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.
Robin,
I award thee with the grande:
MEZZO MILLE!
That’s about half a noble prize!
Sorry Robin,
Should I add that you are half-way to the honour of a great Gore
Peter Martin 499,
Your part 1, YES, and we are talking millions of PEOPLE that may suffer immensely.
Your part 2: That is a bit deeper, and I will get back to you on that probably domani.
(It’s my bedtime right now)
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Jul 13, 2008
The So-Called “Greenhouse Effect” is a Myth
By Jim Peden, the Middlebury Community Network
As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate. I’ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, from John Nicol’s extensive development to the much longer winded dissertation by Gerlich & Tscheuschner and everything in between, it simply doesn’t add up. Even if every single IR photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule were magically transformed into purely thermal translational modes , the pitifully small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t add up to much additional heat. And if the aforementioned magical 100% transformation from radiation into “heat” were true, then all arguments concerning re-emission ( source of all the wonderful “greenhouse effect” cartoons with their arrows flying in all directions ) are out the window.
More and more, I am becoming convinced that atmospheric heating is primarily by thermal conduction from the surface, whose temperature is determined primarily by solar absorption. I get a lot of email from laymen seeking simple answers. My simple reply goes like this:
1. The sun heats the earth.
2. The earth heats the atmosphere
3. After the sun sets, the atmosphere cools back down
With a parting comment: “If we were to have 96 continuous hours without sunlight, temperatures would likely be below freezing over all the world’s land masses. The warmest place you could find would be to take a swim in the nearest ocean. There is no physical process in the atmosphere which “traps” heat. The so-called “greenhouse effect “ is a myth.
James A. Peden, Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Peter: you said (493) that, “the issue of AGW isn’t ever going to be settled on scientific arguments alone. The political and economic implications can’t be ignored.” That, I fear, is a statement of the blindingly obvious: politics and economics have been major factors in the debate since day one. Indeed, the IPCC’s “projections” are based on long-range economic and demographic forecasts (the SRES scenarios – developed in 2000 and, amazingly not updated since then and described by the IPCC itself as “a cascade of uncertainty”). These forecasts are based on political assumptions.
And it’s the politics that override everything. Note carefully posts 415, 427, 428, 442, 469 and 469, paying particular attention to the various linked articles. You will see that, by 2050, when the G8’s carbon reduction aims, targets or whatever apply, the eight leading economic powers are expected to include China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico. Therefore, as Hamish McRae says
These five countries are precisely the countries whose CO2 emissions are growing most rapidly – hence their extraordinary economic development. They are also the countries where the majority of the world’s poorest people live. As China and India have said many times that’s why they are giving economic development now the utmost priority – to them emission reduction is very much a second order priority after economic growth and poverty alleviation. Incidentally, a sixth G8 nation is expected to be Russia – and, as their economic success and power is based almost entirely on fossil fuels, it’s hard to see them being very enthusiastic about emission control. That’s why your “political agreements” will not happen and why anyone thinking that emissions will be reduced to 50% of 1990 levels (or whatever the current “target” or “aim” might be), or indeed will be reduced at all, is living in dreamland.
As I’ve said repeatedly: it’s not going to happen and we’d better get used to it.
This article is relevant.
PS: I’m looking forward to your response to my post 487.
Satellite Imagery Shows Arctic Ice Still Unmelted
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/satellite-imagery-shows-artic-ice-still-unmelted/
Robin,
If you are going to keep banging on about ad-hominem attacks, you might want to read up on what they actually are. Yes, if I’d said that Roy Spencer had an unpleasant personality and therefore couldn’t be taken seriously on climate issues you would have been right.
However, a belief in intelligent design, or inddeed a supernatural creation, can be applied to the earth as well as living things. And, so just as it would be relevant to suggest that a belief in these may affect a scientist’s judgement about Darwin’s theory of evolution, so is it relevant to suggest that they may affect their views on the robustness of the earth’s atmosphere too.
Peter: please have the good manners to read my post 500 – it opens with a clear definition of the ad hominem fallacy.
Then answer this (from that post): “do you think that anyone who holds any religious or spiritual belief has no place in science and that any view that he/she expresses or has expressed on a scientific matter is to be ignored?”
Then I suggest that, again as I said, you “deal honestly and precisely with Spencer’s contribution to the matter under discussion [rather than] attempting to introduce irrelevant material [indicating] an inability to do so”.
Robin,
Sometimes the blindingly obvious does need saying. The issue of AGW isn’t going to be settled on the science alone although I do sometimes feel that some climatologists may not necessarily agree.
Arguments against the mainstream science of climate change are generally not motivated by any particular concern over the methodology used, but rather by concern over the economic and political consequences and ramifications that acceptance of the science will bring about.
The contrarians are desperate to believe that people like Jim Hansen are involved in a conspiracy to bring about the downfall of western capitalism. Any utterings by the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Co that the problem may not be as bad as all that, and that we can all carry on driving our gas guzzling SUVs with a clear conscience are eagerly siezed upon. The rest of us can point out out until we are tired of it that the general scientific case is sound, but that’s not what the contrarians want to hear or are prepared to accept.
Robin,
Irrelevant Material? On the contrary, its highly relevant.
Yes its Ok for scientists to have religious beliefs providing they are working in areas where those beliefs have little or no bearing on their field of work.
However, I can’t see how you can both believe in the literal truth of the Genesis creation and Noah’s Ark and still be taken seriously as paleontologist or evolutionary biologist.
Maybe you can explain to me how it might be possible?
RE: Peter, #507
The Archbishop of Canterbury is one of the leading advocates of AGWH here, and I assume that he also believes in life after death, the Trinity, transubstantiation, and the Virgin Birth. Am I to disregard his views on global warming?
So far as Roy Spencer is concerned, only his published research, and pronouncements, in the field of climate science should interest us here. See blog rules for how I define ad hominem attacks in the context of this blog. I’m not suggesting that you have broken them in any offensive way, in fact what you said about Spencer was quite moderate, but it is a fallacious argument none the less. Newton, so far as I’m aware, spent as much time on alchemy as on what we would now call mainstream science.
“Am I to disregard his views on global warming?”
Well, the answer would depend whether his views are determined by science or religion.
I wouldn’t make too many assumptions on what Archibishops of Canterbury may or may not believe in. I remember Jim Hacker asking Sir Humphrey, in “Yes Minister” if there was anyone in the C of E who didn’t believe in God. “Yes” was his reply ” Most of the Bishops”.
PS It isn’t fair to portray Newton as a pseudoscientist because of his interest in Alchemy.
Newton died in 1727 , a hundred years before Chemistry established the atomic principle, showing that metals cannot be transmuted, chemically, from one element to another. Although, strictly speaking, the development of modern nuclear reactors have shown that transmutation is indeed possible.
Oh dear, Peter, your answer to my question (“do you think that anyone who holds any religious or spiritual belief has no place in science and that any view that he/she expresses or has expressed on a scientific matter is to be ignored?”) seems to be that it depends on whether a belief has any bearing on their field of work. If that became the rule and all scientists had to be subjected to the Peter Martin test (or may someone else decide what has or doesn’t have a bearing?), science would grind to a halt. Please let’s get back to sensible discourse and “deal honestly and precisely with [fill in name]’s contribution to the matter under discussion [rather than] attempting to introduce irrelevant material [indicating] an inability to do so”. Tony’s comment that only “published research, and pronouncements, in the field of climate science should interest us here” (post 510) is clearly correct.
Then (amusingly) you switch from ad hominem to strawman. You boldly claim that “The contrarians are desperate to believe that people like Jim Hansen are involved in a conspiracy to bring about the downfall of western capitalism”. I very much doubt if any of the contributors to this thread whom you happily dub contrarians harbour such desperation. What a silly comment.
Then, before you start making claims about “the mainstream science of climate change”, perhaps you will have the courtesy to respond to my post 487.
Then your sweeping assertion that those with whom you disagree are “are generally not motivated by any particular concern over the methodology used, but rather by concern over the economic and political consequences and ramifications that acceptance of the science will bring about” takes you back to your good old standby, the strawman. My position (for example) on “economic and political consequences and ramifications” is clear from my post 505: I suggest you respond to that rather than indulge in generalisations about what your overactive imagination suggests might be other people’s motivation.
Bob_FJ (494) — When you wrote (twice)
David B******t Benson
I belive that violated the rules here? Certainly should have.
Now nowhere have I complained about smoothing — it is a form of low pass filter aftr all. So you just MSU about what I post as well.
Oh yes, the wored was completely spelled out, not disguised. How crude of you.
Here is a link to a recent abstract of a paper using a novel method of determining equilibrium climate sensitivity (ecs):
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/02716/EGU2008-A-02716-1.pdf
Here is a quote from the associated ‘interim report’, i.e., preprint:
“[The research] indicates that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be smaller than 2°C…”
so this, togther with another recent study (available from Reto Knutti’s publication page, once again demonstrates that Spencer has drawn the wrong conclusion from whatever it is that he found.
The scariest part of this paper, however, is that it throws doubt on the probability of a very high ecs being quite small. Not sure what to make of that, just yet.
Robin,
“perhaps you will have the courtesy to respond to my post 487” Not quite sure what you mean here, but if you are asking if people like Roy Spencer are having an impact on the scientific consensus, then my answer would be ‘probably not’.
Maybe, you would now have the courtesy to answer my question , in posting 510, on how it might be possible for someone believing in the literal truth of Noah’s Ark to make a useful scientific contribution in the field of animal evolution?
Or, to take another example: If he were also to believe in the imminent second coming of a supernatural Messiah figure, might he not also think that there was no real point getting too concerned about any form of environmental degredation? Much easier to leave it too the Messiah figure to sort out when he gets here.
PS I have checked on the blog rules and they do say “It is perfectly acceptable to suggest that there are very real dangers if quasi-religious convictions spill over into the fact based world of science”. That is exactly what I am doing, so I don’t feel that I’m breaking any rules.
PPS If any readers do believe in the literal truth of Noah’s Ark, or believe in Messiah figures, and are offended by my comments, I’m sorry. But I still think that you are wrong :-)
David,
I shouldn’t worry to much about a bit of name calling. Black wallabies (Bob’s previous monicker) are cute cuddly animals, more so than Bob himself I suspect, but they aren’t too well endowed intellectually, so its not fair to expect too high a standard of debate.
Peter/David,
More Good News About The Environment!
C/O Ice Cap:
Jul 14, 2008
Lake Superior Still Chilly
By Karl Bohnak, WLUC TV 6, Marquette, MI
It’s mid-summer and Lake Superior is still chilly. Mid-lake buoy temperatures usually warm up quickly from early July on. So far as of Monday, water temperatures at these buoys are barely above spring-time levels, running from the upper 30s at the northern and northeastern buoys to the low 40s at the western buoy. Over the last several years, readings ran about ten degrees or so higher at mid-July. There are likely a couple of reasons for the cold water. First, it was a chilly spring and the summer through mid-July has been close to average. Secondly over the last week, unseasonably powerful low-pressure areas have brought strong winds that have stirred up the lake, allowing upwelling of colder water to the surface. I suspect with light winds and warmer air this week surface water temperatures will begin rising quickly.
If you are a lake watcher, you have probably noticed that the water level has come up, too. As of this past Sunday, the level of Lake Superior is 601.7 feet. That’s 1.3 feet above the average of last year and less than five inches below the long-term average. Lake Superior’s level is primarily influenced by precipitation in its watershed and there has been abundant snow and rain over the last six-to-nine months.
Both the water level and water temperatures are much different than last year. This CNN story written just over a year ago, told of disturbingly low water levels and unprecedented warm water temperatures. The specter of global warming was raised in explaining these phenomenons in this story. A more level-headed report here showed how before the days of sophisticated computer models, lake observers knew there were cyclical rises and falls in the level of Lake Superior.
This year, I suspect we will not hear much about Lake Superior water temperatures or levels. “Average” or “normal” isn’t newsworthy. See Karl’s blog here.
Karl has been the main man in the TV6 Weather Center since 1988. His interests brought him to a career in broadcasting and later to the study of meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Karl started doing TV weather in 1983. He holds the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast seal of approval and has written a book about weather and history of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
WASHINGTON — President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling on Monday and urged Congress to follow suit.
Citing the high prices Americans are paying at the pump, Bush said from the White House Rose Garden that allowing offshore oil drilling is “one of the most important steps we can take” to reduce that burden.
“This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress,” Bush said.
Bush has been pushing Congress to repeal the law passed in 1981.
“There is no excuse for delay,” the president said in a Rose Garden statement last month.
“In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home,” Bush said, adding that there is no more pressing issue for many Americans than gas prices.
The issue has gained prominence in the presidential race. Sen. John McCain recently announced he supported offshore oil drilling, reversing his previous stance.
David 516,
I’m sorry if you were offended by my use of that popular B word, and will not use it in that way again.
For your interest, according to my Australian dictionary, (Macquarie Concise, 4th edition):
Bullshit: Colloq. N
1 An account, explanation, creative fantasy, etc., which is fabricated or contrived either to delude oneself or deceive others
2 Nonsense
The verb and interjection forms are along the same lines without any reference to crudity or offence, thus from my Australian perspective, I think you may be oversensitive.
On the other hand, the MS Works dictionary (1987) gives:
n An offensive term for talk or writing dismissed as foolish or inaccurate.
Verbs;
1. an offensive term meaning to say things that are completely untrue or very foolish
2. an offensive term meaning to try to intimidate, deceive, or persuade somebody with deceitful or foolish talk
I prefer the Oz version.
Peter 519, you wrote:
I shouldn’t worry to much about a bit of name calling. Black wallabies (Bob’s previous monicker) are cute cuddly animals, more so than Bob himself I suspect, but they aren’t too well endowed intellectually, so its not fair to expect too high a standard of debate.
There you go again! Typical bullshit! If you have ever watched a black wallaby bound up an incredibly steep slope, you would know that they have tremendously strong hind legs. Although smaller than an Eastern Grey, they are substantial in size with sharp, dangerous looking toes. If you ever manage to get close and cuddle one, I recommend you wear Kevlar underpants and full, strong clothing
Another nail in the “3K sensitivity” coffin
Hi David (with copy for Peter),
Your blurb on uncertainties in climate sensitivity [temperature increase resulting from 2xCO2] stated, “Uncertainty in climate sensitivity is a fundamental problem for projections of the future climate”.
AMEN!
In discussing projections from GCM studies, IPCC AR4 (Chapter 10, p.759) states, “the response to a doubling of CO2, the specific humidity increases by approximately 20% throughout the troposphere”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf
These model assumptions form the basis for the statement (p.749), “An expert assessment based on the combination of available constraints from observations (assessed in Chapter 9) and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in the models used to produce the climate change projections in this chapter indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, is likely to lie in the range of 2°C to 4.5°C range, with a most likely value of about 3°C.”
This estimate includes net positive feedbacks from both water vapor and clouds.
A 2004 study by Minschwaner and Dessler showed that their model confirmed a climate sensitivity (2xCO2) of 1.2°C (rather than 3°C), including water vapor feedback (but excluding feedback from clouds).
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/03/18/the-vapor-rub/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/wvfeedback.htm
The study refers to actual NASA satellite measurements of water vapor, which show an increase in tropospheric water vapor content with higher sea surface temperatures.
The M-S study points out that the GCMs cited by IPCC overstate the impact of water vapor considerably.
The study also concludes “the increase in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity” [let alone to result in a 20% increase in specific humidity, as postulated by IPCC].
Interestingly, although it shows only around 35% of the positive feedback from water vapor assumed by IPCC, the M-S model shows a significantly higher increase in water vapor from higher sea surface temperature than the values actually observed by the satellites (25% to 50% higher than the observed range).
In other words, the IPCC model assumptions are around 2.5 to 3 times higher than those established by the M-S model, which are 2 to 4 times higher than those actually observed by NASA satellites (i.e. IPCC assumptions are 5 to 12 times higher than observed facts). Ouch!
On top of all this, we have the recent study by Spencer et al. (cited previously) based on physical observations as well, that shows that the feedback from clouds is not positive (as assumed in the IPCC models) but strongly negative.
I think the coffin has been nailed shut and we can lay the IPCC estimate of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 2°C to 4.5°C to rest.
R. I. P.
Regards,
Max
Here’s a link to a study with a new slant on the importance of AGW in the overall scheme of things.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
It confirms what many scientists have been saying all along: “it’s the sun. stupid!”