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.
Pete,
RE: 5418
Using 4.6 Billion years as the age of the earth or 6000 years I come up with a pretty pathetic number of accurate global temperature records (using 160 years as data).
So we really don’t know with absolute certainty what the average global temperature has been before 1850.
Following your reasoning and using Wikipedia, Modern Humans originated in Africa around 200,000 years ago. 160 years worth of temperature readings amounts to .0008% of temperature readings during the period that man has existed on earth……Global temperatures have varied +/- .6 degrees in the last 160 degrees.
Wow, I certainly think that common sense would dictate that we re-arrange the entire world economy based on a .6 degree temperature anomaly, “averaged” over the entire globe, representing .0008% of known temperature records throughout the history of human existence on this rock……how arrogant. You profess/presume to know what the optimum average temperature should be of the entire planet?
Do you still think that you have the ability to control the Earth’s weather Pete?
Turn the dial on the machine and kick it up a few degrees here in the United States please.
Oh, and I’d like to place an order for a little less rain next week.
Thanks.
Pardon me. This sentence should have read:
Global temperatures have varied +/- .6 degrees in the last 160 years.
Thanks, Bob (re onthefence and the Guardian thread) – I really appreciate that and will be interested to see the outcome. But I fear you’ll be sucked into fruitless discussion (made worse by his rude and patronising manner). You’ll see that I’ve just given up on my discussion with him. Nonetheless I’d be pleased if you or Max were to take up the baton – at least for as long as you can be bothered.
TonyN,
I’ve been considering this choice of phraseology and consider it quite encouraging. It seems that Alarmists are beginning to back away from the “certainty” of AGW and the remarks/positions of extremists such as Gore, Romm, Martin and Hansen……a chink in the armor if you will.
Peter,
One other question……
If absolute, incontrovertible proof came to light tomorrow that rising CO2 levels did not impact global temperatures, would you abandon your advocacy for cap and trade, mandatory restricted use of fossil fuels and mandatory energy rationing?
Seriously, I’m genuinely interested in your take on this.
Peter,
One addendum to my above question…..I would insert the words rising, human generated, CO2 emissions……(not certain that it really matters, but figured I’d narrow the question).
Robin,
You seem to be holding your own over at the Guardian.
I see that the church of environmentalism is well represented there.
Seems to be many conversation going on simulanteously…………
Thanks but not really, Brute (5431) – lack of time plus the prospect of the discussion going on for ever have forced me to give up on the very tiresome onthefence. Still waiting for Bob (& maybe Max). And a few “recommended” votes would be nice. Unsurprisingly, the alarmists are out in force at the Guardian.
Bob_FJ: part of my problem with onthefence (at the current Guardian thread) is that he says he is a professional scientist and gives the impression that his speciality is physics. Now my knowledge of physics is frankly limited so, provided he can keep the discussion there (which he does by ignoring anything I say which doesn’t suit him), he has me at a disadvantage. But what he appears to be claiming is actually very interesting. As I understand it, he claims that the CO2 / global warming link is plainly established by the physics – which, according to the literature he cites, shows (he says) that you get about a 3degC temperature rise per doubling of CO2. Therefore, he implies, no further debate is needed. Now that seems incredibly fishy to me: if it were as simple as that, why are the IPCC reports so extensive, why is there any need for GCMs and feedback theories, why does the IPCC “project” rather than predict and why is there so much debate – even amongst alarmists?
What do you think?
Hmm – it looks from this as though Obama may not get his cap & trade legislation through the Senate. Brute/JZ – have I read it correctly?
Brute,
You’ve asked me this question before.
“If absolute, incontrovertible proof came to light tomorrow that rising CO2 levels did not impact global temperatures, would you abandon your advocacy for cap and trade, mandatory restricted use of fossil fuels and mandatory energy rationing?”
Yes of course. Furthermore, it wouldn’t need to the sort of proof you are describing. It about assessing the available evidence and the balance of probabilities.
Its not about energy rationing BTW. There’s no objection to using as much as you like if there are no CO2 emissions involved.
What about you? If it was the other way?
Robin,
Yes you are right the main uncertainty is due to the level of the feedbacks.
Without feedbacks, everyone except maybe Max, but including Lindzen, would say that a doubling of CO2 would increase the temperature by approximately 1 degC. That’s basic Physics.
However, most of the evidence is pointing to an feedback factor of around 3-4. This includes evidence from the solar scientists that Max himself has referenced in this blog.
Robin,
Yes, I posted this in 5402…… peculiar how the news media didn’t cover it.
It seems that even Democrats are getting upset with Obama and are breaking ranks. The guy is an empty suit……full of hot air, much like Gore.
It’s become apparent to them that he doesn’t have any idea what he’s doing and even Liberals are distancing themselves from him.
However, he still has a few more years and at least 22 months with a Democrat Congress……these guys are more slippery than two eels in a bucket….don’t count them out of getting some type of tax on energy consumption/energy rationing bill passed.
Look for it happening after 5:00 on a Friday evening or in the dead of night…..probably a bill that they haven’t read and then they’ll claim that they don’t know what the bill contained.
Probably, except the mandatory part. I’d have to see the legislation though…..the devils in the details you know.
Hi Peter,
Notice that you were misquoting a reference that I supplied when you wrote Robin (5436):
“Yes you are right the main uncertainty is due to the level of the feedbacks.
Without feedbacks, everyone except maybe Max, but including Lindzen, would say that a doubling of CO2 would increase the temperature by approximately 1 degC. That’s basic Physics.
However, most of the evidence is pointing to an feedback factor of around 3-4. This includes evidence from the solar scientists that Max himself has referenced in this blog.”
Your statement is false. The solar studies I cited concluded that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity was responsible for around 0.35C of the observed 0.65C warming. This leaves 0.3C for anthropogenic forcing (including CO2) plus any other natural factors out there (ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc.) and any UHI distortion that may have shown spurious warming that did not actually occur.
If we assumethat the UHI distortion was negligible and that all of the remaining warming was due to CO2, we arrive at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.6 to 0.8C for CO2.
This confirms the “basic physics”, as you say. But it also invalidates your statement that “most of the evidence is pointing to a feedback factor of around 3-4.”
In addition to the observed 20th century temperature rise, the study by Spencer et al. on clouds certainly does not point to such a factor, but also indicates a factor of 1 or even lower.
And it certainly refutes your rather contrived claim that “this includes evidence from the solar scientists that Max himself has referenced in this blog”.
Just to clear the record, Peter. You can’t just make silly claims that are unfounded and expect them to go unchallenged. Sorry.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To clear up another point in your 5436 to Robin.
You say Lindzen agrees with a 2xCO2 warming of around 1C.
Actually, he has stated that the 4xCO2 warming would be 1.3C, which means the 2xCO2 warming would be around half of this or 0.65C. (I guess you could round this up to “around 1C”).
This gives a close check with the actual observation, as I pointed out in my earlier post, and shows that the factor of 3-4 for net positive feedbacks is incorrect.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You indicated that “most of the evidence is pointing to an feedback factor of around 3-4”.
Can you provide this “evidence”, Peter?
Please do not refer me to the IPCC AR4 report. It’s not in there.
Also please do not refer me to computer outputs based on assumed feedback forcings. These are no “evidence”.
Awaiting your reply.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Am also waiting (probably in vain) for you to respond to my “what’s wrong with this picture?” logic question (5413) which compared the actually observed long-term trend with IPCC 100-year projection for the future.
Hope to get your response.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Thanks for link to Guardian Simon Singh blurb with thread. Jumped in quickly myself.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I think if you check on Lindzen’s evidence to the UK House of Lords committe you’ll find that he used the figure of 1 deg C for 2 x CO2.
The evidence you ask for, is what you’ve already provided yourself in your 4248.
“A study by Lean et al. shows that solar irradiance increased by 0.24% since the Maunder Minimum (3.27 W/m^2); this resulted in a temperature increase of 0.51C. This results in a solar impact on global temperature of 0.156 K/W/m^2 (based on total solar irradiance); when adjusted for that portion that is available to warm the globe, this impact is increased to 0.156/(.7*.25) = 0.89 K/W/m^2. Calculated over the 20th century increase in TSI of 0.16%, this results in a 20th century solar warming of 0.34K ”
So, fair enough, you’ve calculated 0.89 K/W/m2 for the forcing constant. I’m not arguing with that.
However if you calculate the forcing constant in the context of increased CO2 emissions in the absence of any feedbacks:
Using the forcing for 2 x CO2 of 3.7W/m^2, a figure that you yourself have used, of forcing produces warming of 1 deg C, as Lindzen has accepted.
That works out at 0.27K/W/m2
So: 0.89/0.27 = 3.3 for the feedback constant
The statement I made is true. It is a good example to debunk that the oft repeated claim that the only evidence for positive feedbacks is from computer models.
Peter,
One more thing; don’t feel badly, I’m skeptical of all kinds of things…….doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, used car salesmen, Chiropractors get rich quick schemes,the lottery, politicians…..especially politicians. Politicians lie, (or in the least, embellish the truth). They are self serving and are in the business of perpetuating themselves/increased government.
I deal with specifics and reality; I don’t deal in vagueness and hypotheticals. (Yes, I actually read legally binding documents before I sign them.) I don’t believe in simply throwing money at problems hoping that they will magically disappear. If someone recommends that I must devote massive resources to resolve a problem I’m asking questions……a lot of questions.
I also don’t take the shotgun approach, (i.e. a penguin dies in Antarctica, therefore, let’s spend trillions of dollars and deny millions of people the necessities of a decent existence because some guy “thinks” the penguins death is due to my use, or how much, of a fuel I use that he doesn’t like).
I believe that belief in AWG is based primarily on a psychological situation call dependency.
Dependency theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory
Alarmists feel that a politician or government agency/institution is going to wave a magic wand and solve all of their unhappiness……resolve all of the miseries of the world for them. They point to someone or some group that has “more than their fair share” and demonize/scapegoat them…..proclaiming that all of the ills of the world are caused by this group……and then punish them. It’s been happening since the beginning of mankind and will not change. Your reliance on government is misspent; governments do not resolve problems, they create them.
Short of a world wide totalitarian government, CO2 emissions will not be lowered…..no matter how much we “wish” and “hope” that they will. The human condition is such that people will always want warmth, light, security. Presently, the most effective, efficient way of satisfying those needs is through the consumption of fossil fuels.
Secondly, the human condition is such that people instinctively want something better than the status quo. Marxism will never, ever work as there will always be some guy that wants something just a bit nicer than the next guy.
You think that there will arise, someday, a magic number of CO2 emissions that will be the upward, maximum, yearly limit. That portions of this CO2 “pool” will be rationed out or traded and that no one will exceed their allotted number. Keep dreaming.
What if there were a rather large volcanic eruption after this plan were implemented? Would the CO2 pool shrink?
The global warming “initiative”, (specifically cap and trade), has absolutely nothing to do with the environment. This is absolutely about “correcting” perceived “injustices” and creating equal outcomes despite effort.
We can continue to argue the “science”; however, make no mistake about it, this is nothing more than a political agenda, accentuated with propaganda, hero worship and ideological goals.
Brute,
Yes I know that you are right when you say “We can continue to argue the ‘science’; however, make no mistake about it, this is nothing more than a political agenda”. Except with different interpretations of what this means. Whereas you think that world science has been hijacked by Marxists as a way of bringing down capitalism, we think that the political right is more interested in protecting the short term interests of the present system than the long term future of the environment.
You its not just you. Robin’s just said “my knowledge of physics is frankly limited”. If so what motivates him? If you don’t understand the science it must be politics. Or possibly religion. When I get on to these topics I’m accused of going OT!
In truth, that’s probably when I’m most ON topic.
Brute,
In simple terms there is a problem and needs to be fixed. There’s no need to get involved in what you’ve termed ‘psychological’ theories.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree here anyway. Dependency theory is usually put forward by the left. This is what Che Guevara said about it:
“The inflow of capital from the developed countries is the prerequisite for the establishment of economic dependence. This inflow takes various forms: loans granted on onerous terms; investments that place a given country in the power of the investors; almost total technological subordination of the dependent country to the developed country; control of a country’s foreign trade by the big international monopolies; and in extreme cases, the use of force as an economic weapon in support of the other forms of exploitation.”
Of course the USA, when it was developing in in the nineteenth century was well aware of the dangers of becoming too dependent on European loans and trade. You should look at the origin of the ‘greenback’. The introduction of a paper dollar. That was essentially a response to the difficulties of raising loans from European banks. The nineteenth century Americans just printed the dollars and considered them a loan to themselves.
Yes, Max, I just saw your intervention on the Guardian Simon Singh thread. Thanks. But I see that someone called tempterrain, who is lurking here, has intervened by commenting on my credentials. So, tempterrain (if you’re there), it seems you’re an AGW believer – why not speak up here? You must have noticed that Peter Martin needs some support. A good start might be to explain (in simple terms for those of us not trained in atmospheric physics) how you get about a 3degC temperature rise per doubling of CO2.
Robin Guenier, Reur; Guardian Simon Singh thread. I’m frustrated!
I girded my loins, and attempted registration to enable a posting, and in their Email requesting confirmation of my Email address, when I clicked their confirming pro forma, it messaged that there was a problem validating my Email address.
So I tried re-registering, carefully ensuring that my Email address was correct, and was told to sod-off, because that Email address was already registered.
I have sent a new Email to an address that they recommended, seeking further clarification.
Robin,
If you are good a crossword puzzles you might have noticed something about Peter Martin!
Anyway this is a calculation that Max has produced in the past:
We can say that Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2
where Delta T is the temperature change we can expect from a forcing Delta F ,measuered as power per unit area. C1 is the ‘no feedback’ constant. C2 is an additional constant to represent feedbacks in the system.
As Max has previously referenced , Delta F is generally considered, see for example Myrhe (1998), to be:
Delta F(2xCO2) = 5.35 ln(560/280) = 5.35 ln 2 = 3.708 W m–2.
C1 can be calculated from
C1 = 1 / 4 [sigma] T^3)
Where sigma (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equals 5.6705E-08 W/m^2*K^4
Using a value of T =245 deg for the effective average radiation temperature of the earth’s surface gives a value for C1 of 0.28 degK/W/m^2
Leaving the feedbacks out of it, making C2 =1, we get:
Delta T = 3.708 x 0.28 = 1.03 deg C
This is the basic physics part of it. Lindzen agrees with this as far as it goes.
And the positive feedbacks?
As I referenced in 5444, if the solar guys can have positive feedbacks then it only seems ‘fair’ that everyone else should be allowed to use them too. As I showed they have used a value of 3.3 for C2.
Making Delta T = 3.4 degC
This, I hope, explains where the 3 deg figure comes from.