this point the actuary mentioned that warmer winters were good, as fewer people died.

    Demonstrating that they are keen followers of the blogs at Harmless Sky one accountant mentioned that surely 0.4 of a degree was the exact amount that a Mr Max Manacker attributed to solar activity? I hastily steered them away from this subject, as the mention of your name might have reminded them of their grievance with us.

    All in all the accountants and actuary have decided that once a leading newspaper prints a satirical cartoon of the Mencken quote “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    people will realise the hobgoblins are leading them by the nose and the IPCC bubble will burst quicker than the financial one. Consequently they’re eager to tap into the AGW market whilst its still there, and have agreed to form the ‘Mencken group of concerned climate accountants.’ They reckon that any government or big corporation that could fall for this nonsense is ripe to be exploited and milked of every cent they have( I think they actually used the word ‘assist’ and ‘cost effective fees.’)

    The ‘Mencken group of concerned climate accountants’ hope to arrange some meetings by attending the forthcoming Davos economic forum. They intend to target the UK government contingent-famous for throwing public money around on pointless causes. They have hired a group of environmentalists to dress up as polar bears and parade round the forum with some frightening facts on placards;

    “UK annual emissions are a one hundred millionth of total air-ACT NOW!”

    ‘ Our 0.5 of a molecule in a million of GHG is 0.5 too much-tax the polluters NOW!’

    They will also be chanting;

    “What do we want? A 20% reduction in Britain’s contribution of 0.5 of man made molecules of co2 per 100,000 since 1750… when do we want it? Within 50 years.”

    So as you can see the activists of the Harmless Sky ex ski party have got bigger fish to fry than you and me. The actuary-who seems pretty bright- is anxious to get some contracts signed before it’s realised that a 70 year old born in the MWP or Roman, or Bronze age times would have enjoyed temperatures rather warmer than today and that co2 can’t be blamed for that. I told them that surely they would only have a few months before the IPCC are rumbled, but they’re more optimistic of the gullibility of governments, corporations and individuals, and think they might have around 5 years before the whole enterprise collapses like a cheese soufflé in a cold north wind-assuming that no one prints the satirical Mencken cartoon first of course.

    The actuary also pointed out that although some might think that the 70 year old ‘Everyman’ calculations were a little contrived, they were a whole lot more accurate and meaningful than the 1850 global temperatures. I agreed with her as its rude to argue with a lady.

    TonyB

  9. Max,

    I think we’ve had the early vs late 20th century warming argument before. There is a widespread assumption, which I once shared, that the early warming was mainly, if not all, from natural causes.

    However, this may not be correct, as the link to the Wisconsin Uni report which I gave earlier shows. Also there are a whole range of hockey stick graphs, not just Mann’s famous 1999 version; all of which show the ‘blade’ starting around the turn of the 20th century.

    The earth has drifted in and out of ice ages, with associated temperature changes of 5 -6 deg C, periodically over the past few million years. That has happened naturally and with no anthropogenic input. This indicates that the climate is not naturally stable and that a small forcing, or a slight push, causes the climate to naturally shift by a larger amount. Or, in other words, the positive feedbacks in the system outweigh the negative feedbacks.

    Of course, a return to ice age conditions is just as undesirable as a thermal runaway. What we are all, and the next generations more than this one, going have to get used to is the concept of climate and atmospheric management.

  10. TonyB

    Welcome back to the site! We missed you as you were struggling with the unusual anthropogenic snow and ice on your ski holiday; I hope your wife did not suffer too much from the accident on the ice and the famously expensive but efficient Swiss doctors.

    My wife is still in a bit of a twit because of my coca-cola CO2 outgassing experiment and the new snow machine.

    But back to our main topic: I believe your “everyman” calculation could well be a radical new approach to “humanize” the current AGW crisis.

    I would suggest (as I am sure your accountants, lawyers and actuary would agree) to appoint an independent external auditor to ensure the reliability of the computer models being employed. I could suggest the firm Arthur Anderson, which has extensive experience in the related energy sector, as you will recall, in guiding Enron at the time, like IPCC “a rapidly growing enterprise that was fond of throwing meaningless and unsubstantiated – some might unkindly say fraudulent – numbers around”, as you say.

    The “mean lifetime ‘everyman’ globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” can provide an invaluable index for establishing an improved understanding of the direct impact of our current AGW crisis on humanity on a very personal basis.

    This index can be established at birth for newborn infants, based on model projections of future globally averaged anthropogenic temperature changes and actuarial tables on globally averaged life expectancies, with the possibility to calculate the projected future reduction in human life expectancy directly attributable to AGW.

    This could become a valuable “mitigation” tool. Let me explain.

    If today a newborn infant has a globally averaged actuarial life expectancy (GAALE) of 70 years, for example, with a globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly (GALSSTA) of 0.4C, growing to a projected 1.5C over these 70 years (as currently projected by the models), this represents an increase in GALSSTA of 1.9% per year (compounded, of course).

    Since we are aware that the overall lifetime increase in “GALSSTA” (let’s call this T) will result in a reduction of the “GAALE” (let’s call this L), we can establish a relationship whereby L will reduce with increasing annual GALSSTA to maintain a constant T (and thereby save humanity from extinction).

    In effect, this means that humans will have to “mitigate” downward their GAALE by 1.9% per year to accommodate the increased GALSSTA in order to solve the AGW problem at its source. The table below shows how this would impact life expectancy for various future dates of birth (DOB):

    DOB – Life Expectancy (years)
    2008 – 70
    2020 – 56
    2030 – 46
    2040 – 38
    2050 – 31
    2060 – 26
    2070 – 21

    A second derivative can easily be introduced to account for the expectation that decreased human life expectancy (as is anticipated from the effects of AGW) should result in a deceleration of the increase in human population, thereby reducing the long-term human CO2 emissions and resulting GALSSTA accordingly.

    This “negative feedback” can easily be programmed into the “storylines” and “scenarios” of our computer models, possibly resulting in a deceleration of the lowering of life expectancy, at the same time ensuring that we will not be exposed to irreversible “tipping points” leading to destruction of our planet.

    By the time that human life expectancy has been mitigated downward to 21 years, the problem of increased human population (and resulting increased greenhouse emissions) should have been essentially resolved (except for the occasional teenage pregnancy) and humanity should have been saved from the projected ravages of AGW.

    Your index can also provide the opportunity to “hindcast” the output of the computer models to increase the “level of scientific understanding” of the parameters involved in assessing future forecasts resulting from current as well as projected future anthropogenic developments in CO2 emissions.

    All we need now, Tony, is a multibillion-dollar grant (or even better, at the current exchange rate, a multibillion-pound sterling grant) to put this radical new “mitigation” plan into action.

    Try first (with the UK environmental office) to get a small piece of the action now going to Hadley and other groups who are already eagerly lined up at the trough.

    I will do my best with the (admittedly smaller and somewhat less generous) BUWAL (the federal department of environment here), to see if the federal government still has available funding for such crucial projects after having bailed out UBS.

    Lots of luck!

    Regards,

    Max

  11. Hi Peter,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response 3285.

    I truly believe that your earnest wish for global “climate and atmospheric management” is even more utopian and unattainable than global “economy management” (as we are now witnessing).

    Face it, Peter.

    We (at the current level of science) do not really know enough about what causes our climate to fluctuate to have even a remote idea of what we would need to do (or even less be physically able to do) to affect any real changes in our future climate.

    It is a pipe dream, Peter.

    To think we know what we would need to do to change our climate (and that we could actually achieve this) represents an unbelievably arrogant and totally unrealistic anthropocentric overestimation of our own human capabilities.

    Forget it.

    Regards,

    Max

  12. “the concept of climate and atmospheric management.”

    This is great Peter; I’ve never quite heard this terminology before.

    What “atmosphere” would you prefer? What specific temperature would be your ultimate goal? What are the ideal temperature/atmospheric conditions for the globe? Let me know and I’ll call up Room Service and place the order.

    Made to order weather conditions……now I’ve heard it all….and just when I thought that I’d heard every idiotic idea there is, you’ve topped them all.

    Sound like the evil plan from a sinister character in an Ian Fleming novel, (Fleming wrote fiction Peter).

  13. Hi Peter,

    Back to your statement:
    “The earth has drifted in and out of ice ages, with associated temperature changes of 5 -6 deg C, periodically over the past few million years. That has happened naturally and with no anthropogenic input. This indicates that the climate is not naturally stable and that a small forcing, or a slight push, causes the climate to naturally shift by a larger amount. Or, in other words, the positive feedbacks in the system outweigh the negative feedbacks.”

    This is not correct, Peter. There is no evidence of “positive feedbacks” which outweigh “negative feedbacks”.

    What you call a “small forcing or a slight push” may, in fact have been large enough to cause the climate change without any additonal “feedback” effect. You are simply speculating here, Peter.

    The fact that our climate is relatively stable does indicate that there are modulating factors at work (call them “negative feedbacks” if that makes you happy).

    But there is no physical evidence to support the Hansen theory of an inherently unstable climate system, which is being whiplashed between extremes by strongly positive feedbacks. This is computer generated GIGO and Hansen hype, Peter.

    Don’t be a sucker and fall for it.

    The drift from warmer to colder periods in the past has been a natural phenomenon (as you say), with many of the underlying reasons still unkown to us, and it will continue to be so in the future, with our without our relatively puny human CO2 emissions.

    Regards,

    Max

  14. Max,

    No, its nothing to do with computers. The original calculations would have all been manual. Except, these days its much easier to use them to do the associated maths.

    The point is that many (most?) people are aware that ice ages occur periodically every 100,000 years and can be explained by perturbations to the earth’s orbit. The so-called Milankovitch cycles.

    Which is all very well, until we get down to the detail of how it all works. The climate forcing from these perturbations is tiny. Much less than your ‘puny human CO2 emissions.’ If these can push or pull the earth in and out of ice ages, there is no doubt at all that human CO2 emissions can produce serious climatic change.

    For those of us who don’t subscribe to any supernatural theories of the origins of the earth, and life on it, there does not seem to be any rational reason to doubt that the annual 25Gt of CO2 emissions from 6+ billion humans is a potentially serious cause of unwanted climatic change.

    On the other hand, if you do happen to believe that the earth was created specifically as a home for us, then it would also follow that a benevolent creator wouldn’t have given us this huge problem to deal with.

    You’ve talked about praying in previous emails. Is there any real evidence that it will do any good?

  15. Robin,

    Re: Your 3276.

    When you give away money to the wealthiest class in society, this is better described as old-fashioned kleptocracy and it’s a step back towards feudalism. It’s not socialism or even a step towards it.

    Mention the word ‘oligarch’, and most people might think of post USSR Russia. But, is the USA, and increasingly other western societies, really any different? The Oligarchs have the influence in all political parties to protect their own interests. At the moment they are in a bit of trouble. They’ve made some bad decisions and have some seriously large bad debts. They are really wanting the taxpayers to cover their bad debts and bad investment decisions. Who wouldn’t? We all have a few of those that we would rather someone else pick up the tab for. However, they have to dress up their arguments in terms that might have a broader appeal. Of course there are jobs. Pension funds for the little guy. Small investors and homeowners with mortgages have to be the priority.

    Its all BS of course. The ones who really have the influence are the big investors, the oligarchs. That’s why its such an expensive exercise. That’s why the bill to bail them out is already running into the $ trillions.

  16. Max, Reur 3234/5 & 7
    TonyB Reur 3205/9 & 3212, subject Sea Levels & Romm
    First of all, I’m sorry for my delay in response but I’ve lacked both time and confidence in the matter. It is a huge topic!
    I was provoked by Romm to take a look at the following website
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ and decided that it was a “can of worms” probably more worms than I could find in my compost bin if I had time. BTW; did you know they claim to calibrate satellite to tide gauges, among other things. I’m no statistician or mathematician, but boy, I just marvel at the bravery in some of their many correction assumptions, and how to establish any estimate of a host of error levels. (Could be as bad as ice-cores and tree-rings?). I guess that what really happens is that the plotted data points are derived from perhaps millions of data, and things tend to smooth-out against some unknown error mean-deviation-from-actual. (such that the end scatter looks good, but may be full of mean error)

    Then, quite apart from the Uni’ Colorado smoke-screen, you two tossed-in a heap of other stuff which makes Uni’ Colorado and NASA JPL @
    http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/images/SeaLevelGraphic1.jpg and the way Romm treats it, extremely doubtful to me.

    Now hear ye this: dear ol’ Joe made HIS unsourced statement, in bold emphasis displayed thus:

    Sea levels are still rising more than 50 percent faster now than pre-1990.

    As of a moment ago, my latest post (of four) over there at Gristmill, #16, has not resulted in any response by Romm et al.
    There is plenty of opportunity for me to comment on other sillies by Romm, but I feel it would be good if either or both of you could add more expert support on the sea-level stuff. Also, I’d like to try and outnumber the hyper-warmies so-far that don’t like what I wrote: Bob Wallace (2), Pangolin (2), Josullivan (1), amazingdrx (1), and one new-to-me, a desktop type: Itfitzme (1). (possibly Romm himself?)

    BTW; In my comments over there concerning curvilinear sea-level trends, I’m simply commenting on the trends as clearly seen in the data as presented, which Romm, Pangolin, and Itfitzme all deny. That does not mean that I accept the data as being true, just as I do not accept any graph of “Global Average Temperature“. (a meaningless number in my view, but we are stuck with it)

  17. Brute, Reur 3288,
    You wrote in part to Peter Martin:

    What “atmosphere” would you prefer? What specific temperature would be your ultimate goal? What are the ideal temperature/atmospheric conditions for the globe? Let me know and I’ll call up Room Service and place the order.

    Look I’m not trying to be finicky, but when you wrote “Room Service” above, did you actually mean to type “Romm service”?

  18. Today is the anniversary of my first post on this thread – on 22nd December last year. It was numbered about 111 (and was a rather unimportant comment on an attempt to compare the AGW hypothesis with Y2K warnings). However, I’d like to pay tribute to the remarkable fact that JZ Smith posted the first comment of all on 19th December. I hope he won’t mind my quoting it here – his point is still relevant and worth repetition:

    Too bad the AGW has already left the station. As a skeptic moving further toward skepticism, I am disappointed that so many scientists have apparently accepted the finality of AGW. Those most strongly touting the “truth” of AGW are forcing themselves into the position of eventually either flip-flopping on the issue, or, more disturbingly, working to silence those voices with whom they disagree.

    Bobclive also beat me: his first post was number 26 on 20th December when he wrote about the urban heat effect. Brute first appeared on 27th December (post number 166 (approx)) when he illustrated the nonsense of the claim that the AGW debate is “settled”. I hope I haven’t overlooked any other early contributors.

    So it seems we started well. And we have yet to run out of steam: overall, this will be about post number 6300 of a thread that, for over a year, has maintained a high level of erudition, interest, momentum and, unlike most blogs, civilised and courteous interaction – as JZ commented recently. An extraordinary achievement. I congratulate everyone, but most especially TonyN for making it possible.

    I won’t be posting again before Christmas. So I wish everyone the very best for the 25th and (despite the world’s many worrying and possibly disastrous economic problems) a happy and peaceful New Year. Let’s hope it proves to be rather less eventful than 2008 – although I’m not holding my breath. My especial good wishes to Peter. Thanks and congratulations for staying the course. But it must be particularly dispiriting for you, as someone who truly believes that mankind faces calamity if CO2 emissions are not severely curtailed, to see increasing emissions from China, India, etc. exacerbated by the failure of Kyoto and now the lack of progress in Brussels and Poznan – plus, of course, the damp squib recently announced by Kevin Rudd in your own backyard.

  19. Bob #3292

    I went over to Romms place and he seems to have little support. Your last well reasoned post has still not been answered so perhaps the thread has died the death it deserves as the topic has no merit or scientific basis. I will call in again on tuesday and see if there have been any replies and if you need any support.

    As a side issue if you see any debate on global temperatures since 1850 anywhere please let me know as I simply can’t understand why that nonsense is given so much credence.

    TonyB

  20. Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rumors-of-the-death-of-arctic-sea-ice-greatly-exaggerated/

    In short, there are people who believe that, yes indeedy, we can do something about the weather, or at least the climate. If we just live more frugally, share our wealth, eat lots of natural foods like tofu and pine nuts, and hold hands while visualizing world peace, we can bring carbon dioxide and methane levels down and the world will become a pastoral paradise.

  21. Hi Peter,

    To the natural causes for previous ice ages (prior to human CO2 emissions) you wrote (3296), “Which is all very well, until we get down to the detail of how it all works. The climate forcing from these perturbations is tiny. Much less than your ‘puny human CO2 emissions.’ If these can push or pull the earth in and out of ice ages, there is no doubt at all that human CO2 emissions can produce serious climatic change.”

    In this statement, Peter, you fell into a trap of illogical thinking. The “detail of how it works” is exactly where we (current climate science) have no idea what is going on. Your statement that the “climate forcing from these perturbations is tiny” is a totally unsubstantiated assumption. We (including you) have no idea how “tiny” or “not so tiny” these perturbations actually were.

    It is based on the oversimplistic assumption that CO2 (a greenhouse gas) is a major driver of climate, while the sun (the only source of warmth out planet really has) represents a minor factor BECAUSE WE ARE UNABLE TO MEASURE OR UNDERSTAND FULLY HOW SOLAR FORCING OF OUR CLIMATE WORKS.

    Human CO2 emissions can cause somewhere under 0.7C warming if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. That is what the greenhouse theory, the IPCC radiative forcing factors and the related equations tell us, Peter.

    Furthermore, we have been able to confirm over the past 150 years that this 2xCO2 temperature increase is confirmed by physical observations.

    There is barely enough fossil fuel on this planet to quadruple the atmospheric CO2 content from the pre-industrial 280 ppmv to a future value of 1120 ppmv.

    Richard Lindzen has shown us (please refer to my 3158) that a four-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 (from the year 1750 level) would result in a theoretical temperature increase of 1.29C (of which we have already experienced 0.3C, as confirmed by the Hadley temperature record and the solar warming effect as calculated by solar experts),

    So this means, Peter, that all the fossil fuels in the world would theoretically be able to increase global temperature by just about 1C. That’s it, Peter. That’s all there is. It can’t go any higher (based on CO2 increase).

    This is not worth getting too excited about, Peter, as I’m sure you will agree.

    If the sun now stops working as a warming factor (is it has over the 20th century, based on many solar studies), this may more than offset the impact of the ‘puny human CO2 emissions.’

    Massive “positive feedbacks” causing a whip-lashing of our planet’s climate from one extreme to another as postulated by the climate models of James E. Hansen (and the IPCC) are a computer-generated myth that has been refuted by the observed record.

    Forget it, Peter, and relax.

    Regards,

    Max

  22. “Scuse me, Peter, your post was not 3296, it was 3290. A typo.

    Max

  23. Its not quite correct to say that we “have no idea how tiny or not so tiny these perturbations actually were”. For instance it is known that the angle of the earth’s axis isn’t constant but varies between the angles of 22.5 deg and 24.5 deg. At present the axis is approximately midway between them. Other orbital parameters are well known. Just because we don’t know everything about the causes of previous periodic glaciation and interglaciation periods doesn’t mean that we know nothing. Studying them can give us more information on the likely response of the climate to changes in CO2 forcing than two of three line of calculations on the back of an envelope.

    You area bit too fond of dismissing any theory that causes you a problem as being ‘oversimplified’ even though they are far less simple than your naive workings!

  24. Hi Peter,

    Your 3299 tells me that you apparently feel that we (current climate science) know all there is to know about what has caused changes in our climate, both in recent times as well as in earlier periods.

    This is an ignorant (and arrogant) assumption, Peter.

    The “unknowns” today are still far greater than the “knowns”.

    The fixation on AGW is oversimplistic. It is agenda-driven for political motives.

    Greenhouse warming (if it actually exists in fact) is a small part of what drives our climate.

    The recent (150+ year) record confirms this, as we have established.

    To spend billions chasing down the blind alley of greenhouse warming rather than trying to really understand all facets of our planet’s climate is a silly waste of time (and a lot of taxpayer money).

    It is a matter of “religious faith” (and agenda-driven politics) rather than science.

    Regards,

    Max

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha