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.
Tonyb,
That’s good. I’ll pass that one around to my colleagues.
Here’s another……….
Solar Activity and Climate
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
It Don
It Don’t Add Up
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZhOGM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE=
This link demonstrates how the IPCC prophecies fared against reality.
Hi TonyB,
The 400+ page “Abrupt Climate Change” report you cited is interesting, possibly more for what it doesn’t say than for what it says. It was presented to the U.S. Congress in December 2008.
Its scope was specifically limited to the question, will AGW cause an increase in abrupt climate changes?
Abrupt climate change was defined (p.22) as:
“A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.”
These are the sorts of things James E. Hansen alluded to in his April 2007 testimony before a U.S. House Committee, in which he predicted “tipping points” that will have “devastating effects on wildlife and indigenous people”, cause “sea level rise this century [that] may be measured in meters”, “likely render the semi-arid states from west and central Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas increasingly drought prone and unsuitable for agriculture”, “cause the extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species” and result in the “creation of a ‘different planet’”.
So the report can be seen as sort of a “reality check” for congress on Hansen’s earlier alarming testimony to that body.
Based on the paleoclimate record, historical evidence plus model studies, four types of change were investigated (p.22):
· rapid decrease in ice sheet mass with resulting global sea level rise
· widespread and sustained changes to the hydrological cycle that includes drought
· changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC)
· rapid release to the atmosphere of the potent greenhouse gas methane, which is trapped in permafrost and on continental slopes.
To the first of these the report concludes (p.28):
“Ice-sheet models currently do not include the physical processes that may be governing these dynamical responses, so quantitative assessment of their possible contribution to sea level rise is not yet possible.”
To the general question whether there is evidence for anthropogenic forcing of drought (as postulated by IPCC) and the specific question of increased droughts in North America (as projected by Hansen), the report states:
“Systematic biases within current coupled atmospheric-ocean models raise concerns as to whether they currently represent the response of the tropical climate system to radiative forcing” (p.13)
“There is no clear evidence to date of human-induced global climate change on North American precipitation amounts” (p.13)
To an overturning of the AMOC (i.e. “Gulf stream”) as a result of global warming the report concludes (p.15):
“It is very unlikely that the AMOC will undergo a collapse or an abrupt transition to a weakened state during the 21st century”.
To a rapid release of methane from decomposing hydrates in marine or permafrost deposits, the report states:
“On the time scale of the coming century, it appears likely that most of the marine hydrate reservoirs will be insulated from anthropogenic climate change” (p.407)
“Destabilization of hydrates in permafrost from global warming is not expected to be significant over the next few centuries” (p.409)
The report generally accepts a priori the statements made by IPCC in its AR4 report on observed changes as well as claims with regard to all other points not specifically investigated.
It points out the many weaknesses with regard to predictions within its scope of investigation.
And it stresses the need for more work and improved climate models.
But with all its caveats and expressions of uncertainty plus its scope of investigation limited to abrupt climate changes, it does a pretty good job of contradicting the Hansen testimony and raising serious questions about other projected abrupt climate changes resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
Regards,
Max
Robin
Reur 4211. Does The Observer solicit or receive feedback from its readers on its articles?
I cannot imagine that there would be much positive feedback on the recent Hansen “wolf cry”.
Or am I overrating the intelligence of Observer readers?
Max
Oh yes, Max, they do – go here. Over 250 comments. And, yes, you’re right – not much positive feedback. Here’s one of the more measured observations:
Brute
reur 4201
It’s actually better than that.
Administrations of the past have been (rightly or wrongly) measured on the “number of jobs” they “created”. This is a fairly straightforward number based on # jobs at beginning and end of the administration.
By adding the words “or saved”, the many worried workers of today feel better that something is being done in Washington to “save” their jobs, but the statistic becomes meaningless. (A double-whammy for super spinmaster Obama).
Obama starts with (let’s say) 180 million “jobs” and an unemployment rate of 7.5%.
His “stimulus-spending” plan costs a lot of money but tanks as far as creating jobs.
In 4 years there are only 170 million “jobs” and the unemployment rate has surged to 18%.
So, according to the old statistic, his administration “lost” 10 million jobs.
But wait!
If there had not been a stimulus plan, things would have been much worse. His “economic team” has estimated that there would have been an additional 15 million jobs lost without the plan.
So Obama “created and saved” either 15 – 10 = 5 million jobs (net) OR
One could even say he “created and saved” 15 million jobs!
Whatta guy!
Max
Brute,
I don’t think anyone is underestimating the power of the sun. Or its variability.
Besides the normal 11 year sunspot cycle, your graph shows a change of approximately 1.5Wm^-2, in a total solar irradiance of 1365 Wm^-2, since 1900. Its been pretty steady since 1950.
Why does you graph in #4218 stop about 1980?
Hi Peter,
Brute and TonyB have inundated you with graphs and studies showing solar variations and their impacts.
This is on top of the nine or so studies by solar experts (which I cited), which conclude that roughly half of the 1850-2008 observed warming can be explained by changes in solar activity.
After all this, do you REALLY still believe that the solar impact on our climate has been negligible?
Or are you beginning to see the light?
Just a question.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Not negligable. But nowhere near the major factor either. Just do the calculations using Brute’s figures.
Hi Peter,
Our two last posts crossed.
I see you are now agreeing to around 1.5 W/m^2 change of solar irradiance over the 20th century. Actually this number has been estimated by Willson and others to be around 1.65 W/m^2 (or 10% higher than what you read off of the graph ).
This translates to a warming of around 0.35C (without any feedbacks, of course).
It also compares with a forcing from CO2 of 1.5 W/m^2 (adjusting the IPCC figure from a 1750 starting date to 1900).
This translates to a warming of around 0.3C (also without any feedbacks, of course).
So it looks like we have reached agreement on the solar and CO2 warming of the 20th century. Great!
Regards,
Max
Max,
I don’t have much time now, to do it myself, but have a another go at your calculation.
1.5 WM^-2 per square metre ( or 1.65 if you prefer) is the energy incident on the cross sectional area of the earth, which is a sphere so you’ll need to divide that by 4.
Then there is the albedo (80%) of the earth to factor in.
Max,
He doesn’t want to…..they refuse to accept the truth as it ruins the justification to implement the policies behind the political ideology that they favor……such is the Alarmist mentality. In fact, they will go to great lengths to make certain that few people realize what the truth is. Blind devotion to the “cause”…..Earth worship coupled with environmental evangelism.
There is no justification to yoke society or limit prosperity if the Alarmist admits the Sun, not CO2, is driving Earth’s climate. If he were to admit the Sun is driving Earth’s climate that would diminish the resentment toward “the rich”…..the scapegoat wouldn’t exist, there would be no one to blame for all of the ills of the world.
Pride also is a stumbling block.
Tonyb provided this quote earlier……
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
-L Tolstoy
Hi Peter,
You asked Brute why his curve linking solar cycle length and temperature over a long-term period ended around 1980.
I have seen a similar curve starting in 1870 and going to 1985 based on a Danish study that was published in the early 1990s.
I have seen no up-date of this study since then. Have you?
If I take the UAH satellite anomaly (adjusted to the same base) and plot this against the solar cycle length beyond 1985 to 2005, I get a fair correlation over the entire period.
(If I use the GISS record, the correlation is not as good beyond 1985.)
The two trend lines match pretty closely se well.
The correlation is at least as robust as the long-term correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, i.e. the “blips” in the curve do not correlate exactly when you get down to the “nitty gritty”, but they show fair correlation and the overall trend shows good correlation.
Do these correlations prove causation?
No. Neither one does.
But they are interesting background info.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Please refer to the nine solar studies I posted earlier for an estimate by experts on the solar impact on 20th century warming.
The average of all these studies is 0.35C.
I am not going to get into silly hypothetical calculations on this when I have studies by experts that agree.
Particularly when IPCC concedes that their “level of scientific understanding” of solar warming impact is “low”.
Regards,
Max
Global Warming’s Omitted Variable
http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm
Copyright 2005, by Alec Rawls
In late January, a spate of alarming global-warming reports hit the newspapers. The International Climate Change Taskforce warned that warming is likely to hit a
Global Warming’s Omitted Variable
http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm
Copyright 2005, by Alec Rawls
In late January, a spate of alarming global-warming reports hit the newspapers. The International Climate Change Taskforce warned that warming is likely to hit a “point of no return” within ten years. The World Wildlife Fund also warned of imminent climate “tipping.” Climateprediction.net announced that, by testing a wider variety of initial conditions than other climate modelers, it had arrived at a more radical range of warming predictions.
All of these studies employ the classic ruse of advocacy statistics: they omit key explanatory variables, so that explanatory power gets misattributed to those explanatory variables that are included. The variable that these studies leave out is the solar-magnetic flux. As a result, the warming caused by high levels of solar-wind over the last half-century gets misattributed to greenhouse gases. This exaggerated greenhouse warming effect then gets projected forward into trumped-up predictions of imminent catastrophe if human production of greenhouse gases is not drastically curtailed.
Sunspots and climate
Correlation between sunspot activity and cloudless skies has been observed for over a century. It is also known that the Little Ice Age coincided with a sunspot minimum. What has been a mystery until recently is the mechanisms by which solar activity might affect climate. In the last decade, scientists have finally begun to solve this riddle. Solar flares generate storms of solar-magnetic flux that partially shield the Earth from cosmic radiation. Evidence suggests that this cosmic radiation promotes cloud formation, either by ionizing the atmosphere, or by affecting the atmosphere’s electrical circuit. Thus high levels of solar wind have the effect of blowing away the cloud cover, giving the Earth a sunburn. Add that solar activity has been very high since the 1940’s, and the slight global warming observed since the mid 70’s could easily be due to this effect.
None of the global warming alarmists take this effect into account. All of the recent alarmist studies are based on the GCMs (General Circulation Models) employed by the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change). These IPCC GCMs have never included the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Back in 1996, at the time of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, this omission was marginally tenable. Sunspots generate a slight increase in solar luminosity (the relatively cool spots are surrounded by super-hot “faculae”) but this increase in radiance is not enough to create significant global warming. The correlation between sunspots and cloudiness was also known, but since no one had any idea what the causal link might be, they did not built it into their models.
The situation had changed drastically by 2001, when the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report came out. By then the cosmic ray theory had been formulated and evidenced and could be modeled. There were still some difficulties with the theory. In particular, direct measurement of the effect of cosmic rays on cloudiness was complicated by volcanic activity and other influences on cloud formation, but evidence of the long term correlation between cosmic radiation and climate was piling up impressively. In sum, the mechanism was strongly evidenced, but the available correlations were to the output of the climate models (global climate), not to the inputs that drive the models (the amount of solar energy getting reflected back into space by cloud cover).
The scientific thing to do in this circumstance is go with the best available estimate of the relation between solar-flux and the Earth’s reflectivity, then vary the parameters of the relation looking the model specification that best fits the historical temperature data. Instead, the IPCC just continued to omit solar-magnetic effects, calling them “unproven” (6.11.2.2). This from a climate-prediction enterprise that is nothing but speculation from top to bottom. The entire enterprise is driven by best estimates, but here a strongly evidenced key determinant of global climate was left out entirely. No mention was even made of how failing to account for solar-magnetic warming effects causes any such effects to be misattributed to greenhouse warming.
Environmental religion
The fact is, global warming alarmists are not scientists, they are propagandists. Instead of trying to incorporate solar-magnetic effects into their models, the alarmists regard the solar-magnetic theory of warming as a competitor to their preferred greenhouse gas theory. As evidence for the impact of cosmic radiation on clouds continues to roll in, the alarmists are still concocting excuses to ignore this mechanism that undercuts their preferred conclusions.
NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt recently justified leaving cosmic radiation out of NASA models on the grounds that the effect is not needed. “[T]here is no obvious need for ‘new’ or unknown physics to explain what [is] going on,” he explains to science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle (at Pournelle’s website). Earth to NASA: it isn’t enough to tweak your model to fit the historical temperature record. You have to fit ALL the data, including the evidence that cosmic radiation produces cloud cover. If you leave out a real effect, your model is WRONG. Warming that ought to be attributed to solar activity gets misattributed to greenhouse gases, and whatever predictions you make on the basis of those exaggerated warming effects are lies.
These lies are intentional. The goal is to have grounds for demanding the curtailment of human activity. That is the founding stone of environmental religion. Environmentalists see man as displacing nature, and in this contest, they side with nature. As the self-appointed representatives of a natural world that cannot speak for itself, they see all human impacts as by definition bad, and the interdiction of human impacts as necessarily good, regardless of whether the pretext for curtailing human activity is honest or dishonest.
Gavin Schmidt’s rejection of proper scientific principles is just one example. In the sixties and early seventies, when global temperatures seemed to be falling, Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider claimed that fossil fuel burning was causing global cooling and needed to be curtailed. When temperatures started rising, he switched to claiming that that fossil fuel burning is causing global warming, and needs to be curtailed. If sunspot activity falls off and cooling returns, he will presumably again claim that human activity is causing cooling, and needs to be curtailed. Schneider seems to be starting with his preferred conclusion (human impact bad), then picking and choosing from the available reason and evidence to fashion the best case he can for this conclusion.
This kind of behavior is why we see today a continued refusal by the global warming alarmists to incorporate well documented solar-magnetic effects into their models. If the implications of honest science do not condemn human impact, these opponents of human impact will find excuses to reject honest science.
Max,
Now come on! You can’t just take your ball home when things aren’t going your way. You’ve ‘inundated’ me with graphs , you’ve started doing the calculations. They are not at all silly or hypothetical so let’s finish them off. Correctly this time.
Lets say the change in average TSI throughout the 20th century was 1.6 watts per square meter (Wm^-2). This does not mean that solar variation is contributing a forcing of 1.6 Wm^-2. That is because TSI measures the intensity of the sun, but the energy is spread out over the whole surface of the earth. The earth intercepts solar energy according to its cross-sectional area. That energy is spread over the earth’s surface area. The surface area of a sphere is four times its cross-sectional area, so the global average solar input to the climate system is one quarter of the solar irradiance. That means that the change in TSI in the 20th century creates a climate forcing of 1.6/4 = 0.4 W/m^2.
A fraction of incoming solar energy is reflected back to space, not entering the climate system at all; this is called the albedo of the earth. Earth’s albedo is about 0.31, so 31% is reflected away, only 69% of incoming solar energy is absorbed. This means that of the 0.4 Wm^-2 of forcing from 20th-century change in TSI, only 69% — about 0.28 W/m^2 — actually generates a climate forcing.The climate forcing due to a doubling of CO2 is much larger, about 3.7 W/m^2. That’s the figure you have used, isn’t it?
So, on figures supplied by TonyB and Brute, the forcing due to changes in TSI is only about 7.5% of the forcing due to CO2 build up.
So it looks like we have reached agreement on the solar and CO2 warming of the 20th century. Great!
Hi Peter,
Reur 4237 and my 4239
A 1995 study by Lean et al. indicates an increase in total solar irradiance of 0.24% since the Maunder Minimum, and equates this to a net global warming of 0.51C.
0.24% * 1362 = 3.27 W/m^2
So a radiative forcing of 3.27 W/m^2 is equated to a global warming of 0.51C
Lean et al. also estimated solar warming from 1860 to 1995 at 0.28C.
Other solar studies showed slightly higher temperature increases. [As I indicated earlier the average 20th century increase of all the studies was 0.35C, which certainly sounds reasonable.]
The Danish study I cited was by Friis-Christensen and Lassen; it was published in 1991 with data from 1870 to 1985.
Hope this helps clear up your questions.
Regards,
Max
Sorry. It is my turn to cock up the calculations this time.
I shouldn’t be comparing the change in solar TSI to a doubling of CO2. Just to the change that has occurred so far. That’s 1.66Wm^-2 not 3.7Wm^-2
So the correct percentage figure for the ratio of the solar to the CO2 contribution is 16.9%.
Or 14.5 % of the total.
Peter, you are missing the point entirely.
First of all, the solar graphs came from Brute and TonyB not me.
Secondly, I have cited references to several solar studies which have shown that the 20th century solar warming was 0.35C.
Lean has given us the correlation between solar radiative forcing and temperature change. Your figures do not check with hers at all, so I must sume that either you or Judith Lean is wrong solar radiative forcing and its temperature impact. Whom do you think I sould believe?
But, Peter, we don’t need to make any hypothetical “calculations” with fabricated “assumptions”, etc. to determine what the 20th century solar warming was.
The solar studies I cited have already done the work for us when they calculated 20th century solar warming of 0.35C.
That’s good enough for me.
Is it not good enough for you?
If so, please state your objection to these many solar studies that concluded 20th century solar warming of 0.35C.
Are you claiming that your knowledge of solar forcing and its impact on temperature is greater than that of all these solar scientists?
If so, please elaborate.
Regards,
Max
Max ,
So which solar estimate are you going with? Wilson’s 1.65Wm^-2 or Lean’s 3.27Wm^-2.
Can’t you can find someone who’s come up with a figure of 5Wm^-2? That would be heaps better wouldn’t it?
Aren’t you even pretending to be scientificaly objective any more?
But even if you doubled Wilson’s figure, to go with Lean, you’d still have to explain how CO2 was repsonsible for ~75% of the measured warming.
Peter, to satisfy your desire for calculations, I will take Judith Lean’s statement that 3.27 W/m^2 change in solar forcing from the Dalton minimum to 1995 caused a global warming of 0.51C over that period.
This means that a change in solar forcing of 1.7 W/m^2 over the 20th century would have caused a warming of around 0.27C. (Lean reported 0.28C for the period 1860 to 1995).
Several other solar scientists have figured this to be slightly higher, with an average over all of the studies of 0.35C.
Is this so hard for you to understand?
Or are you just being obstinate?
If the latter is the case, there is really no point in my continuing this part of our dialogue, and we should move on to someting else.
Regards,
Max
Max,
“First of all, the solar graphs came from Brute and TonyB not me”.
Come on, you’ve got to learn to be a team player. You can’t disown poor Brute and TonyB just like that. You were happy to accept their graphs when you thought they backed up your case. And that figure of 1.65Wm^-2 came from you if I remember rightly.
Peter, you are rambling.
You asked, “So which solar estimate are you going with? Wilson’s 1.65Wm^-2 or Lean’s 3.27Wm^-2.”
Peter, THEY ARE THE SAME!!!!
Lean is talking about the change in sor forcing from the Dalton Minimum to 1995 (causing 0.61C warming over that period) and Willson is talking about 20th century solar forcing (causing around 0.3C warming overthat period).
Got it?
Several solar scientists have agreed that the 20th century solar warming was 0.35C on average. This is slightly more than half of the observed total warming (not 75% as you have stated).
Please let me know if this is difficult for you to understand.
If you want to know how these scientists came to this conclusion, STUDY THE REPORTS. I have given you the links to all of them.
If you feel that these solar scientists were all wrong, take it up with them, not with me.
And don’t come back with silly drivel such as your 4247.
Regards,
Max