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,
Sorry, Peter, I stopped listening to Andrew Dessler long ago, when I asked him to provide physical evidence for the assumed strong positive feedbacks, which he was unable to do, despite being a “climatologist”.
The many solar studies I cited tell me that the sun played a major role in 20th century warming (no feedbacks needed, thank you), and from this I can figure out all by myself (without an expensive GCM) that the 2xCO2 warming is at most around 0.6 to 0.8C.
Since this also checks with the greenhouse hypothesis, I can conclude that we face a theoretical warming from increased CO2 by 2100 of around 0.4C, not 1.8C to 4.0C, as projected by the IPCC models.
I then read a recent study showing that clouds exert a strongly negative feedback (Spencer et al.), while all the models cited by IPCC in AR4 have assumed a strongly positive feedback, albeit with an admission that “clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
With a sigh of relief I see that this large IPCC uncertainty has been cleared up sfter the IPCC report by the actual physical observations of Spencer et al., and that we are not doomed to fry due to AGW.
That’s how science works, Peter. People make assumptions (recognizing that there are major uncertainties) and then someone has a breakthrough with actual physical observations that make these assumptions obsolete, null and void.
Your hero, Dessler, does not even acknowledge the observations of Spencer et al. when he writes silly blog articles on RealClimate about negative feedbacks being “as real as the Easter Bunny”.
Dessler is an AGW salesman with a good technical/scientific training but a decided lack of objectivity and a blindness to anything that does not support his AGW paradigm.
He should go back to making (tax-payer funded) studies in his field of expertise rather than trying to “sell” his AGW paradigm with silly articles.
Regards,
Max
PS Bring physical evidence, Peter, to substantiate your “large net positive feedback” assertion, not silly theoretical calculations or references to oracles like Dessler.
Hey Robin and Barelysane
After briefly joining in the Guardian melee, I’m glad that TonyN is running a more civilized blog here.
Interestingly, you both probably noted that the Guardian has a long page of code of ethics, but no one on the AGW proponent side (including the lead author!) appear to have read it.
Some of the more strident AGW-groupies (MeFinny2 and onthefence) appear to be foul-mouthed disgruntled juveniles.
Thank God for the likes of PeterM!
Regards,
Max
Robin, your 5434:
You are correct that so-called “cap and trade” legislation is VERY unlikely to be approved in the USA as the senate voted NOT to include it in the budget “reconciliation” bills that were recently approved by simple majority votes in the US house and senate. Normally, senate rules require 60 votes (out of 100) to invoke “cloture”, or an end to debate of a bill. Unless a successful cloture vote is taken, final voting on a bill before the senate cannot take place.
You may have heard of the “filibuster”, which in the old days of the senate required the senate to remain in session and senators (who did not want a bill voted on) to speak continuously on the senate floor 24/7. These days, however, opponents need only 41 votes to stop any legislation in the senate, hence the desire by both parties for a ‘filibuster-proof’ majority in the senate.
The USA will not adopt cap and trade legislation anytime soon.
Hi Robin,
The logarithmic nature of the greenhouse hypothesis is best demonstrated by this curve. Whether or not one refers to it as a “saturation point” or a “point at which added ppms of CO2 no longer have a significant impact on greenhouse warming” is, in itself, immaterial (except maybe to a persnikkety physicist).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/3102481730_782feea7bd_b.jpg
Three estimates of 4xCO2 climate sensitivity are shown. Lindzen’s seems to make the most sense, based on the actual long-term temperature record and the estimated solar impact, as I pointed out to Peter (athough he still does not accept this).
But in all of them it is clear that the impact of an added 10ppm CO2 is much lower at a concentration of 500 ppm than it is at 280 ppm.
Regards,
Max
Thanks, Max – that’s helpful and interesting. Especially for me, seemingly “a pseudo-intellectual gonad” according to MeFinny2’s charming phraseology. It seems my short exchange with the equally charming onthefence has wound a lot of people up, even though I terminated it some time ago! I wonder why.
TonyN – re your 5475 it’s interesting that Channel 4 has a piece on its Film4 website (Features section) entitled “An Inconvenient Truth: The Court Ruling” here. Apparently dated today, it provides links to “contemporaneous news reports”.
In contrast, on the Film4 Home page, it has this comment on AIT:
Robin, your discussion on the Guardian’s article by Simon Singh brought my attention to this comment, which sums up, in my mind, the view of so many in the AGW crowd. If this doesn’t illustrate the mindset we’re up against, I don’t know what does. Here’s the comment in case the link is difficult to follow:
By the way, further to my post 5482, I suspect that this guy spent the 70’s and 80’s doing something a bit more mind altering….
Max,
Why do you think that no feedbacks are needed in connection with solar warming? It isn’t a a question of whether they are needed. They either occur or they don’t.
Is this what you are saying? That the solar studies have not incorporated feedbacks into their calculations?
Hi Peter,
Not to fall into a silly game of “your calculation / my calculation”, but I was curious about your comment in 5458:
“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!”
Don’t know where your “figure of 0.89K/W/m2 for solar effects” comes from, Peter. The actual appears to be closer to 0.2K/W/m^2.
Lean estimated a solar forcing of 3.3 W/m^2 since the Maunder minimum, and (together with Lockwood and Stamper) 1.65 W/m^2 (around half of this) for the 20th century.
Shaviv et al. estimated 1.7 ± 0.6 W/m^2 for the 20th century.
But let’s take Lean’s numbers. The solar forcing from the Maunder minimum through the 20th century was 3.3 W/m^2, and the temperature change due to the solar impact was around 0.7C. Roughly half of this occurred prior to 1900, with the other half occurring in the 20th century.
There was no significant “anthropogenic” warming (from CO2) prior to 1900. And we can assume that the remainder of the 0.65C warming observed over the 20th century over and above the 0.35C solar warming was due to CO2.
So it all adds up and there was no observed “positive feedback” beyond and above the estimated forcing for either the anthropogenic part (CO2) or the natural part (solar).
Using the same calculation for the 2xCO2 forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 gives us a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.8C (not 3+C). The warming from CO2 from 1900 to 2000 would calculate to around 0.3C, which again checks with the actual observation.
But let’s not get caught up in any more “calculation duels”. The solar experts have already done it for us, and they conclude that the unusually high level of solar activity in the 20th century was responsible for a bit more that one-half of the observed total 20th century warming.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Believe I answered your question in 5484 with my 5485.
Regards,
Max
Max ,
You say you “don’t know where” the figure of 0.89K/W/m^2 comes from.
It comes from your posting. #4288 (page 29)
You need to be careful to distinguish between W/m^2 as used in TSI and the same units but used for climate forcings.
The TSI (as W/m^2) is incident on the earths cross sectional area. The surface area is four times more. Also the albedo of the earth is about 70%. Therefore the relationship between two is a factor of 4/.7 = 5.7 (approx)
There should be no real difference between scientists who are looking at climatic change from a perspective of changes in CO2 levels or changes in TSI. They are both engaged in exactly the same climate science. Its just that the forcings are different.
The solar scientists, according to you, are using a figure of 0.89K/W/m^2. They are saying that 1 watt of solar climate forcing produces a temperature rise of 0.89deg.
So why does it not follow that 3.7W of climate forcing (again that’s a figure you have used for a doubling of CO2) produces a temperature rise of 0.89 x 3.7 = 3.3 degC ?
Max,
I just remebered that you wrote “Sorry, Peter, I stopped listening to Andrew Dessler long ago, when I asked him to provide physical evidence for the assumed strong positive feedbacks, which he was unable to do, despite being a ‘climatologist'”.
I agree that we shouldn’t assume anything. But what we have done, between us, is use the results of the solar climate scientists to show that it is really there. No assumptions. No computer models.
Maybe we should let Dr Dessler know so that the next time some climate change denier gives him a hard time he won’t be caught short and without an explanation?
We could suggest we all write a paper on it together. We should ask for some assurance in advance. I’m not saying this about Dr Dessler in particular, but it has been known for scientists to claim credit for work that isn’t all their own. They aren’t angels or saints.
Does A.Dessler, P.Martin and M.Anacker sound OK to you?
Or would you prefer A.Dessler, M.Anacker and P.Martin?
Unfortunately, as AD is the academic we’ll have to let him put his name first.
Sorry, Peter, your last distraction (5488) is irrelevant.
We both know what the solar scientists have concluded, and these conclusions certainly do not support your postulation of strongly positive feedbacks (as IPCC has assumed).
Instead they relegate the theoretical warming to be expected from increased CO2 to being rather insignificant and truly nothing to get very concerned about.
Those are the facts, Peter, like them or not.
But I think we have beaten this dog to death earlier, so there’s no need for a re-hash just because you were not happy about the outcome.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Believe I answered your question in 5487 with my 5485.
We have the conclusions reached by the many solar scientists I cited. They speak for themselves.
Don’t fall into the silly trap of equating the total solar impact on climate with the impact of direct solar irradiance alone (as it appears that IPCC, with its “low level of scientific understanding” of “solar forcing” has done).
Regards,
Max
Max,
I know what it is. You are just being too modest and don’t want to admit that you’ve helped establish an important scientific principle. Maybe a paper is being too ambitious but I would have thought a letter should be possible? If a letter is good enough for Dr. R Spencer…..
It sounds like you’ve got even more to say on the subject with the comment in your last email. “Don’t fall into the silly trap of equating the total solar impact on climate with the impact of direct solar irradiance alone”.
So you are saying that even if TSI stays the same that this will also produce changes in climate? I can sort of picture what you might write. You’ll have a graph which shows flat TSI, apart from the 12 year solar cycle, in the late 20th century, and another graph which shows temperature rising at about 0.18deg C per decade. Then you’ll say that the two graphs prove that your statement is correct?
Ok. I might just leave this one for you to write on your own. Its totally your own original idea and I wouldn’t want to take anything away from that.
Hi Peter,
I must admit that I get a kick out of your “so you are saying that…” rambles, where you make up something totally preposterous and irrelevant and then try to put those words in my mouth.
It’s a great diversionary gambit when you’ve lost a debate on the actual facts.
But, now that we have truly concluded our discussion on 20th century solar warming, let’s move on to something else.
How about the rationale for the IPCC projection of 1.8 to 4.0C warming from now until year 2100 and the rather dismal failure of the IPCC projections for the first decade (0.2C per decade) or the even more ludicrous Hadley forecast (0.3C per decade) to materialize so far (actual is cooling of 0.1C per decade)?
How could these learned experts be so wrong? What happened?
How can we believe their long-range forecasts for year 2100 when they can’t even get the first decade of the new century right?
Does this topic sound interesting to you?
We could start with my 5413 as a talking paper.
How about it?
Regards,
Max
Max:
I see that one of your posts on the Guardian thread has been “removed by the moderator”. Here are some extracts from the Guardian‘s “Community standards and participation guidelines” relating to online discussion:
So you must have said something pretty bad – considering the rude and juvenile comments that are allowed through.
Incidentally I clicked on “report abuse” re Hoggle’s most recent comment about me – commenting that he is obviously entitled to disagree with me but not to call me a liar. We’ll see what happens.
Max,
I think I can see your problem with the solar warming issue and why you want to get away from it. But maybe I have a solution.
It’s this issue of positive feedback. Ideally, you need to be able to come up with some mechanism whereby it applies to solar forcing but not CO2 forcing. You want 1w/m^2 of solar forcing to produce a 0.89deg rise. That’s great! But you don’t want those greenies saying “Me too! Me too” and multiplying 3.7 x 0.89 to give 3.3deg warming for a doubling of CO2 levels.
That’s no good at all. I’ve tried but I just can’t think of anything plausible. But, you’ll have to come up with something because it seems so unfair that the greenies are being fobbed off with a mere 0.2 deg rise per 1W/m^2 of CO2 forcing.
It may not be quite so ideal, but what about revising this 3.7W/m^2 figure of yours? Doesn’t this come from some guy named Myhre? Can’t you have a try at discrediting him? You’ve got guys there who can draw graphs of 19th century CO2 levels going up and down faster than a whore’s knickers, so it shouldn’t be too hard at all really.
If you can get that down to about 1W/m^2, you could then allow the principle of positive feedback for both solar and GHG forcing. A doubling of CO2 would still produce an increase in temperature of less than 1 deg and the playing field would at least have the superficial appearance of being level.
What do you think?
Re: #5481, Robin
Thanks for the links. There may be a little damage limitation going on at C4.
As broadcast on S4C last night (at 10:45pm ending at 12:30am) the credits at the end of the film ran for several minutes, interspersed with slogans advising people about how they can help save the planet. This interminable sequence was shown as just type against a black background and on our fairly standard TV was all but illegible because the print was so small. Finally, after the closing credit, a text screen that was more legible appeared briefly which mentioned the Burton judgment and provided a link to C4’s web page. The chances of anyone, other than me, having hung in long enough to see this are pretty slim.
I wonder if that screen was used when the film was broadcast on C4 the other night, or whether it was added for the second showing on the Welsh channel as a result of complaints? If so, then C4 may have a serious problem. Sadly, I was unable to record it.
TonyN: I recorded AIT & will have a look.
Max: I think the following may be relevant to your comment on the Guardian thread about sea levels.
According to the official sea level site (note especially the graph), the overall sea level rise over the past 3 years has come down from 3.3mm/year to 3.2mm/year – a tiny reduction in the rate but a reduction nonetheless. Yet, according to this article (headed Global Warming Accelerates – as sea levels rise faster than expected, political and social catastrophes loom):
How might you account for this seeming deliberate misstatement of the facts?
Peter Martin Reur 5424, I’m truly astonished by your continued refusal to accept the oft repeated facts about TWO FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT methods of moving average smoothing! You wrote in part:
The Excel method that you have repetitively erroneously used does have certain applications, broadly, in commerce, (which is perhaps Excel’s criterion), and is known as Prior Moving Average. (PMA). This gives an AVERAGE of the prior data, say weekly, for comparative purposes, in cost and performance etc. However, in the field of science, in examining Time Series Data, in order to smooth out “noise” the appropriate method is different and is known as Central Moving Average. (CMA). It results in a “worm” that is significantly different to that of PMA.
Perhaps if you could take peek at the equivalent GISTEMP 5-year smoothing, you might be able to see the fundamental difference between GISS, (and all other scientific organisations such as CSIRO), and the different way that YOU insist to be correct.
BTW, in whatever your version of Excel, you could do it correctly, in CMA, if you were to insert appropriate formulae in the columns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concerning your other comment on Phil Jones:
I’m not confident in understanding your comment, but my point was that dear ol’ Phil clearly admits to a plateau in the last decade or so. However his “worm” shows absolutely NO HINT of the “very noisy” cooling periods (or volatile switching), which you identify as periods 1, 2, 3, & 4. See 5421>
Do you fantasize that you know better than Phil Jones?
Thanks Robin, I’d very much like to know.
Interestingly, the Media Guardian site gives the average audience for AIT (C4 on Saturday) as 700,000. According to the Ofcom report on the TGGWS complaints, Durkin’s film had an audience of 2.7m.
Robin Guenier, Reur 5433:
I’ve been distracted by not being able to register on the Guardian, and sorry, have just belatedly noticed that you asked a question of me:
Well, in a few words, I think that you have hit the nail right on the head!
I don’t think I can add to it!