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.
Hi Peter,
You miss the point entirely in your 5444.
It is not (as you say) that I have “calculated 0.89 K/W/m2 for the (solar) forcing constant”.
I have not “calculated” anything for “solar forcing”, but have simply shown you that several solar scientists have concluded that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity was responsible for warming of around 0.35C over the 20th century, leaving around 0.3C for CO2 and everything else.
Lindzen has accepted a 2xCO2 warming of 0.65C, as I have shown you with a reference.
The observed 20th century warming results in a 2xCO2 warming of around 0.6 to 0.8C (a pretty good check).
Forget the imaginary “net positive feedbacks”. They are a figment of your imagination, Peter. You have not provided any evidence based on actual physical observations that they truly exist.
I have brought you evidence, based on actual physical observations (Spencer et al.) that the overall net “feedbacks” essentially cancel one another out. You have not been able to refute this evidence.
Bring this evidence or admit that the assumed strong net positive feedbacks do not exist in the real world (but only in your head and in the computer models cited by IPCC).
I am eagerly awaiting your evidence of strong net positive feedbacks, Peter. So far you have been dismally unable to produce anything.
Regards,
Max
Robin Guenier, Reur 5448, you wrote:
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.
One might suspect that Tempterrain is the same person whom wrote the following here in 5417:
terrain temp says: More Good News!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E&feature=related
We’ve really nothing to worry about after all!
I want to respond to Tempterrain, in that other place, concerning his elitism, if I can get registered on The Guardian
There’s an important story here.
The Chinese are making it increasingly clear that, if the Copenhagen climate change conference in December (the successor to the failed Kyoto) is to have any hope of success, the developed countries (i.e. economically weakened USA, Japan and Europe) have to make “substantial arrangements” for transferring “climate-friendly technologies” and for giving vast amounts of hard cash to developing countries (i.e. economically successful countries such as China and India and the truly poor countries of Africa etc.). What’s happening is that China is playing a simple diplomatic game: exploiting the West’s constant global warming scare stories and their accompanying assumption that we are guilty and, therefore, in debt to the rest of the world – where individual “carbon footprints” are vastly smaller than ours and where we (we tell ourselves) are responsible for widespread death and disaster. If we don’t comply (and we can’t afford to) we are bad, greedy people and our world standing and influence is further diminished.
So, we’ve talked ourselves into a trap. The result? If we don’t pay up, China and India (etc.) won’t ratify the treaty (so probably the US won’t either) and Copenhagen is dead before it starts. Mind you, given Europe’s hopeless attempts to reduce emissions (see earlier posts about the failure of carbon credits) and the increasing likelihood that Obama will be unable to get his legislation past the Senate, it’s probably dead anyway.
Hi tempterrain,
Welcome to the discussion.
There are two flaws in your 5451.
Solar scientists have not used the concept of “feedbacks” to increase the impact of solar forcing. Instead they have simply used the pre-industrial record to show how the sun’s activity affects global temperature, and established an emperically observed relationship between solar activity and temperature.
If one falls into the trap (as IPCC and Peter have apparently done) of assuming that the solar forcing is only due to measurable direct solar irradiance, one ends up with a dilemma.
The theoretical solar warming (from direct solar irradiance) is only a fraction of the actually observed pre-industrial warming.
So what caused the rest? (There was no human CO2 at the time.)
Was it due to “positive feedbacks”?
Or was it due to factors of which we in our current “low level of scientific understanding” are not yet aware?
IPCC has conceded that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”, so it is very likely that there are other mechanisms that caused the observed higher temperature impact of solar forcing rather than assumed “positive feedbacks”.
One such mechanism has been proposed by Svensmark, and confirmed in a simple laboratory experiment. It is now being tested in a larger experiment at CERN.
Regardless of how the CERN work turns out, it is safe to say that we are a long way from kmowing all there is to know about how the sun affects our climate, so simply taking the measurable direct solar irradiance and assuming that all the rest of the observed pre-industrial warming was due to net “positive feedbacks” (from water vapor, clouds, albedo, etc.) would not only be foolhardy, it would be downright stupid.
I’m sure that you would not fall into such an obvious trap, as Peter has apparently done.
Regards,
Max
Re 5450 – good morning, Peter!
Well you may say that the basic physics gets to 1.03 deg C – but my friend onthefence asserts that it gets to 3 deg C without benefit of positive feedback. Perhaps the physicists (in which category I am not included) need to get their act together.
Peter Martin, Reur 5450, I’ll leave it to Max to handle your crossed posts, but I must say I’m particularly amused by your naiveté concerning, what you stated (in part) next:
I don’t know about your 245K, (not that it matters), but I guess you also rationalize that the Greenhouse effect is 33C…. How simple that all sounds!
For instance, in reality, what has radiation T from the Earth’s surface got in common with radiation to space?
Are you aware that energy power loss due to EMR at any level from the surface to various points in the atmosphere is at each point proportional to the fourth power of T?
That latitude and albedo at various altitudes are somewhat significant.
Sheez Pete, you are so Naive!
Robin,
It could be that your friend on the fence is, like tempterrain, just a mixed up kid!
I think he is mistaken about the 3 deg K figure being calculable by 1st year uni type Physics. If Max is reading this he might just want to read Lindzen’s testimony to the UK House of Lords.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20051201/20051201_04.html
About a third of the way down the page you can read ” A doubling of CO2 should lead (if the major greenhouse substances, water vapour and clouds remain fixed), on the basis of straightforward physics, to a globally averaged warming of about 1C.”
There no real dispute about this. Except maybe unreconstructed malcontents like Max.
The point is though that it is unrealistic to expect the conditions that Lindzen has included in brackets to hold. Clouds and water vapour will themselves be a function of global temperatures. Higher temperatures means more water vapour in the atmosphere. This is a GHG in itself.
Incidentally some GH effect is very desirable. Without it the earth would freeze solid.
The earths’ albedo is a function of the amount of ice at the poles. Replace some ice with water and more heat is absorbed. Which melts more ice.
If some of the tundra melts, methane gas is emitted. Methane is a much more potent GHG than CO2. This warms the atmosphere and melts more tundra.
The ocean absorbs more CO2 when it is cold. If it warms up it absorbs less and will in time become a net emitter.
Bob_FJ,
You have to differentiate the SB equation to get dE/dT. The fourth power goes to the third power and a factor of 4 appears too!
tempterrain may be a bit mixed up but I think he’s got his sums right. Sorry to disappoint you.
Max,
If you won’t listen to me maybe you will listen to Andrew Dressler who is after all an associate professor and therefore likely to be just as smart! :-)
“Climate skeptics, of course, don’t have to look at all the data. In one thread, they can argue “it’s the sun,” while in another thread they can argue “there is a negative feedback.” The problem is that these are mutually contradictory. Any negative feedback working on carbon dioxide would also work on increased solar forcing. One cannot argue both that our present-day warming is due the sun, and that there is a negative feedback that prevents carbon dioxide from warming and climate.”
Andrew’s comments apply just as much to the positive feedbacks quoted by your solar guys.
If they’ve got it right with their figure of 0.89K/W/m2 for solar effects , then that’s the figure to use for CO2 also.
You yourself have quoted 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2.
3.7 x 0.89 = 3.3 deg. You can’t have it both ways!
Oops! Sorry of course. Your a climate sceptic. You can have it as many ways as you like!
Peter Martin, Reur 5457, you wrote naively in part:
Whilst this is part of the dogma of alarmists, have you ever considered how much of the Sun’s energy actually reaches those latitudes for just part of the year? Have you also recognised that when the Sun’s zenith is low, that the reflection from water is very high, and not much different to that of old snow and ice?
Peter: yes, I suspect our mixed up friend (no. 2) is mistaken. Why don’t you (or your alter ego) take it up with him. The correspondence might be entertaining.
Further to my 5453 (which is, I suggest, far more important than bickering about the physics of GW – where, with respect, I doubt if any of you is an authority) this is also relevant. It’s the “Leaders’ statement” from last week’s G20 summit in London. It contains over 3,000 (boring) words: “climate” appears only twice. And that’s in a ritual reference to Copenhagen that appears to have been tacked on to the end as an afterthought.
The truth is that, for good or ill, the world has no intention of giving the climate any serious priority. It’s high time we woke up to that.
Robin,
I’m always keen to argue to present the scientific knowledge as it is best understood. I don’t mind taking issue with anyone who is overstating the case as well as those who might want to understate it.
I’ve just had a quick look on the thread but I didn’t see the statement you mentioned. You might want to show him this.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php
“The estimate of the IPCC is that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase of 1.5 to 4.5?C (2.7 to 8.1?F). The predicted temperatures consist of 1.2 to 1.3?C from the enhanced greenhouse effect that is multiplied by an “amplification factor” arising from positive feedback. The calculated amplification factor is in the range from 1.2 to 3.75. If the amplification factor is 1.2, then the temperature will be 20 percent higher than it would be in the absence of feedback, while if the amplification factor is 3.75, the temperature rise will be nearly quadruple what it would be in the absence of feedback. The controversy is all about the feedback. That’s what the climate scientists are arguing about: How much is the feedback?”
Farley quotes a figure of 1.2 to 1.3 degC without feedback.
That’s probably because whereas I used a forcing of 3.7W/m^2, he would have used something like 4W/m^2.
But its not 3 deg C. You do need to invoke the feedbacks to get 3 deg. No argument about that.
You’ll find onthefence’s claim here – about half way down page 4 (10:38 on the 5th). He says, “You get about a 3degC temperature rise per doubling of CO2, I’ve already shown you an early paper that calculates it. You’ll find more papers listed in IPCC AR4 references”. He adds, “You’ll find numerous detailed examinations of this in the references listed in IPCC AR4.”
Good luck – I’ve given up on him: he’s rude and stupidly patronising.
Robin,
I do sometimes fear you might be right when you write that “the world has no intention of giving the climate any serious priority”
To be more accurate I’d say “a significant part of the world has no intention of giving the climate a serious enough priority”
It doesn’t change anything. You can’t assume that it will all just not happen if we ignore it. The science is sound and sooner or later people will wake up in sufficient numbers. The sooner the better of course.
The next few years are quite crucial. If we do see the jump in rapid temperatures that I’m predicting then we should see some serious action then.
Probably the worst thing that could happen is for the sun to go very quiet for the next 20 years. Lower temperatures will probably lull everyone into a sense of false optimism, as the effects of higher CO2 concentrations are offset. But then if solar activity does revert to what we’ve seen in the past few decades we’ll get a bit hit in one go. There’ll be no argument then, but many years will have been wasted.
Peter:
I’m almost completely sure that the world’s governments will do nothing of substance about climate change for several years – if ever. So, if you’re right about AGW (and, for the reasons we’ve been discussing for over a year, I believe you are not) serious ecological damage is inevitable. Therefore, the intelligent thing for AGW proponents to do now is to desist from the scaremongering – which, for the reasons I spell out at 5453 (namely that they’re providing the Chinese, etc. with a pretext to bash the West), are worsening the West’s diplomatic position – and to start taking the actions they think are necessary to alleviate the damage they fear.
Pete,
RE: 5447
I wouldn’t place Che Guevara on too high of a pedestal. The guy was a homicidal maniac.
My point was that notions such as the Dependency Theory are held close to the hearts of many nations and political movements (as well as the United Nations) as an excuse to justify their shortcomings.
Global Warming “solutions” (specifically cap and trade) dovetails nicely with this mindset in that capital will be redistributed from wealthy nations to less wealthy nations in order to create “economic parity”. (I’m trying to think of a different word than “redistributed”…..but it fits…..how about, “reallocate”).
Essentially, it creates a system where a “commodity” (CO2 emissions) are bought and sold. Very clever trick if you can get people to believe it, but I would argue that we could also market oxygen, sea water or sunlight as a “commodity”……same premise.
You may as well be selling empty boxes, (or bottled water).
How about people that have (successfully) marketed property sales on the Moon or Mars? Why not write a check to some company that will name a star in a distant galaxy after you or a loved one? You’ll end up with the same thing…..NOTHING….except a worthless piece of paper that states that you’ve bought 20 acres of land in the Andromeda sector of the “newest” and “most fashionable” portion of Saturn.
China has more people than Australia therefore they are using more than “their fair share” of oxygen and sunlight and should be taxed accordingly; (I wouldn’t be surprised to hear this come out of the UN in the near future). Sound like a good idea to you?
Of course, people such as Al Gore and Prince Charles will be able to use as much of the cheap fossil fuels because they can afford to. They can claim that they’ve purchased “carbon offsets” (payable to companies that they have vested interest in). People such as you and I will be forced to purchase the more expensive “alternate energy sources” as we won’t be able to “offset” our emissions by purchasing “credits”.
What a racket! I wish I’d thought of it!
It’s the ultimate confidence game and I’m flabbergasted that you can’t, (or refuse to), see through it……Believe me, there are a million reasons to promote this nefarious flim-flam.
Politicians, scientists, the energy industry and the retail sector love it. Hell, even British Petroleum and Exxon Mobil are making money from this charade. Do you really think that a company that sells oil is sincerely interested in promoting wind/solar power? I’ve seen their televisions ads.
I’ve personally made quite a bit of money over the last few years due to the hysteria. I can slap a “green” label on any product today and guarantee that it will sell better than it did yesterday without the “green” sticker. It’s a fad and a ruse Peter; it provides no benefit and because of the “mystic”/ “altruistic” connotation, I can sell it and people will willingly pay more for it……dopes.
Confidence Game: Create a worthless, tangible (or in the case of CO2 emissions, a non-tangible), product, hype its value and then sell it as something effective and beneficial.
Works every time…………
Robin
re: Guardian thread
You really are no fun at times :)
Anyway, i’ll post the link here as well as i thought it was fairly interesting. Illustrates the projected effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on tropospheric heat absorbtion (yes, it’s projected, i.e. models)
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-231437.html
Also mentions Venus, which i found interesting as i’d never seen it explained before.
Terrain temp:
I believe you meant word jumbles or anagrams instead of crosswords. (and after the grief i had over sockpuppets)
Barelysane: you’re right, I suppose. But I thought it would be more fun to poke the monster with a stick rather than to throw him any more meat.
Of course, I wasn’t making a particular issue of the CO2 saturation point but merely pointing out a few of the matters he had overlooked in his simple world where everything is driven by the physics – I mentioned also historical CO2 levels that didn’t cause ecological disaster, evidence that temperature increases have previously preceded increases in atmospheric CO2 and the fact that causes other than human CO2 emissions must have driven earlier temperature increases (including late nineteenth and twentieth century increases before 1950) where there is no peer-reviewed evidence identifying these and excluding them from the late twentieth century warming. He ignored all bar the logarithmic point about which I suppose he thought he knew something. Then, using that, he started his usual patronising rant.
Hi Robin
I know, generally i just go on the guardian thread for entertainment rather than any meaningful discussion. The regular “alarmist” contributers there very quickly resort to name calling and diversion (Peter, can’t speak for the others, but i’m very grateful you don’t go in for the name calling. Wouldn’t say you were particluarly alarmist either, and some of the diversions are quite interesting). I just enjoy letting them take the bait and then hitting them back down all the harder (really don’t like rudeness).
And he and his little helper, MeFinny2, are still at it. Surely this isn’t the usual level of pro-AGW discourse?
I agree that it’s a pleasure to deal with Peter.
I’m afraid it does seem to be over there, be grateful you haven’t come up against Bluecloud or Nefasus (not sure on the spelling on that one), those two on the current thread are relatively mild.
The nice thing about this thread is if someone says “prove it”, there’s at least an attempt.
Hmmmmm. I wonder if Al Gore visited every one of these towns this winter. If he’d simply stay home, in his power guzzling 50 room mansion and stayed out of the one person, carbon spewing 747s, these cities would probably start to warm up.
Hi Peter,
Looks like you’ve been gazing into your magic crystal ball again when you wrote: “Probably the worst thing that could happen is for the sun to go very quiet for the next 20 years. Lower temperatures will probably lull everyone into a sense of false optimism, as the effects of higher CO2 concentrations are offset. But then if solar activity does revert to what we’ve seen in the past few decades we’ll get a bit hit in one go. There’ll be no argument then, but many years will have been wasted.”
Making predictions that “we’ll get a big hit in one go” is silly.
Truth of the matter is, Peter, that neither you nor I nor IPCC, James E. Hansen nor Al Gore have any notion what is going to happen to our climate over the next 20 or (even less) next 100 years. It’s a crap game, Peter.
To claim anything else is pure arrogance.
Regards,
Max
Brute:
That could very well be true, but it is also possible that C4 are worried about what Ofcom might do to them if there are complaints that AIT is a documentary which has already been found to be ‘partisan’ and inaccurate by a UK court and they have not made their audience aware of this. Public service broadcasing of current affairs programs is controlled by a strict code of practice in the UK which was invoked when TGGWS was screened last year. In the case of AIT there is a HIgh Court ruling to rely on and that is likely to cncentrate Ofcom’s mind wonderfully. Watch this space.