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.
Saw this article today on the prospects of Global COOLING via Greenie Watch.
Developing nations reject G8 AGW plan.
JZ: your news story (427) should be read in conjunction with the McRae article I referred to at 415. As I said, anyone who still thinks that man’s CO2 emissions will be reduced soon is living in dreamland. It’s not going to happen: we’d better get used to it. AGW believers, in particular, must take this on board and decide how to proceed. I hope they will come to see that the only sensible course is a move away from fossil fuel dependance, but within practical economic constraints, coupled with adaptation as and when problems arise. Agree to that and we can all work together.
Peter writes:
“but any responsible policy maker should take more account of mainstream science than the rantings of those who have a problem accepting that science , but yet have few , if any, scientific qualifications in the subject.”
Pete,
Please refer to JZ’s link, post # 421 for an example of your so called “scientific method”.
Hi Robin,
Your link (415) is thought-provoking.
G8 delegates clucking about global “carbon goals” for the next 20 or 50 years is about as irrelevant as the treaties signed in the mid-18th century between Great Britain, France and Spain concerning the ownership and boundaries of their North American colonies.
It is pure folly to believe that the Chinese (or any of the emerging economic giants) will slow down their economic growth to meet “carbon targets” based on a bunch of “fuzzy logic” computer projections predicting imminent global climate disaster.
You are right, Robin. It will not happen.
So let’s move on to “Plan B”.
Regards,
Max
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/giss-tsdsst-numbers-are-in/#comments
Max,
Can you explain this to me?
Bob_FJ (416) — It is clear you didn’t follow what I stated. Block averages are probably easier for non-experts to comprehend; afterall, that’s what you do to form monthly and annual averages, is it not?
Given the fact that the GISP2 temperatures are only reported at approximately decadal intervals, no finer resolution of that data makes much sense. So to compare it to HadCRUTv3 global temperatures, decadal block averages make the most sense, yes?
Robin Guenier (411) — IPCC AR4 concensus opinion is that they are 90% sure that GW is AGW.
The unknown part for earlier times is aerosols. This situation could only be improved by some exceedingly clever proxy, one which has not been forthcoming.
Hi JZSmith,
Your link to the bovine degasification threat got me to thinking.
The article points out that “methane is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide”.
This is truly alarming, as I’m sure both Peter Martin and David B. Benson will agree.
IPCC tells us that atmospheric concentration of methane (CH4) was 1774 ppbv in 2005 and growing at an accelerating rate. IPCC also informs us that (without “feedbacks”) CH4 has a radiative forcing of 0.48 W/m^2 (while CO2 has a RF of 1.66 W/m^2).
Based on this the “climate sensitivity” for 2xCH4 would be around 0.07C without any “positive feedbacks”. But to be on the safe side we should “crank in” the 4.4x “positive feedback” effect (as pointed out by David B. Benson). So we have a 2xCH4 “scenario” of around 0.3C.
But wait! There are an awful lot of cows out there. According to your cited study, Argentina estimates that 30% of its greenhouse effect comes from this problem today. And we all know that this problem is growing exponentially as hamburger consumption in the rapidly expanding emerging economies skyrockets.
So let’s be on the safe side and count on a 4xCH4 “storyline”. This brings us to the alarming increase of around 0.6C caused by bovine degasification alone.
This is potentially disastrous, but I think we can come up with a solution: install post-rectal collection systems (such as the one pictured) and couple this with a simple gas flare (like those installed in the Saudi oil fields).
Then we have converted the CH4 to CO2, also a GHG (plus H2O).
But a 5350 ppbv increase in CH4 is only a 5.35 ppmv increase and one mol of CH4 yields one mol of CO2, so we have a 5.35 ppmv increase in CO2. At the current CO2 level of 380 ppmv this only represents a 1.4% increase in CO2 from converted bovine off-gas.
Using DBB’s climate sensitivity of 3C for 2xCO2 we only have a temperature increase of 0.03C from a 1.4% increase. (This checks with the estimate from the bovine study, which states that CH4 is 20 times as effective as CO2 as a GHG.)
So we can nip the potential “runaway” or “tipping point” effect from bovine degasification in the bud with a simple technical solution.
As a second step, we could always consider “carbon sequestering” to reduce the impact even further.
Maybe the “scientists” running the UK bovine degasification study should get a government grant to study this further.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Max
Max,
It’s good that you accept that “probably” there is a link between CO2 concentrations and global temperature.
However, I think you are wrong in saying that the current levels of warming aren’t a cause for concern.
Lets take your claim that we are approximately half way to doubling the world temperature from pre-industrial days. What would you say that was? About 0.9deg C? So that would mean that by 2100, or whenever CO2 levels double, we’ll end up with a rise of 1.8deg C.
That alone is quite significant, but what about the time lag that exists between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations? The temperature of a swimming pool doesn’t rise and fall by the same amount as the daily air temperature. Similarly the ocean’s temperature will take years to come into equilibrium with rising atmospheric temperatures. I seem to remember reading that the amount of AGW in the pipeline is equal to what we have already experienced. Maybe DBB can comment on that statement?
If so, it would mean that instead of 1.8 deg C, we’ll end up with a 3.6 deg C temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 levels.
Your point about affluence and CO2 emissions is largely correct, or at least it has been historically. The challenge for the future is to break that link.
Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
David 432, there is no doubt that you are a master at waffle, diversionary comments, and nil response to hard questions. You wrote in part: “Bob_FJ (416) — It is clear you didn’t follow what I stated. Block averages are probably easier for non-experts to comprehend…..”
By using “Live Search” for the dreaded T-word, I found your 106, which states in part:
I [DBB] didn’t even know that there is a Hadley standard 21-year smoother. It is not in the index of the temperature products at their site AFAIK. I just used Tamino’s because it is convenient. Furthermore, those readers were are even more of a novice at statistics than I will find Tamino’s easier to read, IMO.
From there-on, you rigorously defended your preference for the T’ graph over the ORIGINAL Hadley graph, even though I showed clearly in my graphical mark-up, that your preference substantially corrupts the original data. In particular, you simply ignored the significance of the red and blue dots etc.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2617145577_58bdc1fd82_o.jpg
You also wrote in part, presumably in order to obfuscate: “Block averages are probably easier for non-experts to comprehend; afterall, that’s what you do to form monthly and annual averages, is it not?”
How “they” do monthly or yearly “averaging”, be it simply or otherwise, is a red herring. We have been discussing how Hadley smooths THEIR YEARLY data, which is rather noisy, versus, your preferred crude corruption of it by T‘.
Incidentally, although it IS irrelevant, I don’t know how “they” determine monthly or yearly averages but I guess that they might base it on some simple statistical coding for months of about x30 days. For years, if they use the “averaged” monthly data, again, I would guess the same technique. If they use x365 days, hmm, perhaps something more complicated. You obviously can’t use moving averages on a short data series!
I neither understand, or am interested in your further red herrings, unquoted here.
Bob,
Will you look at my link in # 431 and explain this process in layman’s terms?
Brute 436
Even very simple arithmetic has no value to the fruitcakes driving the political agenda.
I feel depressed
I have this on my desktop, I wish the fruitcakes would too,and study it daily
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
Now that might get really depressing!
Tony,
I think I just got spammed on a short post to Brute, with one innocent looking link. One of the annoying aspects of it here is that there is no message to say it’s in mediation whatever, so it is tempting to have another go, and maybe end-up with a double post
Brute,438
I may have to have an anger management course, before I can help. It is the link to RC and the graphs for ENSO “correction” that is your concern?
It is based on an Australian study that made me feel quite depressed.
You do know that comments to RC are edited out if the author does not like them?
Gavin is notorius somewhat akin to Tamino.
Bugger, where is my mouthwash…..
Oh,Tony,
Another thing, sometimes the preview fails to appear for me…… Is this significant?
TonyN: Steady Bob! It happens to us all occasionally, even on far grander blogs than this one. I’ll try Spam Karma when I get a chance. When I tried Bad Behavior last weekend it certainly didn’t work for me. If a comment does get spammed, it will appear when I next check the filter, which is usually 5 or 6 times a day now. In theory Akismet should then be ‘trained’ to recognise your contributions.
The ISP that I use is not powered by Apache and that limits the preview plugins that I can use. I know that the present one is not perfect and, when possible, I will replace it.
David (433): you say that “the IPCC AR4 consensus opinion is that they are 90% sure that GW is AGW”. Well, (a) that’s an inaccurate summary of the IPCC’s position and (b) even if it were accurate, it’s not (as I’m sure you know) an answer to my posts 304, 329, 369 and 411. Groan.
Further to posts 415, 427 and 428, this article is interesting.
Robin 441,
If I understand you correctly, I think you are suggesting that David Bullshit Benson has not answered your 304, 329, 369 and 411.
Funny that! I seem to have the same sort of difficulty in various issues that I have raised with him!
Incidentally, when he talks of a 90% something or other, does he know the sum of the individuals whom made that final declaration?
Do those few souls actually represent “The Concensus”?
Max,
Sometimes when I get depressed such as after reading AGW pronouncements from our great leader in Oz, Kevin Rudd, (AKA…. among other things…. Kevin Oh-7), and his recently tamed version of UK’s Stern, another economist, Garnaut, I resort to cerebral relief by browsing the vast cyber-collection of Viola jokes, and I’ve just stumbled on this one that you may well like:
Note: the following joke is very funny in German, but doesn’t translate well into English. (Q.. What are the three positions of the viola?):
Was sind die drei Lagen auf der Bratsche?
Erste Lage, Notlage, und Niederlage.
I really don’t get it (per literally)! Is it really funny?
But, I guess it must be exceptional for it to be given in this way.
BTW, have you seen that German Movie: Manitu’s shoe?
It is SOooooh…..SO funny!!!!! (Not sure of spelling for Manitu)
I’ve watched it maybe six times, over a couple of years, and each time it gets better!
And, I’m NOT a movie aficionado!
BTW, my favourite viola joke is:
Q..Where do you hide your violin if you don’t want it to be stolen:
A..In a viola case!
Bob_FJ
See your #439 and my note on #440.
Hi Peter,
You wrote (435):
“Lets take your claim that we are approximately half way to doubling the world temperature from pre-industrial days. What would you say that was? About 0.9deg C? So that would mean that by 2100, or whenever CO2 levels double, we’ll end up with a rise of 1.8deg C.”
Sorry, Peter, your premise as well as your numbers are incorrect.
I did not say “that we are approximately half way to doubling the world temperature from pre-industrial days”. What I said was that we have already seen around one-half (45%) of the expected temperature increase from doubling CO2. Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann and IPCC (Myhre et al.) tell us that doubling CO2 will result in an increase of 0.68C (let’s call that 0.7C).
IPCC (SPM 2007, p.4) gives CO2 a Radiative Forcing of 1.66 W/m^2 , from a pre-industrial concentration of about 280 ppmv in 1750 to 379 ppmv in 2005 (p.2). This is the basis for the 2xCO2 increase of 0.7C. (If you want, I can go through the calculation for you.)
That’s the rise we will see from CO2 by 2100. So far we have seen around 0.3C (from CO2) and another 0.3-0.4C from other partly unexplained sources. Between now and 2100 we should see around 0.4C from CO2 (and who knows what in which direction from the same “partly unexplained other sources”).
Now you continue with your flawed logic and erroneous arithmetic when you write: “I seem to remember reading that the amount of AGW in the pipeline is equal to what we have already experienced. Maybe DBB can comment on that statement? If so, it would mean that instead of 1.8 deg C, we’ll end up with a 3.6 deg C temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 levels.”
Forget that one. Don’t need any longwinded BS from DBB to clear this up.
You are starting with the false premise of 1.8C for 2xCO2, where the theory says 0.7C (see above), of which we have already experienced 0.3C today. That’s all the greenhouse warming that is theoretically there from CO2, Peter. Anything else comes from something else that we cannot change by “reducing human CO2 emissions”.
From this we can conclude that your next statement was based on faulty logic and bad arithmetic: “However, I think you are wrong in saying that the current levels of warming aren’t a cause for concern.”
You will certainly agree that “the current levels of warming [i.e. today’s temperatures] aren’t a cause for concern”. What’s to be concerned about?
A 0.4C temperature increase between now and 2100 is also no cause for concern. This is all you’re going to get from CO2, so there is no real need to be concerned about CO2 levels.
Finally you wrote: “Your point about affluence and CO2 emissions is largely correct, or at least it has been historically. The challenge for the future is to break that link.”
This may, indeed, be a challenge, which the world will have to face. But this is not in order to avoid “disastrous AGW” caused by CO2 emissions (which you can see from the above is not a real threat), but from the REAL threat of running out of fossil fuel resources and relying on imports from unstable regions of the world.
We do not have to wreck the economies of the world with draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes to get there; the free market pressures and sound technical solutions (such as those recently proposed by T. Boone Pickens for the USA) will take care of this transition all by themselves.
Hope this clears this up.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
You asked (431): “Max, Can you explain this to me?”
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/giss-tsdsst-numbers-are-in/#comments
Regarding “rewriting temperature history” after the fact at GISS, the post by John Goetz (July 9) explains in general terms what is going on there, and the post by Bob Tisdale (later same day) shows that June 1988 was warmer in both the USA and globally than June 2008, 20 years later.
Poster Oldjim refers to a RealClimate article “correcting the temperature record for the ENSO effect”. This is the typical RC “smoke and mirrors” approach to “fogging up” recorded facts that do not fit their notions on how AGW should be working (but is not).
On the grist site
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
I responded to an avid AGW proponent who had cited this article with:
———————————————–
The RealClimate link to “correcting for the ENSO signal” is a real “hoot”! Cool.
Just did the same sort of look-see for “correcting for the CO2 signal”.
Start of 1998, CO2 was 363 ppmv
End of 2007, CO2 was 383 ppmv
Ratio, End/Start, = 1.0551
ln (1.0551) = 0.5363
5.35 * 0.5363 = 0.2869
(using IPCC figures for RF per Myhre et al)
Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273
Temperature rise due to added CO2 = 0.2869 / 5.4273 = 0.0529C
So by cutting out 0.0529C over the 10-year period (on a year by year basis, of course) we can “correct the record for the CO2 signal”.
Trouble is, there was no increase in temperature over the period. Hmmm…
But it just goes to show what you can do by jiggling numbers around.
—————————————-
The RealClimate rationalization on the differences between Hadley and GISS being a “function of coverage and extrapolation procedures” is more of the same RC “smoke and mirrors”.
The truth of the matter is that the GISS record (not only for the USA but globally as well) is not transparent. It is adjusted, manipulated and corrected ad nauseam (even retroactively) and has been shown to have major errors. It is managed by James E. Hansen, a “self-proclaimed” savior of the planet and environmental activist wearing the mantle of a supposedly neutral scientist in the pay of the US taxpayers to give them unbiased weather and climate data.
The Hadley “scientists” are also firm believers in and proponents of the AGW hypothesis, but they may be a bit more adverse to jiggling their record to prove their point.
For trends I would put more faith in the satellite records, which are also not affected by the UHI effect, AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, etc.
That’s about the best I can do to explain it to you.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Forgot to mention.
Both satellite records (UAH and RSS) as well as the Hadley surface record show no warming since 1998 and slight cooling since 2001.
GISS is the “odd man out” again, showing slight warming since 1998 and a flat trend since 2001.
Believe you can dismiss the GISS record as basically flawed (regardless of what RealClimate may tell you).
Regards,
Max
Manacker,
You do seem to be fond of trotting out the same piece of arithmetic to establish your scientific credentials. The problem for you is that, although you may have been in the mainstream of science over 100 years when Arrenhius first produced his ideas on the subject, ideas have developed a little since then. You obviously aren’t capable of swimmming in the mainstream and have settled for a very calm backwater where you can safely paddle. You might hope that you can “clear things up” from there but I don’t think so.
Mainstream science hasn’t rejected the ideas of Arrenhius, but rather it has come to be accepted that his contribution is very much the first term in the equation and that subsequent terms are necessary to address the feedback question. We may all wish that these were negligable but the evidence is very nuch to the contrary.
Sensible people, and there are many without any scientific background, only need look at what is happening in the Arctic, to glaciers around the world, to coral reefs, to the melting permafrost to know that even the current levels of global warming are a cause for concern.
Hi Peter,
Guess you got it wrong again. I used the IPCC AR4 estimates of RF for CO2. Is this not “mainstream science”?
As for the strong “positive” feedback hypothesis (from water as vapor, liquid droplets and ice crystals), this is extremely dicey as Spencer’s recent observations have shown. This, Peter, is “mainstream science” at work.
You have to keep up-to-date, Peter, to know what is really going on out there.
Regards,
Max