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.
Bob_FJ, Pete,
You two guys ought to get married.
Bob_FJ,
So you are now giving lessons in how to use Excel, even though you’ve hardly ever used it yourself? That sounds about right for you.
I’m using the 2003 version of Excel. If you are too tightar**d to buy your own copy, why not just download ‘Open Office’. It won’t cost you anything, and after having a play with the spreadsheet program which is, incidentally, very good, you might have a better idea of what you are talking about.
http://www.openoffice.org/
Peter Martin, Reur 3650, you wrote to me in part:
No Pete; it is amazing how you can get so many things WRONG and make so many simplistic assumptions. Without you advising me the vintage of your Excel as asked, (yet finally you say; 2003! Golly, that’s old…. How about an update?), I suggested a few links where YOU might learn how to do a CMA smoothing, apparently “automated” in 2007, or by formulae in table prior to that. This is not a lesson; it is some quick advice for you as to where to go to find out how to do it properly, given that you are either too lazy or incompetent to find out for yourself. Normally, if an individual is advised that “he” has made a mistake, that individual will look into it and do something about it. It is astonishing that you do not have that normal scientific response, and yet make so many “scientific“ assertions!!!!!!
Finally, I have in fact made great use of Excel in the past, and also Lotus 123 spreadsheet, and various sophisticated software, but simply have ZERO need for such now. If YOU want to use Excel, just please make sure that in your antique version, you UNDERSTAND what it offers in “automatic” mode, (PMA) or find appropriate formulae within the table to do CMA conversion smoothing properly!!!!!!!!
Sheez!
Hi Peter,
You wrote of arrogant oversimplifications (3635) when you wrote to me: “nothing is simple. Certainly nowhere as simple as you pretend it to be with your arrogant … approach.”
Here is an example of an oversimplistic and arrogant assumption (on your part) about atmospheric CO2 concentration (your post 3647 to BobClive):
“The pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppmv. As a result of the industrial revolution, the level crept up to just over 300 ppm by the onset of the Great Depression. The increase of 20 ppm was primarily due to the accumulated emissions from fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If the Great Depression had cut the burning of fossil fuels to zero, the result would have been the gradual decrease, over a long period, from 300 ppm back down to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.
Nobody should expect a 30 percent decrease in the 300 ppm level of atmospheric CO2, because 280 ppm is natural. Instead you expect a 30 percent slowdown in the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.”
Duh!
280 ppm is (by your definition) “natural”, but anything over 280 ppm is (by your definition) not (but rather “anthropogenic”).
How in the world would you be able to scientifically defend either of these postulations, Peter?
Why would you arbitrarily throw out all the data points provided by TonyB, which show “pre-industrial” CO2 levels significantly higher than 280 ppm? Is this simply because these do not fit your oversimplistic and arrogant anthropocentric hypothesis?
How do you explain that on a year-to-year basis, there is absolutely no correlation between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration?
How can you rule out that human CO2 emissions may not really be the driving force behind changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
How can you arbitrarily rule out that the recent and current increase in atmospheric CO2 is (at least partially) the result of de-gassing caused by natural warming (as was the case many times in prehistoric periods?
Peter, until you can answer all of these questions definitively, your hypothesis remains just that: an unproven (and arrogant) postulation.
Facts, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just one point. In your 3635 you wrote: “The global average temperature increase since 1850 is about 0.8 deg C. And yes I know you’ll try to get that figure down but the graphs show that we’ve gone from -0.4 deg to +0.4 deg on the usual anomaly scale.”
Actually, Peter, you are wrong here. Using the approach favored by IPCC for establishing temperature trends, the linear increase over this entire period was 0.65C, i.e. 0.041C per decade over 159 years. That is what the record (and the graphs) show, Peter.
Using your rather strange “spot” approach, we had an anomaly of -0.402C in 1850 and +0.301C in 2008, for a difference of around 0.7C (not 0.8C, as you stated, but very close to the actual linear trend of 0.65C over the entire period).
You are probably right in saying that 0.65C is “about 0.8C”, just like it would be correct to say it is “about 0.5C”. But, more to the point, it is “precisely 0.65C”.
Don’t change the facts to fit your personal idea of what should have happened, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Brute, Reur 3649, you wrote:
Bob_FJ, Pete, You two guys ought to get married.
I’m not at all enthusiastic about your recommendation, but meanwhile I’m surfing the ether, because it is the first summer very hot day here, (Melbourne, bottom south-east mainland); forecast at 37C, and tomorrow at 39C, and I’ve retreated indoors, and am catching up on Emails and any other frivolity. Thanks for your humour Brute!
Bugger, as the house thermally soaks and heats-up tomorrow, I might want to switch the AC on, and I hope there is no power failure on excessive demand!
Brute, (and ALL), I know you have a great affection for Ass-hole Romm.
Here is my latest to him at Gristmill. My next will follow-up on the results of the voting on the ‘best scientific blog’, in which his does not get a mention and RealClimate is a big looser.
BTW, it has been generally relatively cool here with only four days in December over 30C. (normal average is eight)
Hi Peter,
[Tried sending this response to your 3635 earlier, but it did not get through for some reason.]
Since you answered with a rather long message (3635), defending the notion of positive feedbacks leading to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of “2.5 to 4C”, I will go through the key points point separately.
You wrote, “The big problem with atmospheric Physics is that nothing is simple. Certainly nowhere as simple as you pretend it to be with your arrogant ‘Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.’ approach. However, lets have a try to make sense of the 2x CO2 issue as best we can without computer models.”
I have no particular comment to your observation “that nothing is simple” “with atmospheric Physics”. In fact I would argue that there are many things in this complex subject about which current science (especially IPCC) is still totally in the dark. The AGW oversimplification of explaining essentially all current and future climate change on anthropogenic factors is a gross oversimplification that truly borders on arrogance.
You added, “We can say that Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2
where Delta T is the temperature change we can expect from a forcing Delta F ,measured as power per unit area. C1 is the ‘no feedback’ constant. C2 is an additional constant to represent feed-backs in the system.”
The relationship is logarithmic a doubling of CO2 has the same effect from 280 to 560 ppmv as it would from 560 to 1120 ppmv.
Lindzen has pointed this out in the curve, which I posted (3158). A four-fold CO2 increase would result in a theoretical greenhouse warming of 1.29C, according to Lindzen, and a doubling of CO2 would result in 0.65C:
ln4 = 1.39 (CO2 increase from 280 to 1120 ppmv)
ln2 = 0.69 (CO2 increase from 280 to 560 ppmv)
Using Lindzen’s basis we should have had warming (from “pre-industrial” CO2 level of 280 ppmv to today’s 385 ppmv:
385 / 280 = 1.375
ln1.375 = 0.3185
dT = 0.30C
As I showed you the total linear warming over the Hadley record from 1850 to 2008 was 0.65C. Many studies by solar experts tell us that the unusually high solar activity (the highest in several thousands of years) was responsible for 0.35C.
This leaves 0.30C for the net impact of all anthropogenic forcing factors (which IPCC has stated is essentially the same as that for CO2, since other anthropogenic factors cancel each other out).
This is exactly the amount of warming from CO2 over this period as estimated using Lindzen’s figures. (It looks like Lindzen was “spot on” with his 2xCO2 temperature impact , or “climate sensitivity”, of 0.65C!)
In other words, over the period 1850 to 2008 it was physically observed that the next impact of all “feedbacks” (C2) was equal to 1.
Using your Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2 (where C2 is a multiplier for various feedbacks) depends, of course, on the value chosen for C2.
So far we have one set of physically observed data (the Hadley record and the solar impact) that confirms a “C2” in your formula = 1 and a 2xCO2 temperature impact of 0.65C.
Your formula now becomes:
Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2 (where C2 is 1)
As I pointed out to you (3469), IPCC has a different “take” on this, which apparently is the same as your “belief”:
In its AR4 report Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38
Based on these model-derived feedback forcings, IPCC calculates that the 2xCO2 feedback temperature response would be:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+1.5°C [Water Vapor]
-0.8°C [Lapse Rate]
+0.7°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.5°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.9°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
+1.3°C [Clouds]
+3.2°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633)
Latest “scientific” data (which I explained in detail in 3469) enable us to update and correct the IPCC assumptions, as follows:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+0.4°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.2°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631, corrected for Minschwaner and Dessler study)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.6°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
-1.0°C [Clouds] (corrected for Spencer et al. plus Norris observations)
+0.6°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633, corrected for both clouds and water vapor)
The physical observations on cloud feedbacks (Spencer and Norris) confirm the strongly negative feedback from clouds, rather than the strongly positive feedback assumed by IPCC, albeit with the disclaimer that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
IPCC’s “uncertainty” on clouds has been cleared up. The feedback has been physically observed to be strongly negative (in two independent studies using different methods).
IPCC has also overestimated the positive feedback from water vapor in its assumption that relative humidity remains constant with increased temperature. The physical observations on water vapor increase with temperature (Minschwaner + Dessler) show that this is only a fraction of that theoretically derived and assumed by the IPCC models, as the relative humidity decreases with increased temperature.
This is “practice” rather than pure “theory” and model assumptions.
These physical observations again reconfirm the validity of Lindzen’s estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.65C.
In fact, the net impact of all feedbacks is slightly negative (due to the strongly negative feedback from clouds), thereby confiming that your “C2” is <1.
So we arrive at the same conclusion from several different directions:
The 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” is somewhere around 0.6 to 0.65C, based on actual physical observations (rather than model assumptions).
As I pointed out in 3469:
“To summarize: the observed facts [practice] confirm that you can bury the model-created [theory] “3.2C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2”, and with it the case for alarming warming from AGW.”
This case is based on theoretical gobbledygook, model assumptions and hype.
Your hypothetical question on “the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere” being used in the theoretical greenhouse calculation is irrelevant: the physical observations (practice) show that the computer model assumptions (theory) are incorrect.
You would do well, Peter, to heed the simple advice of the great American baseball player, coach and philosopher, Yogi Berra:
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
Regards,
Max
Remy 3654;
Sorry, Here’s the link:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/6/101645/4180#comment4
Peter Martin, further my 3641, your 3643 responded rather naively to ONLY my first sentence in 3641.
Did you notice the rest of my post, which I repeat below:
Were you able to comprehend the significance of my advice? Do you need more time to digest it? Will you be gracious enough to respond sensibly to it?
Peter Martin,
Despite that you get so many things WRONG, I would like to compliment you on apparently preferring the Hadley T data to that of GISS. Of course it could be purely an Anglo-Centric thing on your part, but I hope and prefer to think that you have noticed that Hadley specify their results to within one one-thousandth of a degree C, whereas GISS only claim a magnitude lower at a mere one one-hundredth of a degree C.
Obviously, Hadley have it in accuracy; an order of magnitude over the Yankee GISSwits!
Peter
I am still hoping you will answer my question as to why the co2 thermostat-so sensitive to temperature change- didn’t appear to operate prior to 1900 or so, despite temperature fluctuations in the past being greater than now.
It is reasonable to expect that the greatly fluctuating temperatures experienced in the past would have ensured measurements of 260-400ppm or so, but apparently according to you, the IPcc and the ice core people it didn’t but remained at 280ppm. Why?
TonyB
This – an article by Jeremy Clarkson on the battery-powered Tesla sports car – cheered me up this morning.
Robin
I look forward to the day when I can buy a cheap reliable electric car good for 200 miles at 70mph -well within most peoples daily needs-that I can recharge from a cheap reliable domestic wind/solar/water generating source.
Unfortunately I think both lie many years over the horizon and in the meantime increasingly efficient petrol models will continue to form the greater majority of personal transport.
TonyB
There is an interesting – and rather surprising – contribution from Richard D North on the BBC climate change seminar thread here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=142#comment-8768
Hi Robin,
Nice article that you cited!
Yes it is good to be cheered by such silliness!
So will you garage a “Tesla Sports” alongside your other exotic machines?
I pant in anticipation at your response!
BTW, Jeremy Clarkson is popular over ‘ere!!!
Bob: no room in my garage for more exotica. And I’m reluctant to try to sell anything to make room as those machines I have (both politically incorrect) are these days worth damn all.
Robin,
Re: # 3662
Very good. I confess that I do have faith in battery powered cars and one day the technology will advance.
After all, the Navy uses electric motors to operate submarines, (backed by a nuclear reactor) and the Rail Industry uses electric motors to operate locomotives, (backed by diesel generators or constant grid power).
So, as demonstrated, electric motors will someday in the future power our cars effectively…..just as soon as we figure out how to make a nuclear reactor that will fit under the hood.
Bob_FJ,
I was toying with the idea of going over to Gristmill and taunting Romm; however, judging from the traffic at that particular posting as well as the (lack) of traffic at HIS OWN site, I don’t think I’ll lend the guy credibility by even acknowledging any of his delusions……he seems like a bitter, washed-up, Hippie…..a “Rebel without a cause”.
He’ll fade away just like the hysteria over the “global warming” fad.
Brute
Gristmill isnt a place I normally visit but had to take a peek following your comment. Surely even the most committed environmentalist doesnt believe this stuff being trotted out by Romm?
tonyB
Robin, I saw a show on Speed TV about the Tesla. Seems nice, but not as cool as this car they also reviewed:
The Cobra was really a beast at 1000lb/ft of torque! Really, really, fast as well.
Also a very cool electric car I saw today.
Brute/TonyB
Have visited Gristmill a few times (as has Bob_FJ). There is a regular entourage of AGW-groupies who contribute (?) to this site by supporting anyone who agrees with their dogma and attacking (mostly ad hom) those who do not. Lead articles are usually pro-AGW, but not overly hysterical. Censorship is not a major problem.
RealClimate is another story. Gavin Schmidt deletes any comments, facts, charts, etc., which directly refute his “belief” in alarming AGW, often adding (sometimes personally insulting) comments of his own.
In one specific example, Schmidt had made the comment that Spencer and Lindzen were poorly qualified (!) to discuss AGW impacts on climate, following a post from me citing the recent Spencer study on clouds, which validated Lindzen’s “infrared iris” theory of negative cloud feedback.
When I countered by simply posting a published brief biographical sketch of both Spencer and Lindzen, as well as that of Schmidt, himself, he deleted the entire post. (Obviously this had hit “too close to home”.)
The site also has its entourage of AGW-groupies adding their own vitriol to the discussion.
Joseph Romm’s blog, ClimateProgress.org, is the worst of the bunch. Joe censors everything that does not directly support the AGW disaster scenario. It is a total waste of time visiting (or attempting to contribute to) this site. Joe is a bona vide fanatic who will accept no dissenting view on his site.
The best of the climate sites are this one (thanks to TonyN), ClimateAudit and Watts Up With That. The only thing I have ever seen actually censored out by CA or WUWT are openly derogatory comments about individuals. TonyN admonishes contributors to stay “on topic” when they drift too far off, but I have not seen any real censorship.
For a good view of “what the other side thinks” Gristmill is not a bad site, offering the opportunity to “toss in the occasional hand grenade” to stir up the pot and return the discussion to sanity, but you have to ignore the “groupie chatter”.
Just my thoughts.
Regards,
Max
Timothy Casey B.Sc.(Hons.): Consulting Geologist
While the origin of much of the modern atmospheric carbon dioxide is speculated to be industrial, carbon dioxide levels vary substantially on a seasonal basis and correlate inversely with smaller seasonal variations in atmospheric oxygen concentrations (Keeling et al., 1996). However, the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen concentration curves reflects decreasing photosynthesis, which Lyons (2007) documents as the almost exclusive producer of oxygen. While we are busily distracted with the assumption that fossil fuel combustion is the main cause of the rise observed in atmospheric carbon dioxide, we forget to consider the role of decreasing photosynthesis consequent to deforestation.
According to Schlesinger (1991), the carbon reservoir represented by photosynthesising biota is around 560 gigatons. Deforestation to the tune of 156 gigatons since 1850 (Haughton & Hackler, 2002) represents a total deforestation of 22%. Although current photosynthesising biota account for 120 gigatons of atmospheric carbon sequestration (Bowes, 1991), this figure would be closer to 154 gigatons of carbon sequestration back in 1850 given the impact of deforestation on photosynthesizing biota. The total accumulated loss of atmospheric carbon sequestration since 1850 is currently more than 38 gigatons (Casey, 2008); greater than four times the amount of carbon released by fossil fuel combustion to the atmosphere. The dominant human activity contributing to the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is not fossil fuel combustion but the deficit in photosynthesis accumulated over more than 150 years of deforestation.
The Evidence…
The evidence demonstrates that the most significant anthropological contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the combustion of fossil fuels, it is deforestation (80%). The evidence also demonstrates that carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming, even if it has a minor feedback effect.
http://climate.geologist-1011.net/
It appears temps go up and down, no effect on CO2 increase, global manufacturing recession, no effect on CO2 increase, perhaps by removing one of the 2nd largest CO2 sinks might have something to do with the steady increase.
JZ,
Now you’re talking my language! I had this built in July……been driving it ever since….even in the freezing cold.
Max Re; 3671
I was banned from Climate Progress, (for speaking the truth), and sometimes will needle those guys on Gristmill; however, as you write, they just get down in the gutter and attack character and allude that everyone that doesn’t follow their line of thinking is paid off by big oil, or big coal or Big Bird…..
In this particular case, Romm is whining because he wasn’t nominated for “The Science Web Blog of the Year Award”…..so he feels slighted and wants everyone to go vote against Anthony Watts.
But again, Watts is a class act and invites all opinion and participants. Romm is a militant and really not worth the time.
He was involved with the Clinton Administration and now feels that he has been done a disservice by Obama’s people……not getting the “respect” he deserves. His office is just down the street from here. I’ll rev the engine and toot my horn as I drive by this evening.
Bobclive (3672)
Excellent summary!