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.
If the state of Hawaii temperature trend is rural it is obviously an outlier.
Peter, you say
You can use a computer to vary a wing geometry much quicker and cheaper than a making a whole range of actual models. Computers are a lot cheaper than wind tunnels. They can be left running unattended overnight and at weekends.
The point is wind tunnels prove the data fed into the design program is correct, would the manufacturers bolt the wings on then test fly the plane without verifying the wings will remain intact in flight. The wind tunnel verifies the design, that is why the most successful F1 teams have one.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/windtunnel.html
Your climate models can`t even simulate weather 3 months ahead in time, if they cannot do that how do you verify they are correct.
The one thing they ALL show though is 2.5 times more warming in the tropical upper troposphere than the surface which since 1979 have risen approx 0.13C per decade, according to the Met Office Hadley the upper troposphere has only warmed 0.1C per decade.
Climate change prediction a robust or flawed process.
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Events/Seminars/file_25825.pdf
Excellent point.
Domestic Wind Turbines – A Net User of Electricity?
The October 2008 edition of Which? Magazine reported on domestic wind turbines in an article entitled ‘Wind turbine blows cold.’ Which? installed one in a house and monitored it from December 2007 to June 2008. The result was that it used more electricity than it generated. This is because the turbine includes an “inverter” that converts the energy into electricity to go into the mains, and the inverter needs power which it draws whether the wind is turning the turbine or not.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/01/domestic-wind-turbines-a-net-user-of-electricity/
Brute and TonyB, Re graphing a tiny, tiny, relative quantity.
If you use a pie chart you have the benefit of 360 degrees giving an effectively larger scale per unit of real estate, and there is no interference from the x axis:
I don’t have any sophisticated charting software, and used some free kid’s software, by Googling ‘pie chart’ You might even like to fiddle with it, like I did on SOHO sunspots below, in MS PAINT, but the pie segment is drawn pixilated, not mathematical, in the charting software I used, and it would not work.
Brute and TonyB,
Further my 3779, I think it might be nice to do a pie-chart for say 1850 and 2050, for comparison, and maybe with a T graph below.
10 Jan 2009
John Constable, research director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, said wind has been generating at a sixth of total capacity for much of the last couple of weeks, dropping to almost zero at times.
“This shows that wind provides very little firm, reliable capacity,” he said. “At times of high demand in cold weather there is a tendency for there to be no wind.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/4208940/Wind-energy-supply-dips-during-cold-snap.html
Tonyb,
Is this it?
CO2 Absorption Spectrum, is this fact or fiction.
http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
Brute,
You’ve asked:
“So manmade CO2 represents approximately 0.001915% of the atmosphere? ”
Well, actually, no it doesn’t. Its 0.0105%
385-280 = 105ppmv = 1.05 x 10^-4 (1% = 1 x 10^-2)
It might not seem like much, but the theory is that it has changed radiative forcing by
1.66 W/m^-2
This compares to a total solar radiation of
1369 W/m^-2
As it percentage, that works out to be 0.12%
So, the scientific case is that an increase in a trace gas of about 0.01% has produced a change in the earth’s net energy balance of 0.12%
Again, this doesn’t seem like much, but it didn’t take much to swing the earth’s climate from ice age to its current state. And it won’t take much to swing it from what it is now to a dangerously warm state. Maybe you’d like to put this in your Pie chart too?
Hey Brute,
Some advice. Watch out for the “smoke and mirrors” in Peter’s 3784.
He wrote:
“’So manmade CO2 represents approximately 0.001915% of the atmosphere?‘
Well, actually, no it doesn’t. Its 0.0105%
385-280 = 105ppmv = 1.05 x 10^-4 (1% = 1 x 10^-2)
It might not seem like much, but the theory is that it has changed radiative forcing by
1.66 W/m^-2
This compares to a total solar radiation of
1369 W/m^-2
As it percentage, that works out to be 0.12%
So, the scientific case is that an increase in a trace gas of about 0.01% has produced a change in the earth’s net energy balance of 0.12%.”
So far, so good. This tells us (following the greenhouse theory) that increased anthropogenic CO2 (280 to 385 ppmv) has hypothetically “caused” warming of around 0.3C to date, and that if it continues to 560 ppmv by year 2100 (twice the “pre-industrial” level) we would see another 0.4C warming from today.
Then Peter opines, “Again, this doesn’t seem like much, but it didn’t take much to swing the earth’s climate from ice age to its current state. And it won’t take much to swing it from what it is now to a dangerously warm state.”
This part is unsubstantiated conjecture and hype.
Moving from ice age conditions to today’s improved climate had nothing to do with human CO2.
Another 0.4C warming by year 2100 (as identified above, based on what has already happened to date) does not constitute “a dangerously warm state”.
Watch out for Peter’s remarks that start off with logical (if theoretical) premises and then move with a “leap of faith” to unsubstantiated irrational suggestions of impending disaster.
It’s a ploy often used by the doomsayers.
Regards,
Max
BobClive, Reur 3783:
My very QUICK response, much that I admire the ex John Daly, is that you should not take this particular argument too seriously. It is far more complicated than as stated. For instance in EMR, the photon free path lengths between min and max lengths are in ALL directions. (Except when prevented by nearness to ground). Radiation does NOT stop at full or lesser optical depth absorption in ANY direction, and re-emission from molecules can occur from anywhere. (OR kinetic transfer to other molecules and other stuff). The Earth’s surface is NOT a black body, and there is lots of other stuff going on.
I do not want subjects like the US health care system discussed on this blog, as I have made clear before.
It is Monday morning here in the UK, and I haven’t looked at this thread since Saturday morning. During that time it has generated about 9000 words in comments. As they have appeared on a blog that I run I have no alternative but to read through them. This takes up my time, and there are a lot of more pressing things that I have to do. Most of what appears this thread is of very little interest to me.
This is not a criticism of the comments that are being posted, far from it, the general standard is something to be proud of, but I learned long ago that the climate debate covers a vast range of subjects and disciplines and in order to make a sensible contribution it is necessary to specialise. Harmless Sky was not set up to discuss climate science; there are many other blogs that do that. At the moment I am prepared to let such discussions continue on this thread, as that is what the contributors seem to want, but only so long as the comments are of a type that I can skim quickly to ensure that they are not straying into ‘no go’ areas. To a certain extent, the process has to be self policing and I do not want to have to read the whole of long posts to see if someone has craftily dropped in some political stuff near the end.
Over the next few days, the inauguration is going to be at the forefront of many people’s minds. Can I ask everyone to be very careful.
MAX: It seems unfair to single you out, as you are by no means the only offender, but I found this irritating:
The ‘Goodbye to 2008’ comments are not on another site, they are on this site, but a different thread, and I do read those threads carefully; they cover subjects that this blog is intended to deal with. If you have comments to make about what is said on other threads, then please make them in the appropriate place. I’m do not have time to plough through reams of comments here to see if there is anything that belongs elsewhere and then move them. Even if I did, because comments come in from a wide range of time zones it would not be very practical. Other people who do not follow the NS thread are unlikely to see such comments at all, which is a pity, because the rest of what you said would have been a perceptive and useful contribution if it had been made in the right place.
Bob FJ and Brute
Visually the pie chart is a great idea, Orally the skyscraper analogy is a good one, and if you are talking in a more detailed manner with anyone the facts and figures are interesting-I suggest you follow Max’s advice on this in #3785.
Me? Im still waiting expectantly for Peters exposition as to how co2 levels remained at a constant 280ppm throughout our history (until rcently)despite temperatures being higher and lower in the past than the present. If co2 is so sensitive to temperatures you would think it would respond accordingly-but apparently it doesn’t according to Peter and the ice cores.
Whilst I’m waiting, perhaps anyone else here might like to give an opinion on this conundrum?
TonyB
TonyB
Of course I do not want to discourage Peter from answering your query directly (3788):
“Im still waiting expectantly for Peters exposition as to how co2 levels remained at a constant 280ppm throughout our history (until recently) despite temperatures being higher and lower in the past than the present. If co2 is so sensitive to temperatures you would think it would respond accordingly-but apparently it doesn’t according to Peter and the ice cores.”
I am sure that Peter has very definite and specific ideas on this “conundrum”, but since you have invited others to join in (and it definitely meets the “on topic” definition of TonyN), I’ll put in my comment.
Many scientists have pointed out that we can hardly even begin to estimate the global warming impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases until we:
1. Have a robust indicator of our planet’s “globally averaged annual temperature”
2. Understand all natural climate forcing factors and their impacts in detail, so that these can be factored out of any theoretically derived anthropogenic forcing factors and impacts
I would submit that we do not at present have a robust indicator of our planet’s “globally averaged annual temperature”, for several reasons.
The tropospheric record shows significantly lower warming rates than the surface record, in itself directly refuting the greenhouse theory, according to which exactly the opposite should be the case. Unfortunately, IPCC “sticks its head in the sand” and denies that this is the case, claiming that discrepancies between the records have been largely reconciled, and in one instance even claiming that “the troposphere has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface” (!), adding “ This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results, which demonstrate the role of increased greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming”.
The surface record is not transparent and there is a valid question regarding the scientific objectivity of the “record takers”. Whether we are talking about GISS or Hadley, these “record takers” are all strong proponents of the AGW theory who frequently issue press releases making projections of record warming, defending an underlying anthropogenic warming trend even when their own temperature measurements are plummeting, etc. Until these individuals can be replaced with unbiased observers, the record will continue to be suspect.
Worst of all, both surface records are adjusted “ex post facto”, sometimes even years after the measurements were taken, and always in such a fashion to make recent warming look more alarming.
There have been many studies from all over the world that show that there is a significant upward distortion to the surface temperature record from the “urban heat island” effect. Unfortunately, IPCC “sticks its head in the sand” and denies that this is the case; the studies it cites to support its position (Parker “calm night / windy night”) do not provide credible evidence to refute these many studies in support of the IPCC position.
So we see that it is very doubtful that we do, indeed, have a robust indicator of our planet’s “globally averaged annual temperature”.
To the second point, Dr. Akasufo and others have pointed out that there are many unknowns in our planet’s climate history, which cannot be explained today. Until we can clearly identify the causes for the many natural climate variations in recent history, it is “bad science” and a gross oversimplification to pinpoint one small factor (anthropogenic forcing) and blame all recent warming on this alone.
Your query goes to the heart of this argument, as do the questions below.
Why did our planet warm from 1910 to 1944 (over half of the entire 20th century warming occurred over this period), when there were very low human CO2 emissions?
Why did it cool from 1944 to 1976, despite increasing CO2 emissions during the post-WWII boom years?
Why has it cooled again since 2001, despite all-time record CO2 emissions?
Until we can truly answer these questions (not just invent some rationalizations to try to make the observed facts fit the beautiful hypothesis), we cannot even begin to establish the importance of AGW in affecting our planet’s climate.
Just my thoughts. Peter’s may be different (if you can even get him to reply).
Regards,
Max
Max said;
“So we see that it is very doubtful that we do, indeed, have a robust indicator of our planet’s “globally averaged annual temperature”.
Max, you know I agree with this statement- hence my complete bemusement when you parse fractions of a degree for ‘global temperature from 1850’ with Peter. You might as well use seaweed (or lakeweed in your case)
This link gives a good background to these artifical constructs-some of which have been posted here before. THe first shows number of stations
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSU_Satellite_Temperatures_Continue_to_Diverge_from_Global_Data_Bases.pdf
The above link gives some information on drop out of stations-good asnimation from 1950.
“In addition to the extensive problem of sparseness, the network has also been historically constantly changing – the number of available temperature reporting stations changes with time. The so-called “global” measurements are not really global at all. The coverage by land surface thermometers slowly increased from less than 10% of the globe in the 1880s to about 40% in the 1960’s, but has decreased rapidly in recent years. The GISS web site shows how the number of stations has changed, as shown below in Figure 2-2″
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Note that in Figure 2-2 c) the definition of percent coverage is based on “percent of hemispheric area located within 1200 km (720 miles) of a reporting station”! Yet 720 miles is about twice the width or height of the largest 5×5 degree grid box”
The above couple of paragraphs from this excellent site.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/
There are other authors who are very readable on the subject including Vincent Grey-IPCC expert reviewer
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/GlobalScam3a.pd
Thanks for your thoughts on how co2 can be stable at 280ppm throughout our history despite great fluctuations in temperature.
I look forward to getting the input from the others-especially Peter.
TonyB
Hi Brute,
Don’t want you guys out there thinking that I am a chart fetishist, but I broke down, so here are the “pie charts”.
To keep Peter happy, I’ll put on my “AGW-Team” hat, and agree with him (against all logic) that ALL of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was anthropogenic, from the (magic, totally flat since all historical time began) 280 ppm (that TonyB has some problems with) to the (currently recorded at Mauna Loa and subsequently “massaged”) 385 ppm (that TonyB also questions).
This means we have added 105 ppmv of CO2 to our Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, this is a “net” value, since human emissions add up to about 2x this value. The other half is either dissolved in the ocean or lost to space or disappears in some other, as yet unknown, manner. TonyB has some ideas on the CO2 half-life in the atmosphere, which is quite a bit shorter than that assumed by IPCC.
Now greenhouse gurus tell us that water vapor is by far the most important GHG, accounting for somewhere between 65 and 90 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. Lots of different estimates out there. Let’s take an average of 78%.
“Natural” (i.e. “pre-industrial”) CO2 accounts for 7 to 25 percent of the greenhouse effect (let’s take an average of 16%).
The rest (6%) is from various other “natural” GHGs.
The total “natural” greenhouse effect is estimated to be 33C, so this means 280 ppmv CO2 have caused 0.16 * 33 = 5.3C of the “natural” greenhouse warming. (BTW Dr. Lindzen agrees with this figure, so it can’t be that far off.)
The greenhouse hypothesis tells us that a CO2 increase from 280 to 385 ppmv should theoretically have caused warming of 0.3C. (Lindzen likes this figure, too, and so does IPCC!)
So you can see that “human CO2” has caused around 1% of the total greenhouse warming to date. The other 99% is natural.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/3210271667_a5015a92f9_b.jpg
Now to atmospheric composition.
Your figures were on a dry basis. If you add in water vapor (average of 2%) you get the pie chart on top.
Since the smaller components (especially CO2) are not visible on that scale, I’ve drawn another pie chart taking out the two principal components (nitrogen and oxygen).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/3211126548_6e3815095f_b.jpg
It’s still pretty hard to “find” CO2 even on this chart, especially “human” CO2. It’s really a very teensy-weensy component (to put it in non-scientific terms).
Regards,
Max
TonyB,
I’ve just realised what you are getting at.
In the past CO2 has been a follower . Small changes in solar energy incident on the earth, which in turn were caused by planetary influences on the earth’s orbit, the Malenkovitch cycles, have changed the growth conditions of the earth’s vegetation and the soluability of CO2 in the oceans.
As temperatures varied, CO2 levels followed, and temperatures followed too. The positive feedback effect.
This time it is different. Ice cores have shown that the atmospheric level of CO2 has stayed pretty constant at 280ppmv for the last few thousand years. The recent rise in CO2 levels is due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. So CO2 is now the driver of climate change.
Max,
There is really no smoke and mirrors. I should give you credit, you yourself have never used the ‘C02 is such a tiny proportion of the atmosphere that it can’t possibly be doing any harm’ line. Presumably you must realise that it is one of the more naive of the contrarian arguments.
It is not my just opinion that it didn’t take much to swing the earth’s climate from glacial state to interglacial state in recent geological eras. Malenkovitch, of Malenkovitch cycle fame, would have agreed too. And what are they? They are changes in the earth’s orbit, occuring every 30000 to 100000 years, and caused by changing pull of other planets in the solar system.
Now these aren’t very big. Tiny would be a more appropriate word. It is much harder to believe that the orbits of Jupiter or Saturn could could have a devasting change to our climate than the annual Gigatonnes of CO2 emissions.
Of course, if you know differently……
Hi Peter,
In discussing the Malenkovitch cycles, you wrote: “Now these aren’t very big. Tiny would be a more appropriate word. It is much harder to believe that the orbits of Jupiter or Saturn could could have a devasting change to our climate than the annual Gigatonnes of CO2 emissions.”
This , Peter, is entirely a matter of opinion.
I, for one, have not witnessed a “devastating change to our climate” resulting from the “annual Gigatonnes of CO2 emissions.”
Have you?
How has this “devastating change to our climate” manifested itself?
Please elaborate.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Back to your wonderfully religious “statement of faith” to TonyB:
“In the past CO2 has been a follower . Small changes in solar energy incident on the earth, which in turn were caused by planetary influences on the earth’s orbit, the Malenkovitch cycles, have changed the growth conditions of the earth’s vegetation and the soluability of CO2 in the oceans.
As temperatures varied, CO2 levels followed, and temperatures followed too. The positive feedback effect. “
There is a lot of religious belief in this statement. I especially liked the totally unsubstantiated “As temperatures varied, CO2 levels followed, and temperatures followed too. The positive feedback effect. “
Peter, the observed fact here is that CO2 lagged temperature by several hundred years.
It was not a driver of climate.
It followed.
To attempt to construe some sort of pseudoscientific “positive feedback effect” (whereby CO2 took over as a “driver”) requires a strong religious faith in AGW (even when there is absolutely no evidence that it existed).
Here is a more correct (but less religiously faithful) statement:
“In the past atmospheric CO2 increase has consistently been a follower of higher temperature, rather than a driver, often lagging by several hundred years. There is no compelling reason to believe that this will be any different today, but it is still too early to tell.”
This would have been an objective (but less religiously faithful) statement.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
[Tried sending this earlier, but it got hung up in the “spam filter”.}
Don’t want you guys out there thinking that I am a chart fetishist, but I broke down, so here are the “pie charts”.
To keep Peter happy, I’ll put on my “AGW-Team” hat, and agree with him (against all logic) that ALL of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was anthropogenic, from the (magic, totally flat since all historical time began) 280 ppm (that TonyB has some problems with) to the (currently recorded at Mauna Loa and subsequently “massaged”) 385 ppm (that TonyB also questions).
This means we have added 105 ppmv of CO2 to our Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, this is a “net” value, since human emissions add up to about 2x this value. The other half is either dissolved in the ocean or lost to space or disappears in some other, as yet unknown, manner. TonyB has some ideas on the CO2 half-life in the atmosphere, which is quite a bit shorter than that assumed by IPCC.
Now greenhouse gurus tell us that water vapor is by far the most important GHG, accounting for somewhere between 65 and 90 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. Lots of different estimates out there. Let’s take an average of 78%.
“Natural” (i.e. “pre-industrial”) CO2 accounts for 7 to 25 percent of the greenhouse effect (let’s take an average of 16%).
The rest (6%) is from various other “natural” GHGs.
The total “natural” greenhouse effect is estimated to be 33C, so this means 280 ppmv CO2 have caused 0.16 * 33 = 5.3C of the “natural” greenhouse warming. (BTW Dr. Lindzen agrees with this figure, so it can’t be that far off.)
The greenhouse hypothesis tells us that a CO2 increase from 280 to 385 ppmv should theoretically have caused warming of 0.3C. (Lindzen likes this figure, too, and so does IPCC!)
So you can see that “human CO2” has caused around 1% of the total greenhouse warming to date. The other 99% is natural.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/3210271667_a5015a92f9_b.jpg
Now to atmospheric composition.
Your figures were on a dry basis. If you add in water vapor (average of 2%) you get the pie chart on top.
Since the smaller components (especially CO2) are not visible on that scale, I’ve drawn another pie chart taking out the two principal components (nitrogen and oxygen).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/3211126548_6e3815095f_b.jpg
It’s still pretty hard to “find” CO2 even on this chart, especially “human” CO2. It’s really a very teensy-weensy component (to put it in non-scientific terms).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You opined, “I should give you credit, you yourself have never used the ‘C02 is such a tiny proportion of the atmosphere that it can’t possibly be doing any harm’ line. Presumably you must realise that it is one of the more naive of the contrarian arguments.”
“Contrarian arguments” sounds a bit polemic, Peter. Why don’t you just say “arguments against the postulation of alarming greenhouse warming”?
But, leaving that aside.
The total “greenhouse effect” is estimated generally to have caused a warming of 33C.
“Natural” (i.e. pre-industrial) CO2 is generally considered to represent 5.3C of this greenhouse effect, with the great majority caused by water vapor.
Anthropogenic CO2 (as arbitrarily postulated to be everything over 280 ppmv) represents around 0.3C (or 1% of the total greenhouse effect).
Does seem sort of “tiny” to me. Do you see this differently? If so, why?
Regards,
Max
Peter
So for the last 420000 years -according to the ice cores- co2 has been constant and a follower, and suddenly by some mysterious process has become a driver.
The 280ppm levels generated temperatures as high or higher than todays at 380ppm. Don’t you think that either suggests that co2 is not a key component, or that co2 levels from ice cores are substantially undestimated due to the proceesses involved and the levels now are not substantially different to what they have always been?
TonyB
Hey Pete, sorry for the delay, but Reur 2722/25, I’ve been meaning to mention this before, because I’m really very impressed by part of your comment to TonyN:
“You are letting your anti-science slip show again, I’m afraid”
Wow Pete, that was really very sharp from you: (unless it was accidental): You were apparently mimicking; with your ‘Anti Science Slip‘, (ASS); your great wondrous oracle Joseph Romm, and his ASS = Anti Science Syndrome!
What great 100+ IQ insight on your part.
Could you possibly show the same startling intelligence over at your OWN lead thread nearby, to various questions of you that still remain open?
Max,
You are saying that 280 ppmv of CO2 is responsible for 5.3 degs of the the GH effect but that 385 ppmv of CO2 is only responsible for 5.6 deg C?
That doesn’t look right. Maybe you’d like to check your figures?
TonyB,
Yes it is a bit of a mystery where that extra CO2 is coming from. But, rest assured, we have teams of scientists working on that very problem.
Scientists do have some strange ideas at times though. There are more than a few out there who actually think that this is the cause of the problem.