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,
Increased CO2 levels, increased life expectancy…..horrific.
JZSmith
Based on the Huffington Post article, it sounds very much as though people are getting smarter regarding the global warming scare, rather than just swallowing what is written in 1,000-page pseudoscientific sales pitches by IPCC.
This may be because they have read recent reports like those of climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer.
Or maybe it’s because they see all around them that it is colder than ever before.
Sure, the AGW-promoters are getting panicky and desperately calling for “immediate action” (before the bubble goes POP!).
Regards,
Max
Bob-FJ,
Bob’s Japanese automobile will travel 40 miles on 1 gallon of gasoline.
1 Gallon of gasoline results in $.30 tax revenue to the Government.
Brute’s monster automobile will travel 20 miles on 1 gallon of gasoline.
Brute pays $.60 in taxes to travel the same distance as Bob.
Conclusion: Brute is already paying for his excessive fuel consumption and “road use fee”.
Being that most of my $.60 tax is not applied strictly to road infrastructure, but into various other “services” provided by the US Government, my $.60 benefits “the world” as the United States, (like it or not) is the economic locomotive and stabilizing factor of the globe (currently).
I also think that the current Middle East situation has much, much more to do with cultural/religious fanaticism than oil; otherwise, Iraq would have simply become the 51st U.S State/Province and it’s biggest oil producer.
I’d better not get into the rest of the post.
Max,
I think you may have missed my 3625 where I went into some detail about why a 2 x C02 figure does lie in the IPCC range of 1.5 – 4.5 deg C.
Its certainly higher than your figure of 0.7 deg C. You didn’t answer my point about using 288 degC for the earth’s temperature. You can’t assume that the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation. If that was the case there would obviously be no AGW problem.
You yourself have given a figure of 33 deg C for the natural greenhouse effect. Meaning that the earth would be much colder than it is but for the effect of all GHGs. And yes I am including water vapour.
So for energy balance calculations, a figure of 288 – 33 = 253 deg C would be more appropriate. Another way to look at this is to imagine looking at the earth from outer space via a IR camera. You wouldn’t measure the temperature of surface of the earth directly but rather its atmosphere which is much colder at a higher altitude.
Brute,
“the United States …… is the economic locomotive and stabilizing factor of the globe”
Max:
I wish it were true that the alarmists were getting panicky or desperate – that would be the clearest sign that their preeminence was ending at last. But I fear that’s not what’s happening: see my discussion with TonyN (and Brute) starting here.
The reality is that Huffington Post has got one thing right: the greater part of the mainstream media (and our politicians) truly believe that sceptical opinion is based on “the nonsensical junk science of the right-wing think tanks and their cadre of scientists for hire”.
Robin
Peter Martin, Reur 3722 and supplementing Max’s 3724
Here is an additional demonstration of your political naivety concerning Hansen, and what the real world of science management is like out there:
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said on National Public Radio, back in May 2007:
Needless to say Hansen and others did not enjoy Griffin’s very rational comments, and here is the main part of Griffin’s consequent press release concerning the complaints on that interview:
I conclude from many things you have said previously that you are not well acquainted with the hurly-burly of managerial life in industry (or in a large institution). Those that are, will be able to recognise in the above quotes, that Griffin was apparently politically pressured to placate his critics. Particularly, notice that he retracted not one iota of what he said to NPR !
What Max explained in his 2724 is somewhat similar, except that it is sometimes known as arse-licking, that is, it is from the other direction, from the down-up, and from those wanting favours.
BTW, according to Wiki’ Griffin has held several professorships and is pursuing his eighth degree from various universities, together with a diverse important career, too lengthy to quote here .
Hansen on the other-hand, per Wiki is relatively brief on qualifications thus:
In trying to understand your scientific and political naivety previously, I have enquired if you might have been a school teacher in science, but you did not respond.
Or a librarian maybe? It’s a puzzle, where you are coming from!
Peter
This is a question I have asked four or five times. Perhaps you may think the answer is obvious, but it eludes me (other than one obvious explanation)so I would appreciate your thoughts.
“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
Bob_FJ #3732
Your quote and comments are right on the money!
Having attended two meetings of the govt organisation I work with this week alone, there were no less than five related organisations all toeing the party line on climate change and sea level rises.
All quoted ‘facts’ that I disputed. When I produed information backing this up I was told-not for the first time-( I paraphrase)
“Whatever we might privately believe does not matter, it is others (the Govt) who tell us what information to use. As they are paying the bills the facts are whatever they say they are.”
I have personal knowledge of a number of Govt departments plus the district councils, who are all using the information drip fed to them via the IPCC and there are a lot of people receiving good wages and research money on the back of it. It would be very much against their interest not to ‘rock the boat’ There is an obscure British saying “he who pays the piper calls the tune’
Catastrophic AGW has little to do with good science and everything to do with philospohical beliefs and- inceasingly- control and taxation. To believe otherwise is being somewhat naive and flies in the face of observational evidence.
TonyB
First you said:
And I said:
Then you responded:
A really superb example of how the warmist argument requires unsupported assumptions (that actually reveal an acknowledged weakness in their position) in order to create any semblance of credibility.
But seriously, would you like to see Jim Hansen as the chief advocate for the AGW side of the debate? And does his reputation rest on his scientific record or on his political statements and his undoubted skill as an administrator?
Here’s a small thing that caught my eye when I was looking at the Hamless Sky WebSats last night. There were some hits on my Goodbye to 2008 post coming in from an article by Mark Lynas at the New Statesman.
When I went over there, I found that the first comment was a link to HS; thanks Keith if you are around.
I also noticed that their ace environment columnist had only attracted two comments, neither of which were friendly. I thought Lynas’ attracted comments by the thousand; he certainly did a year ago. When I looked again a few minutes ago, there were still only two comments.
Perhaps someone should suggest to the New Statesman that they get David Whitehouse back.
http://newstatesman.com/environment/2009/01/lynas-obama-economy-green
Talking about Obama (see TonyN’s Lynas reference at 3736 above), the Americans here might be interested to see this Englishman’s take on your new President who, he says, “may be a fantastic guy, and look great, but he will bring a ragbag of scuzzballs, communists and eco-loons to power with him“. An extract from near the end of the article is directly relevant to the concern I expressed here. After noting the response he got to his criticisms from a journalist (‘But James, this is too awful! … Obama’s election was the one event this year that gave me hope for the future!’), the author comments:
It seems we are indeed all doomed – but not for the reasons constantly repeated by the alarmists.
The article I referred to at 3737 is here.
Sam Champion Uses Freezing Cold to Tout Global Warming
ABC’s Champion admits 2008 coolest year since 2000
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/01/15/sam-champion-uses-freezing-cold-tout-global-warming
On Thursday’s “Good Morning America,” weatherman and global warming alarmist Sam Champion slipped some reassuring words about the validity of climate change into his report on the bone chilling temperatures hitting much of the country. After admitting that NASA had declared 2008 to be the coldest year since 2000, he added, “But they [NASA] caution this was caused in part by a cooling La Nina in the pacific and warn global warming is still playing an important part in our changing climate.”
Champion then played a clip of a NASA climate scientist and global warming proponent Gavin Schmidt admonishing, “And, so, it’s a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you’re going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn’t abolished just because there’s a long-term trend in the climate.”
The liberal weatherman faced a similar problem on April 6, 2007. On that day, he delivered this brutal weather report:
SAM CHAMPION: But it’s a shot of cold air and it’s opened the door for arctic air all the way through the nation. Call it about two thirds of the nation getting this push of arctic cold. This is normally a December, mid-December pattern. As this cold air goes, look at the shades of blue in just about all areas.
Champion then proceeded to segue into yet another discussion of global warming. And, of course, this is the same ABC personality who once hosted a segment that fretted about “billions” dying from climate change.
A transcript of the brief mention of global warming on the January 15 show, which aired at 7:04am, follows:
SAM CHAMPION: It feels like the coldest winter in years. And a report from NASA climate scientists says 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. But they caution this was caused in part by a cooling La Nina in the pacific and warn global warming is still playing an important part in our changing climate.
GAVIN SCHMIDT (Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Inst. For Space Studies): And, so, it’s a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you’re going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn’t abolished just because there’s a long-term trend in the climate.
ALL: Further to my 3732 concerning Mike Griffin upsetting Hansen et al, it may well be that Hansen and Gore, rather than debate with Griffin, have recommended to Obama, that Griffin’s tenure as NASA administrator be terminated on January 20. Here is an interesting article extract:
NASA Administrator Mike Griffin is planning to leave office on Jan. 20, and a short list of potential replacements is starting to emerge as the incoming Obama administration moves toward Inauguration Day.
Griffin, a veteran rocket scientist who always has said he serves at the pleasure of the president, does not expect to be offered an opportunity to stay on after President-elect Barack Obama takes office.
There are two interesting links in the article, including one entitled:
NASA Chief’s Wife to Obama: Don’t Fire My Husband
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “I think you may have missed my 3625 where I went into some detail about why a 2 x C02 figure does lie in the IPCC range of 1.5 – 4.5 deg C.”
Post #3625 was from me to you, not from you to me.
You did write a post #3635, so I suppose this is what you are referring to.
I answered this with #3648, so you should be fully aware that I have not “missed” it.
Peter, you are waffling.
I have repeatedly shown you two sets of actual physical observations, which demonstrate that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity lies somewhere around 0.6 to 0.8C.
You do not respond to these actual physical observations but come back with a “waffle” about which altitude and therefore at what temperature does the CO2 absorb the reflected IR rays?” Duh! This is a silly discussion, which has nothing to do with the physically observed facts that refute a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity much higher than 0.8C.
This is the issue here, Peter, not some totally irrelevant hypothetical discussion about the “altitude” at which the bulk of greenhouse warming from CO2 occurs.
You wrote: “You didn’t answer my point about using 288 degC for the earth’s temperature. You can’t assume that the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation. If that was the case there would obviously be no AGW problem.”
Peter, this ramble has nothing to do with our discussion.
150+ years of temperature records and several studies by solar scientists have shown us that there was a total warming of 0.65C from 1850 to 2008, of which the increased solar activity (highest in several thousand years) caused around 0.35C, leaving 0.3C for anthropogenic forcing (or UHI distortion, changes in El Nino patterns or whatever). But let’s assume that all of the remaining 0.3C warming is due to anthropogenic forcing.
This observed warming corresponds to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.7C (as estimated by Lindzen as well as Shaviv and Veizer).
You wrote, “Its certainly higher than your figure of 0.7 deg C.” Peter, this is an unsubstantiated “statement of faith”, which has been directly refuted by the physically observed facts, as I pointed out.
Now I know from your 3635 that you would have preferred that the 1850-2008 warming was 0.8C (rather than 0.65C as reported by Hadley), and that the solar effect was only 0.3C (rather than 0.35C as reported by the many solar studies I cited), so that the greenhouse warming would be 0.5 rather than 0.3C. Then you would like to assume that a major portion of the greenhouse warming is lurking deep in the ocean waters, from where it will some horrible day miraculously emerge to fry us all. This is all science fiction, Peter. Stick with facts. We have observed a certain warming; we can identify a natural cause for slightly over half of this warming, leaving the remainder as possibly having been caused by anthropogenic warming. That’s it.
Quite independently from the physical observations cited above, there were two independent studies on the feedback from clouds with warming (Spencer, Norris), using different approaches. Both studies showed, based on actual physical observations, that cloud feedbacks with warming are strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all the IPCC climate models. Instead of increasing the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity by 1.3C (as assumed by IPCC), the negative feedback from clouds will result in a reduction of about 1.0C, for a net correction of 2.3C to the figure assumed by the IPCC models.
In addition, I pointed out to you that the IPCC water vapor increase and feedback based on an assumption of “constant relative humidity” at higher temperature was flawed, based on actual physical observations (Minschwaner + Dessler). This correction results in another reduction of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.3C.
Together, these two corrections (based on actual physical observations) to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as postulated by IPCC (based on model assumptions) result in a reduction of: 3.2 – 2.3 – 0.3 = 0.6C.
So we have two sets of physically observed data, BOTH telling us that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity lies somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8C.
You have so far not responded to these facts, Peter, but instead keep coming back with totally irrelevant waffle after waffle discussing unrelated theoretical topics such as “imagine looking at the earth from outer space via a IR camera”, “You can’t assume that the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation. If that was the case there would obviously be no AGW problem”, etc.
To your other “sidetrack”: ” You yourself have given a figure of 33 deg C for the natural greenhouse effect. Meaning that the earth would be much colder than it is but for the effect of all GHGs. And yes I am including water vapour.”
With water vapor causing around two-thirds of the natural greenhouse warming and CO2 somewhere between 15 and 20%, your statement above would again confirm a calculated theoretical 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.7 to 0.8C. But more important than this THEORETICAL calculation are the PHYSICALLY OBSERVED FACTS, which also show a similar figure, as pointed out above.
Peter, I have the distinct feeling that you are avoiding a discussion of this topic because you fear and know that you are wrong here and have nothing to back up your “belief” other than a bunch of IPCC model gobbledygook and some hypothetical Hansen “in the pipeline” hysteria.
Stay on topic (if you can). Don’t tell me “it must be so because 2,500 scientists have said so”. Come with facts instead.
Once you have addressed the specific points I have made over and over again (which clearly refute the notion of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C), I will be happy to talk about all sorts of other hypothetical points.
But we should cap off our discussion on this topic first.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
I am not Barack Obama, so I can only surmise how he will act as new US President.
He has a “maybe” future issue (global warming, polar bear extinction, 6 meter inundations, etc.) with a lot of pressure from “greenie” activist groups to “put this critical issue at the top of his ‘to do’ list”, but not much support from the American voters (less than half think the problem even exists and even more think it is nothing serious, despite all the media hype). Besides, they see it’s getting colder, not warmer, and Americans are usually pragmatic types.
At the same time, as he steps into office, he is up to his proverbial a– in alligators affecting all American voters in a major way right now; these are actual (not virtual) problems of today (not maybe tomorrow): a crumbling economy with the threat of an imminent major depression, two wars that are dragging on without resolution, a health-care promise that threatens to get derailed because there is no money, continued concern over terror attacks at home, etc.
Now the guy may be a liberal, but I doubt that he is a loony.
If he spends very much time worrying about AGW rather than attacking the real, serious problems facing his country he will fail as President.
I think he is astute enough to understand this, and he definitely does not want to fail.
Sure, he’ll give lip service to placate the AGW crowd and maybe initiate some “alternate fuel” projects, but I can’t see him giving this issue anywhere near top priority in actual fact.
Can you?
Regards,
Max
Brute, you wrote in part in 3728:
Well yes, that is an argument in the right direction, but it is not enough, and this is not all about revenue. For instance, a large number of advanced nations, have much higher fuel excise than yours, with good consequences. Amongst the benefits for those advanced nations, has been that sensibly, (functionally), they were not producers of gas guzzling non-functional huge great chunks of iron that waste resources including even large areas of concrete and blacktop.
I can remember reading during the 70’s “fuel crisis”, an American article about their new compact, (?, small?), pickups, that included a comment that sticks for me: “[we] Americans need large pickups just like a headache”. You see; the writing was on the wall for you guys 3 decades ago. Then at least was when administrators should have woken-up to react and gradually increase excise to a more appropriate level. If they had, then arguably GM, Ford, and Chrysler would not be in such pooh poohs as they are right now. (but only in their motherland)
You have argued before that a do-what-you-like lack of controls on industry and commerce etc in the USA, is the basis behind America’s greatness. I argue that she would be even greater had there been better controls such as discussed previously. (PSSST: have you heard about the “World Economic Crisis“, and whodunit?).
I would also argue that if hypothetically the ethnic structures etc of America and Europe were reversed in history, that hypothetically, Europe today would be the most powerful nation on Earth, based simply on a unified large population, its market, and technology alone, even if central government control was not ideal, or similar to what you, (and the World), suffer now.
If historically (hypothetically) the American States had instead each of them had different languages and unique governments, and say a powerful California (German) and say Texas (Italian WW2) or say Michigan (Turkish WW1), went to war with the rest, and millions died, and whole cities were destroyed etc etc, the USA would be a very different power indeed.
Thus, your “free-for-all-is-OK” assumption for your “locomotive of the world” is FLAWED.
I won’t risk being excommunicated by TonyN, by discussing your belief systems on American Middle-East policies and whatnot!
Max, Reur 3742 to Robin,
I totally agree with you that Obama may well be more pragmatic about the realities, than some others here have expressed fears for.
He strikes me as being more than just charismatic, and I think he may well also be very intelligent and listen to all sides. Politicians are also not famous for upholding their election campaign promises.
Out of curiosity I did a Google on “Obama Gore”, and “Obama Gore team” and found that it was “hot” until early December 2008, but rather quiet since. For example, this:
Obama meeting with Gore raises eyebrows (Dec 8 2008)
I hope that your intuition and mine is correct!
Max,
Do you remember writing?
IPCC tells us in Figure SPM.2. (p.4) that the radiative forcing (RF) estimate for anthropogenic CO2 (from 1750 to 2005) is 1.66 W/m^2.Arrhenius Law tells us:
dE = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig ),
where alpha is 5.35 (Myhre et al.)
and dE is change in radiative forcing (RF)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
If we make this calculation, we can confirm the RF estimate as stated by IPCC
dE = 5.35 ln (379 / 280) = 1.62 W/m^2
Note: The calculation actually results in a RF of 1.62 rather than 1.66, but this is a minor error of only a bit more than 3%.
using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:
dT/dE = 1 / (4 [sigma] T^3)
then: dT = dE / 4 [sigma] T^3)
Where sigma (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equals 5.6705E-08 W/m^2*K^4
And substituting T = 15 degrees C = 288.16K
We calculate a temperature increase from 1750 to 2005 (from 280 to 379 ppm CO2):
dT = 1.66 / (4 *5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3))
or
dT = 0.306 centigrade
for simplification, let’s call that 0.3 degrees C
IPCC has various projections for future CO2 levels by 2100, based on various “scenarios” and “storylines” (p.18). These also include “climate-carbon cycle feedback” resulting from the lower CO2 solubility in warmer oceans (p.13)
If you assume that the CO2 concentration will be 560 ppm by 2100, and use the same equations.
You arrive at an additional RF of 2.09 W/m^2
And a dT of around 0.38 degrees C, by increasing CO2 from 379 to 560 ppm
for simplification, let’s call that 0.4 degrees C
In Figure SPM.2. (p.4) IPCC shows that positive forcing from other GHGs plus black carbon on snow are essentially cancelled out by negative forcing from land use and aerosols. (Strangely, solar irradiance has essentially no impact on forcing, according to IPCC).This means that over the 350 years from 1750 (at 280 ppm) to 2100 (at 560 ppm , or twice the 1750 concentration), CO2 will have caused a temperature increase of around 0.7C.
Well you did anyway. The methodology is OK as far as it goes except that 288 deg C should be more like 255 deg C. That makes your 0.3 deg C more like 0.45 deg C and 0.7degC for 2xCO2 more like 1.0 deg C. This is the ‘no feedback climate sensitivity’ and is in line with what Lindzen himself quotes.
We probably should also take into account that the earth is not a perfect black body radiator, but lets leave that for now. That would put the figures up a little too.
So, its worth noting that the difference between what Lindzen is saying and what the IPCC say is the lower limit is not that big.
But this is all theory I can hear you say. What about practical measurements?
You might also ask: If we are indeed 45% of the way to the 2 x CO2 value isn’t the IPCC figure of 3 deg K much too high? Shouldn’t we expect to already have seen a rise of 0.45 x 3 = 1.35 deg C ?
And it is true that we haven’t seen such a large rise. But, to get an anwer to this question you need to be prepared to include the effects of ‘ocean heat uptake’ in your calculations. If extra heat is warming the ocean it can’t warm the atmosphere too. Can it?
Of course if you are more interested in denialist propoganda than learning more about the AGW process you’ll be happy to neglect this important process. I’d just challenge you to either include this in your calculations or prove that it is zero.
No, Max and Bob, I don’t for a moment think Obama is a loony. Far from it. No, my point is contained in the essence of the article I cited (#3738):
I’d be surprised if environmental concerns were anywhere near the top of his agenda for a long time – indeed, they may never get there. The economy, healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, rebuilding US relations with the world, domestic terrorism, etc. and all the unexpected issues that are bound to occur on his watch will inevitably dominate his attention. But, as Lynas notes in the New Statesman article referred to by TonyN (#3736),
Do you really expect these people to sit quietly on their hands while Obama is tackling his key concerns? No, they’ll be at work changing this, regulating that, interfering here and investing there. That’s where the damage will be done.
Peter
There is someting in the last paragraph of a comment here that I would genuinely value your opinion on. I’ve posed the question in very simple terms, but I think that you will understand what I am getting at.
This is not a trap or a snark – I’m genuinely puzzled.
Hi Peter,
More theoretical blah-blah in your 3745 (“perfect black box”, average “temperature” of the absorbing CO2, “ocean heat uptake”), but you again failed to address the PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, which demonstrate a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 to 0.8C.
From 1850 to 2008, we have:
0.65C total warming (Hadley record, uncorrected for UHI distortion)
0.35C natural solar warming (average of several studies by solar experts)
0.30C balance, assume that this is all attributable to anthropogenic factors = CO2
That’s it, Peter. There was no more “global warming”. You can try to find it lurking in the ocean or hiding under your bed, but this is delusional.
This ACTUALLY OBSERVED warming corresponds to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.7C (as also postulated by IPCC). These facts validate the estimates of Lindzen as well as Shaviv + Veizer.
Then we have studies based on PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS, which show that the feedback from clouds is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as erroneously assumed by the IPCC climate models, plus an error in the constant relative humidity assumption on water vapor feedback; together these two corrections to the erroneous IPCC assumptions result in reducing the ASSUMED 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3,2C (your fantasy figure) to around 0.6C.
In other words, Peter, the PHYSICALLY OBSERVED FACTS demonstrate that there is NO NET POSITIVE FEEDBACK as erroneously ASSUMED by the IPCC models.
They just are not there in real life.
You wrote: “You might also ask: If we are indeed 45% of the way to the 2 x CO2 value isn’t the IPCC figure of 3 deg K much too high? Shouldn’t we expect to already have seen a rise of 0.45 x 3 = 1.35 deg C ?
And it is true that we haven’t seen such a large rise.”
Yes, that is exactly the point. CO2 cannot have caused more than 0.3C “global warming” (as measured by the Hadley surface record) from 1850 to 2008, therefore it is reasonable according to the greenhouse hypothesis that it cannot cause more than around 0.4C from today until 2100.
Then you added, “But, to get an anwer to this question you need to be prepared to include the effects of ‘ocean heat uptake’ in your calculations. If extra heat is warming the ocean it can’t warm the atmosphere too.”
If the “ocean” is taking up some heat, so be it. If it did so from 1850 to 2008 there is very good reason to believe it will continue doing so from 2008 to 2100. If this “heat” disappears deep into the ocean where it causes an increase in the overall ocean temperature of 0.0001C (due to the much greater mass and specific heat of the ocean vis-à-vis the atmosphere), great! A marvelous “natural cooler” of our planet.
But to believe for a minute that this “heat” is lurking deep in the ocean (where it has warmed the water from around 1C to 1.0001C), from where it will miraculously leap out at us and fry us all some horrible day in the future is pseudoscientific lunacy very similar to those fundamentalist religious beliefs of a “fiery end to our planet in retribution for all our sins and evils”. Forget it, Peter. It’s not real; it’s fantasy.
Now I’ll be glad to get into more airy-fairy hypothetical discussions with you on how the THEORY should be interpreted, but only after we have agreed that the PHYSICALLY OBSERVED FACTS do not support the suggestion of major positive feedbacks leading to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity much higher than around 0.8C, as pointed out above and in greater detail earlier.
It’s PRACTICE versus THEORY, Peter, and our discussion reminds me (to quote Yogi Berra again) of “déjà vu all over again”.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
Yes, I admit that you are correct when you write that it is not Obama, who has been elected by and therefore “reports to” the American voters, who will be the danger.
It will be the non-elected bureaucrats, who do not need approval of the American voters and are beholden to no one except the President, who appointed them.
But I am confident that, despite his selection of a “green dream team”, the realities of life will set in and the “green agenda” will not get anywhere near top priority.
As the American people continue to awaken to the climate realities (rather than to the media hype they have heard so far), there will be groundswell pressure to concentrate on more important issues. More cold weather will help.
The real key here is the carbon tax (or cap and trade scheme). Will the American voter swallow newly added draconian carbon costs in these already difficult economic times, just to address a “maybe” problem of the future, when real problems of today are all around?
Will Obama try to slip these through in order to help him finance his promised medical plan?
Using a carbon tax to help finance his promised “tax break for the middle class” would hardly fly as most people would see that this is only shifting the money from one pocket to another.
Or will this whole boondoggle be put on the back burner while the real problems are addressed?
You may be right, and I may be wrong.
But then, I’m an optimist.
Regards,
Max
Well, Max, I hope you’re right and that the US will not go down the path that we are following in the UK. You may be interested to see my post here.
Best wishes – R