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,
I’d be quite surprised if the CO2 level in the room where he conducted this “testimony” did not exceed 450ppm.
Commercial office buildings often carry levels of indoor CO2 well above 450 ppm, (I’m looking at direct/real time measurements on another screen).
As I’ve written previously, ASHRAE guidelines are much higher than 450ppm.
Hi Peter,
Coming back to an earlier exchange with TonyN, you asked the very logical question, “What’s wrong with the simple theory that more ice is melting in the Arctic because it’s getting warmer?”
The “simple theory” passes the “logic” test, as far as I am concerned, although NSIDC has told us that other factors are at play, which apparently can cause ice melting (e.g. changing wind patterns or ocean currents)
But let’s ignore these other factors and see if we can “validate” the “simple theory” based on recent physical observations on
(a) whether or not “it’s getting warmer” (in the Arctic, where the ice is located) and
(b) whether or not “more ice is melting”
We will ignore Antarctic sea ice developments for now, as they appear to be moving in another direction and are not directly relevant to our investigation.
The satellite record (UAH) does indeed show that northern hemisphere temperatures have risen since readings started in 1979. These have risen more sharply (3+ times) that those in the southern hemisphere at 0.19C per decade, or 0.57C over the entire time period.
The satellite record (NSIDC) also tells us that ice has melted since readings started in 1979. This rate has been between 2 and 10% loss per decade (depending on the month measured), with an annual average loss of 4% per decade.
So, even though (as we know from scientific theory) “correlation” does not necessarily equal “evidence of causation”, we at least show an empirical correlation between northern hemisphere temperature and Arctic sea ice melting.
Over a recent very much shorter-term time period, temperature has begun to drop and Arctic sea ice has begun to recover, so even the short-term look seems to show a correlation, although (as NSIDC tells us) there are other factors at play.
We will have to wait to see:
(a) whether temperature will continue to cool and
(b) whether the ice extent will continue to recover
Or whether the long-range trend will again resume.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
So are so right, when you wrote (of Hansen’s testimony before a U.S. congressional committee):
“I’d be quite surprised if the CO2 level in the room where he conducted this “testimony” did not exceed 450ppm.”
Remember, this was a subcommittee of the U.S. House, well known for rampant CO2-laden hot air emissions.
On top of this, Hansen, himself, spouts large quantities of CO2-laden hot air wherever he goes.
I’d say, by the time Hansen finished with his 18-page testimony plus all the hockey charts, polar bear and mountain red squirrel photo-ops and maps showing Florida and NYC under water, the CO2 level in the room was well above 1,000 ppm, so that “drowsiness” could well have set in among the respected and august congressmen in attendance.
Regards,
Max
Sorry, Brute, that should read 10,000 ppm in the room where Hansen testified before Congress, not 1,000 ppm.
Max said
“Before I completed my calculation I began “to feel drowsy” and actually dosed off. After waking up with a start, I opened the window and let some fresh, oxygen-laden air into the room so I could complete the calculation.”
Thereby you realised the effects of co2, something Agricola was aware of 2000 years ago when ventilating the mines of Rome and Florence Nightingale actively sought to overcome as ‘miasma’ during the Crimea war.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/nightingalee.PDF
Interstingly Florence came from a family of religious dissenters and subsequently became very spiritual. As a first class administrator she also tried to set up a ‘chair of statistics’ at Oxford and certainly would have used co2 measurng equipment during her life for medical purposes.
How she would have voted on this philosophical sub question is unknown
Tonyb
JZ,
I haven’t got much time now, but quickly I’d say that, generally speaking, its not that creationists are stupid. If you’d like to check, you’ll find I didn’t use that word. It’s more a problem of being trapped in the belief system of a certain kind of upbringing which doesn’t encourage free thinking. For many people it’s just so much easier to not think about conflicts between science and their religious upbringing
I think that Brute has used the word ‘liar’. Again I haven’t used that word, but I would say you are both being economical with the truth, don’t want to divulge too much about the religious and questions which I’ve raised.
You ask why I don’t stick to arguing about UHI and solar changes etc. I’ve done a fair bit of that as you know. I even managed to show from Max’s own figures that the evidence from solar science very much backs up the IPCCs case. But, to no avail. Its not been a complete waste of time , because I’ve learned a fair bit myself. If I’d engaged in a similar debate with creationists over the last year I’d be more knowledgable than I am about geology and Darwinian evolution but I doubt if I would have made any more progress with them than I have with you. The parallels between the religious block on Darwinism and the political block on AGW are very real.
I’d just like to ask why you have associated my comments about scepticism for Darwinian Evolution, by nearly 50% of the American population, with ‘leftism’? I remember reading that Darwin himself had quite conservative views. Was is Darwinism considered to be leftist in America?
JZ,
Sorry. More haste less speed. The last sentence should be:
Why is Darwinism considered to be leftist in America?
It’s just biology and should be apolitical.
Peter Martin presented the following image in his 4800/p32, concerning alleged housing collapse from melting permafrost in some unnamed location or time etc. The image is more conveniently repeated on this page in my 4822, wherein I posed a few issues as did also Brute and Barelysane, to which Pete has apparently used his well tried defence mechanism of silence. Well here it is again:
I was rather interested in the steep terrain and what appear to be maybe two species of trees growing there. So I did a Google of ‘tree permafrost’, and found a Wikipedia entry on “Drunken Forests”, which (surprisingly to me) seems to be more balanced than usual WRT AGW alarmism!
In summary of it, I think I read that Black Spruce trees have evolved to survive with very shallow root systems in permafrost, so that in some warm summers it can flourish. Permafrost is defined as “… soil (or rock) that remains below 0 °C for at least two consecutive years…” Because of the shallow root systems, tilting of the trees, (drunkenness), can arise from many causes, and is not new. For instance, quoting Wiki‘:
…tilting begins when the trees are 50 to 100 years old, suggesting that surface heaving from new permafrost aggradation can also create drunken forests…
AND:
“…Drunken trees are not a completely new phenomenon—dendrochronological evidence can date thermokarst tilting back to at least the 19th century.[13] The southern extent of the subarctic permafrost reached a peak during the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries,[23] and has been in decline since then…”
Here is an image of “Drunken Forest” from the Website from which Pete apparently found the above image. (To find: right click IMAGE then PROPERTIES, = http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com )
I would like to suggest that the trees look different between the two images, and that positively, there is no way that single trees with shallow root systems can survive on steep terrain as seen in the first image. It only needs one warm summer and they are gone!
We had a very bad ski lodge collapse in Victoria some years ago, but it had nothing to do with permafrost
BTW, does anyone recognise the roof architecture and “tiling” in Pete’s first image?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We had some good rain today, and it seems the fire season is definitely over in Victoria.
Peter Martin, you wrote in part in your 4800/p32
Well for a start actual measured temperature readings in Greenland show that it was warmer there in the early 1900’s, before any unlikely UHI influence….. Do you not remember the previous intelligence offered to you on this?
There were also a series of images presented, such as the following:
Here, on just one of those images (with text) repeated above, could you now be gracious enough to actually give a response?
Hey Brute,
I’m kinda getting that old “déjà vu all over again” feeling. Around a year ago, on the old Mark Lynas precursor to this site you and I calculated for Peter that it would take a total of 12 matches lit in the Astrodome at the same time to reach the same increase in CO2 level as humans emit to the atmosphere.
Now here I am doing another silly calculation.
You wrote of Hansen’s April 2007 testimony to Congress: “I’d be quite surprised if the CO2 level in the room where he conducted this “testimony” did not exceed 450ppm.”
Let’s say there were 30 people (congressmen, staff, Hansen + entourage) in the committee room when Hansen delivered his “tipping point” testimony.
Let’s say the committee room was about 25 feet by 40 feet with a 10 foot ceiling or 10,000 cubic feet (and let’s call that 300 cubic meters, to make the calculation a bit easier).
The average man, woman and child on Earth generates 900 grams per day of CO2 when exhaling. Let’s say these guys (mostly larger males) generate 1,100 grams CO2 per day.
And let’s say Hansen’s testimony (+ followup Q+A) lasted 4 hours (1/6 of a day).
So during this time: (1/6) * 30 * 1,100 = 5,500 grams of CO2 were added to the room.
One cubic meter of air weighs 1,200 grams.
So the room contained 1,200 * 300 = 360,000 grams air
At the start, the room contained (according to Mauna Loa) 385 ppmv CO2.
This equals 385 * 44 / 28.95 = 585 ppm(mass) CO2 (since CO2 is heavier than air)
Equals 585 * 360,000 / 1,000,000 = 211 grams CO2
Let’s say the ventilation system wasn’t working that April day. S… happens (even in Washington, DC).
At the end of the presentation, the room contained 211 + 5,500 = 5,711 grams CO2
Divided by 360,000 grams air in the room (let’s forget about the oxygen that was inhaled to create the CO2):
5,711 / 360,000 = 15,863 ppm(mass) CO2
Equals 15,863 * 28.95 / 44 = 10,437 ppmv CO2
So the poor congressmen actually reached the “drowsiness” level of 10,000+ ppmv, and some were probably already dozing off despite Hansen’s scary charts of Florida and NYC under water.
Even more alarming is that everyone was expose to CO2 levels more than 20 times the “dangerous level” of 450 ppmv, as defined by Hansen!
Just thought I’d put this into proper perspective.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote to JZSmith (4856), “I even managed to show from Max’s own figures that the evidence from solar science very much backs up the IPCCs case.”
Now I am going to use the word “liar”.
You “managed to show” nothing of the kind, Peter. The “evidence from solar science” which I cited shows that CO2 only caused 0.3C warming over the entire 20th Century, which certainly does NOT “very much back up the IPCCs case” for a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, but rather one of around 0.7C (or one-fourth that erroneously claimed by IPCC).
Sorry, Peter. Just by writing a lie down on paper or posting it does not make it true.
Shame on you.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, Reur 4835, you present the following image, presumably in the context of your earlier allegation of housing collapse caused by melting permafrost:
My initial reaction is that this image must be a satirical complaint by NSIDC that the funding for University of Iowa Geoscience is considered to be lacking, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with building collapse caused by “melting permafrost“.
For instance, with reference to my 4858, do the trees look like slow growing black spruce?
Are any of them drunkenly leaning over?
And, the foreground, might even be a lakeside environment with water rippling onto the beach from the left? Maybe….. given the grainy detail in the image? Any idea where the location is, and why Uni’ Iowa would lay claim to something so obviously decrepit?
Barelysane 4837 apparently couldn’t find any NSIDC/NOAA text attached to this image either.
What was the purpose of your post, and can you explain the true context of the image you presented?
Bob FJ 4858
I would place the architecture and tiling as the European Alps at around 1100-1500m. Of course other alpine areas worldwide tend to have similar architecture for practical purposes
Tonyb
Max 4861
Right on cue comes the latest paper from Scafetta and Wilson.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/
tonyb
TonyN:
Re your 4850. I’d like to believe that the Court of Appeal would give Hansen a harder time. What concerns me, however, is that – as with Kingsnorth – the defendants/authorities have a terrible dilemma. Yes, they want to push ahead with the plan (coal-fired power station or extended airport) for what they perceive to be sound economic reasons. But their equally strong belief is that the protesters (and Hansen) are almost certainly right and that these developments threaten the future. Such a conflict is unlikely to be the basis of a strong defence – for example, would they really want to open the floodgates to publicity for AGW scepticism by calling, say, Richard Lindzen as their expert witness? I suspect not.
BTW, TonyN (again re 4850) you’re wrong to say that the Kingsnorth hearing was before a magistrate’s court. It was, in fact, Maidstone Crown Court. A Crown court is presided over by a Circuit Judge – a very different beast from a magistrate, I assure you: I know several of both species. One of my friends, for example, was a senior QC before going on the bench.
If you look at the transcript, you’ll see that the prosecution (who said the protesters had committed a crime) pulled its punches, making no serious attempt to refute Hansen’s testimony.
Max ,
You write “Around a year ago, on the old Mark Lynas precursor to this site you and I calculated for Peter that it would take a total of 12 matches lit in the Astrodome at the same time to reach the same increase in CO2 level as humans emit to the atmosphere.”
You gave a figure of 2 million cubic metres for the Astrodome. Did you look that up? I think you must have because it sounds about right.
Carbon dioxide has risen from 280 ppmv in the pre-industrial age to about 385 ppmv now. Lets call that an increase of 100ppmv
That’s 100 parts per million by volume. You say we have two million cu metres. That’s 200 cu metres of CO2 in the Astrodome from human emissions.
So how much does 200 cu metres of CO2 weigh.
We know that a mol of CO2 weighs 40g. Also that a mol of any gas occupies 22.4 litres.
So 200cu metres = 200,000 litres
That makes 40 x 200/22.4 = 357 kg or 786 lb
Its about the weight of 4 of the footballers who play on the field there.
Brute,
You sound a bit grumpy tonight. Accusing me of lying? You should go out a get a some fresh air.
Can I remind you of the calculation you did a couple of weeks ago?
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 Wilson 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!
Except that you’d mistakenly equated the change in TSI ( 1.65W/m^2) with climate forcing. When you scale that by a factor of 0.175 ( A factor of 0.25 for the ratio of the cross sectional area of a sphere to the surface area. Another 0.7 for the albedo). I don’t think you ever argued I was incorrect in saying that.
With the minor arithmetic error now corrected, the figures produced by yourself, myself and the IPCC are all pretty much in agreement.
As Margaret Thatcher once said “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony”. And we’ve done that. That really is great isn’t it?
Hey Max,
I’m looking at a CO2 meter right now that reads 466PPM (Outdoor, Washington D.C.) Inside measurement is 540PPM. It’s a Saturday so the office building is empty. During the weekdays CO2 readings can get up to over 900PPM.
I’m not certain what Hansen means about a 450PPM “tipping point”.
Nope Pete, you got that wrong also. What is it with you?
You wrote that I, didn’t answer Max’s questionnaire truthfully just to skew the results of the poll. Why would I, an anonymous pollster, lie about a thing like that? Your paranoid brain must be leaking out of your ears……..
And the reason that I’ve been “coy” about these off topic diversions is because they are simply that……diversions.
You made a statement, or made reference to some survey, that Christians are anti-science and this is why +/- 50% of Americans don’t believe in Anthromorphic Global Warming. This is a stretch in correlation in and of itself and an assumption that I believe only you and other narrow minded people would dream up. You can’t or won’t debate the topic (like Gore), and attempt to change the topic or come up with some other ludicrous argument such as; “Oh, Brute doesn’t believe in Global Warming because it would invalidate his religious beliefs”.
You’re so arrogant that you can’t wrap your mind around why people disagree with you so it must be some sort of religious conviction in your view.
I don’t care what you believe in…..do whatever you want…..the problem with your way of thinking is that you want everyone to act, think and behave exactly as you do and if they don’t there must be something “wrong” with them. The world doesn’t work that way…..have you noticed? You and the rest of the Warmists are trying to tell me it’s raining on a sunny day or that it’s warm when the temperature is 20 below zero. How’s it working for you guys so far?
And another thing………why the Christian/religious bashing? The subject line has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and yet you keep bringing it up? If I bashed homosexuals or women or some ethnic group, (or God forbid Muslims), or made a racial slur, you and your pals would be all over me painting me as a hate monger……but on the other hand, you are perfectly alright with calling people of faith unenlightened and stupid?
God man, screw your head on straight.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to switch on the hi-fi and listen to some Elvis Costello…..
So there.
The British contributors here already know of our Socialist govts abysmal record of eroding our traditional freedoms and its growing hysteria about climate change-an area where Gordon Brown intends to save the world.
Here we have the two coming together in the perfect storm, which should make our American contributors particularly fearful as you are but a few years behind us.
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.asp
Follow the lead story ‘trips abroad to be logged’.
I have posted on this subject before as it is linked to the enthusiasm of a powerful environmental parliamentary committee to introduce personal carbon cards and tax our carbon fuelled movements.
The fact that credit card details and an exact itinerary will be required before any international travel can take place should enable us all to see where this one is heading.
Note to the non Brits (except Max), because of our geography International travel is a much more common occurence than in Austraila or the US, which already has a draconian check of its incoming visitors-I can’t comment on the regulations for those going outside the country.
Tonyb
Hi Bob_FJ
Having visited the Arctic tundra and having seen both the permafrost up close as well as the scraggly, tilted trees that somehow seem to survive in these regions despite the intense cold, I can tell you that the picture you showed of a subsiding building next to tall, healthy trees was not taken in an area where permafrost exists. It’s a fake.
If it is being used to make claims that the permafrost is disappearing, then this claim is also a fake.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 4867
Interesting statistic on the weight of footballers, etc., but a bit irrelevant.
Going back I see that the calculation showed that 12 matches lit within the Astrodome would (for the period that they are lit) release the same relative amount of CO2 into the Astrodome as humanity does into the atmosphere over the same period of time.
This was a followup to a comment made by Brute, and the statement as well as the calculation are valid.
The point was made by Brute to put some perspective on the magnitude of human CO2 emissions in the overall scheme of things.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
After measuring higher CO2 values in your backyard you wrote, “I’m not certain what Hansen means about a 450PPM ‘tipping point’”.
Cheer up, Brute.
Hansen doesn’t, either. He has no scientific justification for this 450 ppm number whatsoever.
He just pulled the number out of (pardon me) the air, because it is a value that will never be reached in his lifetime.
It’s the old “you can’t call me a liar because I’ll be dead by then” ploy.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Your 4868 was addressed to Brute, but I believe you were really trying to communicate with me, as well.
It is I who called your statement to JZSmith (4856) a lie, “I even managed to show from Max’s own figures that the evidence from solar science very much backs up the IPCCs case.”
This statement is a bald-faced lie, Peter, and you know it.
I cited several solar studies that concluded on average that 0.35C of the observed 20th century warming was a result of the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in 11,000 years) over this period.
Total observed 20th century warming (Hadley) was 0.65C.
This leaves 0.3C warming from all causes other than solar.
Let’s ignore UHI distortion to the record (this could be substantial as previous posts citing various studies from all over the world have shown).
Let’s ignore late 20th century ENSO changes (unusually high incidence and level of El Niño events, including the one in 1998 that resulted in the all-time record year).
Let’s ignore other factors (PDO, NAO, etc.) that are known to result in temperature changes.
And let’s assume that ALL the remaining warming observed, 0.3C, was all directly attributable to increased CO2.
This gives us a good check with the IPCC greenhouse forcing estimate of IPCC (Myhre et al.), EXCLUDING any assumed imaginary feedbacks.
[So, in that sense “evidence from solar science very much backs up the IPCCs case” for the CO2 impact, but it does not “back up the IPCCs case” for the assumed feedbacks that exaggerate the greenhouse factor by a factor of four.]
It also tells us that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is around 0.7 to 0.8C (rather than 3.2C as stated by IPCC based on model assumptions), which also tells us we can expect another 0.4C warming between today and 2100.
That’s what the studies showed, Peter.
All your silly waffling and throwing out hypothetical calculations cannot make this fact go away.
Peter, some advice: when you are in a hole, stop digging.
You can’t simply lie your way out.
Face it, you lost this one. But there are still other battles to fight.
Regards,
Max