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,
Let us do a quick sanity check on your last post (5963).
You opined:
IPCC AR4 SPM gives changes in solar irradiance from pre-industrial 1750 to 2005 a radiative forcing of 0.12 W/m^2, at the same time conceding that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar impact on climate is “low”.
Several solar studies show that the total impact of changes of solar activity on 20th century climate has been a warming of 0.35C. The many solar scientists who wrote these studies did not comment that their “level of scientific understanding” of solar impact on climate is “low”, as IPCC did.
Obviously, IPCC has not included this impact in its solar forcing assumptions.
But, then again, this is quite natural. IPCC is the expert (political) organization, set up specifically to gather evidence for anthropogenic impact on our planet’s climate. As such, spending too much time investigating solar impact is not of much importance to IPCC
IPCC has also not given much importance to changing ocean currents on climate (another natural forcing). But, as we have seen recently (La Niña) and in 1998 (El Niño), these play a major role.
Now to clouds.
The climate models cited by IPCC have all assumed that changes in clouds with warming exert a strongly positive net feedback, which results in a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3C (out of the assumed 3.2C total).
At the same time, IPCC concedes,“cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”. One report cited by IPCC (Ramanathan et al.) states that the magnitude and sign of the net cloud feedback remains uncertain.
After IPCC AR4 was published, Spencer et al. found that, based on actual physical observations (rather than just climate model assumptions), the net feedback from clouds with warming was strongly negative, at about the same order of magnitude as IPCC had assumed in the other direction.
Obviously, IPCC could not have been aware of Spencer’s breakthrough findings on clouds when AR4 was published, so it is quite understandable that they did not make reference to this study and modify the assumptions of the cited climate models accordingly.
So you see, Peter, it is quite logical that IPCC both underestimated the impact of the sun on climate and falsely assumed a strong positive feedback from clouds that does not exist in fact.
These two omissions result in a major change in the importance of CO2 on our planet’s climate.
The 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, once corrected for the cloud feedback, is below 1C, rather than 3.2C as assumed by IPCC.
The reported 20th century solar warming together with the actually observed 20th century warming gives a good cross-check for a 2xCO2 CS of around 0.8C.
So you see, it all makes very good sense, and your statement does not pass the basic “sanity test”.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
In your 5963 you wrote:
I have pointed out earlier why IPCC might have been unaware of the many solar studies that directly contradicted its very low estimate of the solar impact on climate, but let us do a quick logic test on your rather sarcastically worded statement above (leaving out the “hero” BS).
IPCC AR4 SPM relegates solar forcing of climate to insignificant (radiative forcing of 0.12 W/m^2 from 1750 to 2005), conceding that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”. This RF would result in a calculated solar warming of only 0.02C over the period.
Several solar studies show a significant 20th century warming of 0.35C (slightly more than half of the total warming observed over the 20th century of 0.65C).
The IPCC estimate of solar forcing is obviously incompatible with the conclusion reached by these many solar studies.
So there are two possibilities.
A- IPCC was unaware of the solar studies
B- IPCC was fully aware of the solar studies, but decided to publish its very low estimate on solar forcing anyway.
If “A” is correct, then this can be well explained by the IPCC statement that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”.
If “B” is correct, then there are two possibilities:
a) IPCC chose not to include this knowledge because they had overriding evidence that the conclusion reached by these many reports was incorrect
b) IPCC chose not to include this knowledge because it lessened the importance of anthropogenic factors on climate
Case a) would have required a lengthy discussion of the many solar studies with the additional information providing the overriding evidence that the conclusion reached by these studies was incorrect. As this did not occur, and no evidence was provided by IPCC to contradict the conclusion reached by the many solar studies, we can discard this case.
Case b) would imply that IPCC purposely withheld information of which it was aware (but which did not support its premise that anthropogenic forcings are the most important factors affecting recent climate change). This would mean purposeful duplicity on the part of IPCC. If this case were true, then one could question all of the IPCC claims.
So we are left with a dilemma.
1. Either IPCC was truly unaware of the many solar studies (and actually admitted so, with its statement that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”).
2. Or IPCC was dishonest and purposely omitted this information because it weakened its claims of significant anthropogenic warming.
I would prefer to believe the first of these. How about you, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Wow, Pete! You alright down there? It seems that global warming is causing havoc Down Under.
Brrrrrrrrr, better light a fire in the Barbie!
Bob,
How do you spell “barbie” in Australian? (Barbecue)
New Australian continent wide low temperature record set for April
29 04 2009
Minus 13 degrees – the coldest it’s been in April
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/29/new-australian-continent-wide-low-record-set-for-april/#more-7427
Hi Brute,
Regarding your report of record low temperatures in Australia, we’ve been having a bit of a global warming event here in Switzerland, as well, with record snows in the south slopes of the Alps in late April. There was also new snow on the northern side (as I can see from my window).
But we are reassured that this is all just “weather” (= “background noise”), but if we have some hot spells somewhere in the summer, that will be “climate” (and proof of rampant AGW).
Regards,
Max
I’m still curious to know why you all consider the ‘realclimate’ website to be ‘left wing’? I know there is a political dimension to the AGW issue but isn’t that taking it a bit too far.
What about this guy?
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=4608
He ‘s got a Nobel prize in chemistry and is saying that AGW is a pressing problem.
Just knock it off as regards all these weather reports. There are record highs and record lows being recorded all the time. It doesn’t mean anything.
If you are interested in Australian weather take a look at this website.
http://www.bom.gov.au/
We aren’t freezing as you can see.
British court rules that environmentalism is a religion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5015003/Sacked-executive-discriminated-against-due-to-belief-in-climate-change.html
Global warming alarmists out in cold
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25402980-5007146,00.html
Brute,
I couldn’t quite see where the British court had actually used the word “religion’. Maybe you could clarify if they actually said that?
The Australian link was from none other than that well known intellectual (not) Andrew Bolt.
If you want some intelligent discussion of the science behind global warming you’d be better off talking to my cat!
All,
Have you noticed that you have another opportunity to suggest that ice levels in the Arctic have now recovered to their 1996 levels?
Am I getting the hang of the way you guys work now?
Brute, Reur 5978
1) I have consulted the Macquarie (Oz national dictionary) and can confirm that ‘barbie’ is the Oz official spelling for (coloq) BBQ
2) I can also confirm that there has been ”brass monkey” anthropogenic type stuff here in NE Melbourne in recent days. I only have modest gas space heating (****) in my lounge, which has been running continuously day and night. I also have an electric 1000w radiant heater in the bathroom, but it is so cold, that when I stir in the morning, I whiz to the bathroom , switch it on, and then return to my warm bed for at least half an hour, before braving the shower.
Back around the 70-80’s and beyond, I was a fanatical back-country/ cross country snow skier, in Oz, and sometimes in Italy, and California. A long time ago, over two years or so, I was really excited that we had good snow in latish May, although it was soft and hard-work. Sheez, I could be back-country skiing right now, if I had not run-out of puff in my seventies. (for soft snow)
Hi Peter,
Thanks for good news about Arctic sea ice.
Looks like it has recovered considerably since the March 2006 low, but is still shows a net receding trend of around 2% per decade since 1979, and now stands at 2.8% below the 1979-2000 mean.
There is more good news in Antarctica (see graph).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3210/3488429126_76e64c63f5_b.jpg
You will be pleased to learn that the sea ice there now stands at 15.3% above the 1979-2000 mean for March, and shows an increase of 4% per decade since 1979.
Together, the global se ice extenr is now 3.5% above the 1979-2000 mean, so those who were concerned about positive feedback from surface albedo change due to melting sea ice can relax.
Always glad to hear good news, especially from you, Peter, because you are usually so despondent and pessimistic about our planet’s climate. Keep up the good work!
Regards,
Max
Peter 5980
Your link re the Nobel winner provides the perfect reason why we must not close our eyes and believe the science is settled. Prof Rowland has had a magnificent career. His nobel prize was for study in to Ozone depletion awarded over 10 years ago.
You will remember that coincidentally some months ago I commented that something was up about the theory of the ozone hole and had been in contact with professors at Cambridge and the Max Planck institute.
I subsequently posted a world exclusive here on the findiongs of DR Lu-who has proposed an alternative theory of the interaction between the various components of the puzzle.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/03/23/tech-090323-ozone-hole-cosmic-rays.html
the above re ozone depletion–the link below on Prof Rowland who received a nobel prize in Chemistry for his study on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sherwood_Rowland
The science is not settled on the ozone hole although what will eventually be discovered-which may or may not reinforce Prof Rowlands theory-is the subject of additional rsearch and I doubt anything new will arise for several years.
The interaction of all the elements that go to make up climate science is more complex than the ozone hole and requires numerous interelated disciplines to unravel it.
However our understanding of the forces that shape climate is extremely primitive at present and won’t improve until scientists accept they dont know as much as they think they do, and that historically we have been this way before and nothing is currently unprecedented in mans recorded history -least of all the regular melting of arctic ice, sea levels or temperatures.
As I have often suggested before you need to demonstrate why THIS time its different, and to do this you need to illustrate how doubling c02 will produce a temperature increase of up to 6 Degrees C.
Tonyb
All,
I’m not sure if you have an answer to this question. I don’t have an answer myself. But its worth thinking about.
Let me start from the beginning with an example. If you earned $N in one year, then 3% more, even after allowing for inflation, the following year, then another 3% the year after you’d be pretty happy. Right? But if your income then fell 3% in the two years following it wouldn’t be disastrous. In terms of annual income, you’d be back where you started from. However, the TV and car, in all likelihood, you’d bought with the extra money would still be working, so in reality you’d still be better off. In any case, no-one would lose any sleep over 3% or even 6%.
But according to the rules of the economies under which we all live that would be absolutely disastrous. Two years of the economy contracting by 3%. Eight quarters of negative growth! What would the Wall St Journal say about that?
3% growth means that the size of the economy doubles every 35 years. China has dropped back to about 7% growth this year. A quasi recession! It means that their economy takes 10 years to double rather than the 4.7 years that it did when their annual growth rate was 15%.
Obviously this cannot keep happening indefinitely. It just isn’t possible, is it? But, maybe we should be thinking about what might be possible before its all too late?
Correction.
I’m sure you spotted this straightaway but just in case you didn’t, I should say that 3% growth means that the size of the economy doubles every 23.3 years. Not the figure given above.
TonyN: Very interesting but also way off thread!
Note to TonyN and Peter
Believe Peter is throwing out the “economy” post with the ulterior motive of tying it back into the climate debate.
[economic growth -> increased energy consumption -> increased CO2 emissions -> increased atmospheric CO2 -> anthropogenic greenhouse warming]
So let’s all tighten our belts a bit (maybe by swallowing an onerous carbon tax on everything we consume) and reduce our standard of living for the good of the planet.
Am I right, Peter?
Or is your post really off thread as TonyN suggests?
Max
Hi Peter,
Let’s assume you are wanting to tie your “economy” post back to our topic here, when you wrote:
You could also put it another way. A 6% cut in standard of living is not pleasant for anyone. Just try selling it to a labor union!
The severe negative growth in the UK, for example, is causing a lot of pain for many people.
But I do believe that it has been shown that the initial development of a nation’s economy from the underdeveloped stage (poorest nations) is tied to a significant increase in energy consumption and resultant CO2 emissions.
In the developed world, however, the GDP or standard of living rises much more rapidly than the energy consumption (due to increased efficiencies and energy conservation measures, etc.), so that the economic benefit is greater per ton of CO2 generated.
The challenge will be to allow the poorest nations to develop their energy systems (without forcibly binding them to less competitive “renewable” sources) and improve the standard of living of their populations at the same time allowing the developing nations, such as China, to continue to grow their economies and the standard of living of their populations, while the already developed world continues at a slow rate of development at the same time continuing to increase its energy efficiency.
Is a long-term 3% per year average growth rate sustainable? Is it desirable? Does this rate generate the funds needed to make the necessary investments for increasing energy efficiency in the more industrially advanced nations and for helping to finance the development of the poorest nations?
These are all questions that tie back into the climate and energy debate, quite apart from any real or imagined AGW considerations.
Hi Brute,
Your post with the UK case is interesting.
Tim Nicholson clashed with his management and, as a result, got fired (happens all the time in this cruel world).
But now he’s a “victim” of discrimination and is suing his ex-employer
under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations.
It’s pretty clear that Nicholson’s judgment was totally whacked when he criticized the top executive for showing “contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions by flying out a member of the IT staff to Ireland to deliver his BlackBerry that he had left behind.”
But his logic was also screwy.
The staff member who flew to Ireland did so on a commercial flight, I presume (not like Al Gore, who swans around the world in private jets), so the added weight of this one extra passenger (plus the BlackBerry on the return flight) did not cause any measurable increase in “carbon emissions”.
If I were the executive of this company, I would have fired Nicholson for gross stupidity, rather than for his quasi-religious belief in AGW.
Max
Something to think about in connection with Peter’s post on “economy” issues:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=198&linkbox=true
Max,
You ask “Is a long-term 3% per year average growth rate sustainable?”
You tell me. What does this mean for CO2 emissions, and fossil fuel, consumption by the end of this century if they double after 23.3 years. Then redouble after another 23.3 years?
As the Americans say “Do the math”
TonyN,
Yes Max is right, and I don’t use those combination of words too often. :-), I am intending to tie my previous comments in with climate change.
A discussion of climate change mitigation measures is just the first part of a general and necessary challenge to the fundamentals of the present system, one of which is to aim for maximum economic growth as far as conditions allow. Any steps to deal with climate change that are perceived to have negative impacts on growth will meet wide, deep and very well-funded opposition.
Its a systemic problem as much as a political problem and will be difficult to solve, but obviously needs to be solved. Articulating the issues is a necessary start even if we don’t yet have all the answers.
The Met Office has issued its long range forecast for summer 2009 and the wording makes one wonder if they have taken on Mystic Meg or some other purveyor of delightfully vague predictions as a consultant.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/summer2009/summer2009.pdf
I suppose that after two appalling summers they are on to a good thing predicting a better one this year, but sagely suggesting that during a British summer there may be ‘times when temperatures will be above 30 °C [86F]’ and that there may be ‘some heavy downpours’ smells of desperation.
It would have been nice if they had mentioned the reference period they are using when they repeatedly refer to ‘average’ temperatures, both in the press release and the more detailed toolkit; scientist usually do that sort of thing automatically. Might it be 1971-2000, or perhaps 1961-1990 or even since 1914, which they have become rather fond of recently? Or are they waiting to see what happens before they decide?
Peter,
Regarding your Risk Management assessment concerning the high school teacher and global warming:
I’ve brought this up before, but considering that the vast majority of people in the word believe in God, wouldn’t that (following your logic), compel you to attend religious services regularly? After all, the “consensus” is that God exists and you’d be foolish (as you contend that we are foolish for questioning the “consensus view” of Anthropogenic Global Warming). I’d say that eternity is a very long time, (the stakes are much higher than the “looming” global warming apocalypse) and using your reasoning we all should be devout religious adherents.
Further, would you oppose governments requiring that attend/participate in religious activities? Would you be opposed to compulsory taxes levied on everyone payable to support (insert religious institution here)?
A parallel argument would be the invasion of Iraq and the toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime………the “consensus” at the time was that he possessed and was in the process of further acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I’m certain that you disagree with the events that have taken place since the United Nations passed 16 resolutions (that he failed to comply with); however, it would have been a foolish argument at the time to argue with the consensus view, would it not?
TonyN,
RE: 5997
My prediction for the next 3 months would be:
Generally increasing warmth with periods of sunshine, rain and clouds interspersed with episodes of higher and lower than normal temperatures alternating between day and nighttime hours with variable wind conditions.
Can I get a taxpayer funded job with the weather bureau?
Am I eligible for a Nobel Peace Prize if I’m wrong?
As with any “weather bureau” or weather “prophets” such as Gore or Hansen they generally throw a dart at the wall and then paint a bull’s-eye in around it.
Brute
That sums it up pretty well, but what bugs me is that the Met Office used to be one of those long established national institutions that could at least be trusted to do its best, rather than what is fashionable. At the moment it seems to be trading on that reputation, not on its performance. What happens when the agencies that are useing its predictions for infrastructure planning realise that they aren’t all that good?
According to Philip Eden, a Royal Meteorological Society vice-President, UK rainfall has been unusually low for the last nine months. The models predict warmer wetter winters. What are the water companies supposed to make of that when a serious drought in the SE of England only ended a couple of years ago, and that was caused by low winter rainfall and only average summer precipitation. Right now we probably need another wet summer, but the models say that summers will get drier. Fortune telling is a risky business unless you keep moving on, and where have the Met Office got to go?