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 Brute,
Thanks for update on temperature / CO2 correlation.
Am sure Peter has enjoyed your picture (always worth 1,000 words).
Questions for Peter:
Is the current CO2 development a “significant trend”?
Is the current surface temperature development a “significant trend”?
Is the current tropospheric temperature development a “significant trend”?
Or are these “trends” only 1/3 as “significant” as the (3 times as long) 25-year warming trend from 1976 to 2000?
If the current “blip” is just a meaningless “blip” while the longer earlier “blip” is a “significant trend”, how long does the current “blip” have to become, to become a “significant trend” (multiple choice question):
a. 10 years?
b. 20 years?
c. 25 years?
d. more than 25 years, since it disagrees with AGW theory?
e. it will never become a “significant trend”, because it is only “masking” the real warming trend that is going on due to increased CO2.
Regards,
Max
TonyB
As a chemical engineer, I am disturbed by Brute’s charts.
You ask Brute:
Remembering Al Gore’s ice core charts showing CO2 lagging warming by several hundred years, I thought:
Well, maybe we have temperature driving CO2 again here, as in the past, rather than the other way around.
But after studying Ahlbeck’s analysis again on CO2 absorption by the ocean, I am baffled.
I can only conclude that the physically observed recent atmospheric and oceanic cooling has caused an increased amount oceanic absorption of CO2, yet the net atmospheric CO2 has risen.
This tells me that the REAL increase in CO2 is actually much greater that the observed increase and that we are in for a bad case of:
a) ocean acidification, and even more ominously
b) future de-gassing of CO2 from “climate-carbon cycle coupling”, resulting (not in decreased ocean acidification, as might be surmised, but) in a positive warming feedback of potentially monstrous (but as yet unquantified) magnitude.
I compare this to someone who has overindulged in Mexican food. The first symptom is certainly acidification. But it is the later result of de-gassification, which becomes much more ominous.
We are doomed (as Brute’s chart clearly shows).
Max
TonyB
Interesting post and links.
You ask:
It is not possible with the greenhouse theory itself (using the radiative forcing factors as estimated by IPCC (Myhre et al.).
The greenhouse theory only gets us to a theoretical 2xCO2 warming of around 0.8C (from so-called pre-industrial 280 ppmv CO2).
That’s it folks.
We have (theoretically) seen around 45% (due to logarithmic nature), or 0.3C, leaving a maximum of 0.5C from today until we reach 560ppmv, as estimated for year 2100.
The 6.2C estimate is based on climate model assumptions on positive feedbacks from
-water vapor
-clouds
-surface albedo
-plus apparently a much higher increase of CO2 by year 2100
Let’s look at all of these:
In arriving at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, IPCC assumes:
Water vapor increases with temperature to maintain constant relative humidity (in lock-step with the theoretical amount of water vapor that air can hold according to Clausius-Clapeyron).
Actual physical observations have shown that this is is not the case, and that relative humidity decreases with temperature, so the assumed positive water feedback is exaggerated.
Clouds. All climate models cited by IPCC assume that clouds exert a positive feedback with warming, significant enough to represent 1.3C warming at 2xCO2.
Actual physical observations (published after IPCC 2007 AR4) show that clouds exert a strongly negative feedback of the same order of magnitude.
Surface albedo is a relative small part of the total. At present, it appears that the main contributing factors, i.e. global sea ice extent and northern hemisphere snow cover, are not shrinking, so there is no reason to believe that surface albedo has changed significantly.
2100 CO2 concentration
At the IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, we would have to reach an atmospheric CO2 level of around 1,100 ppmv to have warming of 6.2C.
This is absurd in itself.
Even more ridiculous is:
The 2xCO2 sensitivity is closer to 0.8C, once the above corrections are made.
To arrive at a temperature increase of 6.2C would required the combustion of around 5 times as much fossil fuel as our planet contains, based on the most optimistic estimates of reserves.
It all does not fit in the real world.
Only in the never-never virtual world of GCMs.
Regards,
Max
Max
When I posted some charts I had drawn last year they demonstrated that CET temperature and co2 seemed to be completely unrelated. I drew two conclusions.
Either the past co2 levels are incorrect- hence my interest in Ernst Beck
OR Co2 is a very weak driver of climate.
If we concentrate on the second, it is evident we have been this weay before climatically. (Peter agreed that Dr Mann had overcooked his case) So there have been dramatic climate changes without co2 as a driver in the past, so why is it different this time?
The answer is it isnt. The only way the co2 hypotheses can be proven is by either claiming that co2 was lower in the past than today and causally linking temp rise and co2 rise to some mtyhcal pre industrial point OR
by minimising the past climatic events-such as the MWP and LIA – in order to make out that the earths temperature is relatively constant (Dr Mann)and the minor variations can be explained by natural factors such as minor changes in solar activity. This allows the current ‘unprecedented’ climate to then need a different explanation. So the causual effect of linking co2 increases with rising (highly suspect) global temperatures comes into play
(I still remain baffled as to how 20 stations worldwide in 1850 -ever changing ever since-are sufficient to prove a global temperature change to fractions of a degree but lets not dwell on this.)
Global temperatures should NOT be dropping if co2 is the strong driver claimed. (I make no comment as to whether they will continue to drop).
Brutes chart appears to suggest Co2 is a weak driver and as I linked in my earlier post 6171 both Plimer and Miscolsci are sceptical about the amount of temperature rise that doubling co2 can bring (0.5C).
tonyb
[snip – that little word may have been the reason why the spam filter caught this]
Once more, the Guardian has closed comments on an interesting thread, and I can’t post my latest comment there. So, I put it here instead, mainly for Max, or if guardian fruitcakes are lurking over here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nelthon, Reur 15 May 09, 10:20am
You wrote in part to me of Tamino’s blog:
Them’s great stirring words Nelthon, but did you actually go through the example of Tamino crap that I presented earlier, and follow the links that I repeat below?
ALL: If you would like to see an amusing exchange on the way that Tamino uses half-truths such as cherry picked quotes, putting things out of context, one such starts @
http://www.grist.org/article/Negative-climate-feedback-is-as-real-as-the-Easter-Bunny#c143451
Perhaps the most explicit post towards the end of the series is this:
http://www.grist.org/article/Negative-climate-feedback-is-as-real-as-the-Easter-Bunny#c143469
Please follow it through for at least 20 posts [ from the first link] centred around an attempted assassination of
Roy Spencer.
TonyN,
Did my post of a few minutes ago get gobbled by your spam filter, for reasons mysterious to me?
regards, BobFJ
Tonyb,
Good morning. I don’t know what to say (write).
It reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx quote:
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Former failed politicians as well as currently failing politicians, talking heads, loopy Leftists, “green” product hucksters, writers, “activists” and Tree Hugging Liberals keep telling us over and over that the world is getting warmer; however, the very institutions that keep the records, that these ideologues constantly turn to as sources of “evidence” of global warming show just the opposite……….the more outrageous the lie the more likely it is to be accepted if it is repeated Ad nauseum.
The only question remaining is; Why are these people/institutions continuing to perpetuate this fraud?
If TonyN would permit me to fill up a few megabits of his website I could list them; but suffice it to say there are many, many (nefarious) reasons to continue to promote global warming hysteria and misinformation.
Recently it occurred to me that we are giving people the “benefit of doubt” far too often……that while it appears outwardly overwhelming that they are less than honest (now I’m doing it too) we still concede that “we really don’t know that they are up to no good” or “we really can’t judge/determine their true motivation(s)”.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are…… it’s a duck.
If temperature observations are indicating a decline while CO2 levels are rising, year after year……the “CO2 increase causes rising global temperatures” theory is proven incorrect and somebody, (in this case many people),are lying.
You can come up with the reasons as to why they are lying on your own.
Brute 6181 et all
Ok, here are some hypotheses. Please respond based on the evidence of your lying eyes, your knowledsge of history and science, and your experience of the ways of the world as adults over the age of 18.
Co2 is a very powerful driver
co2 is a weak driver
co2 is no driver at all.
co2 causes cooling
co2 levels naturally fluctuate around 350ppm and past co2 levels are understated
co2 responds to temperature changes and does not cause it.
co2 is a political tool
Tonyb
Hi Guys
A little OT, but i think Monbiot MAY have shot himself in the foot over at the guardian, see what you think.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/15/climate-change-scepticism-arctic-ice?commentpage=1
Brute et al
My 6182
I know the science is settled but you might want to take into account the following when pondering my co2 hypotheses above.
1) The science is by no means settled;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/vacancies/001758.html
Job advert showing considerable uncertainty in the science of ice/sea level models.
2) The models used in the impressive sounding century long “scenarios” are the same used in the daily unreliable weather forecasts.
“The met office use the same computer models to forecast the weather for a day or week ahead as they do for a century ahead
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/
If the Met office can get it wrong for a day ahead it is certain that they will get it even more wrong for a forecast being made 36500 days ahead (a century)
3) Computer models are unreliable and have aquired a status above their capabilties and model intentions.
“Kevin Trenberth, one of the IPCC lead authors wrote,”
“…the startling climate state in several models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.”
Another independent study demonstrates that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale which caused this observation “In essence, the study found that climate models have no predictive value.”
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1
Water vapour and cloud play a crucial part if the climate is to be accurately modelled, but as the IPCC themselves admit numerous times, it can’t be achieved
“…cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty…”
“In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
Sorry to introduce a small level of uncertainty into your ponderings as to your opinion of whether co2 is a catastrophic driver of climate or not
Tonyb
Barleysane.
Good stuff. I havent read Bookers complete article but surely in Monbiots snippet Booker was arguing about Polar ice not just Arctic? If so Booker is completely correct but I have not seen this distinction being made.
If you want to grab the appropriate image and make it please do so as the Guardian makes me come out in a rash and I don’t intend to visit it as a commenter.
tonyb
Brute et al
Just to confuse you all further whilst you are pondering the co2 hypotheses (my 6182 and 6184) is this information that you might like to add into the ‘perhaps the science isn’t quite so settled as they thought’ column, that the Met office report was put under. Its an intetresting snippet about the complete rethink needed on ocean currents.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
You had better reply quick before more evidence comes to light.
Tonyb
Fantastic!
George has printed an update to his article following my comments, that’s going to keep me smiling all night :)
Though hats off to George for acknowledging and correcting the error.
Tonyb,
I would categorize all of the above statements as “true”.
Barelysane,
Looks like you forced a correction to Monibots’ piece. Good for you.
Brute
Thanks. I would be Interested in other peoples comments as well.
Barleysane
Well done! Credit to GM as well.
TonyB
Barelysane: well done re GM & his Guardian piece.
tonyb’s observation at 6185 is correct. Here’s the extract from Booker’s article:
So, yes, the Arctic reference is incidental – he is quite obviously talking about the polar ice caps in the context of Ban Ki-moon’s claim. But (tonyb) I don’t think George has missed this. His article says for example:
If you decide to comment – be careful or it may be you who has done the foot shooting.
Barelysane: re the above, it seems to me that what matters is did Ban Ki-moon get it right. Are the polar ice caps “melting far faster than was expected just two years ago”? What’s the evidence?
TonyB,
You must be confusing me with someone else regarding Dr Mann ‘overcooking his case’. There are lots of hockey stick type graphs. Some have more of a bump in the ‘handle’ corresponding to a warmer MWP. Some,like Michael Mann’s have a very flat handle indicating that the MWP was just localised to the North Atlantic region and was probably the result of a stronger Gulf Stream at that time.
Who will turn out to be right? Well I don’t know.
What the scientific studies do all have in common, and of course is the important result, is that it is warmer now, globally, than it was in the MWP.
.
Brute,
It being too simplistic to suggest that the temperature response of our atmosphere to concentrations of CO2 can be classified as either totally one of cause or totally one of effect.
It can be both.
For instance let us imagine the earth in an ice age. Very large polar ice caps. Over millenia the orbital change of the earth leads to an increase in TSI. Maybe the sun changes too and becomes more active helping the process along.
The earth starts to warm gradually.The sea releases some of its dissolved CO2. The atmosphere then warms a little more because of increased CO2 levels. Its an example of positive feedback.
There are other factors at play too. The extent of vegetation changes as the earth warms and that of course tends to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. But in the end a new equilibrium is reached as both ’cause’ and ‘effect’ become intermeshed with each other making it difficult to know which is which.
Pete,
You’re babbling…………….and guessing.
Something has recently shaken your confidence…………or should I write “faith”. What was it?
Nobody said anything about TSI or orbital changes until the temperatures started dropping and Arctic ice started increasing. Hell, global sea ice is at record levels…
We were told that increasing temperatures were the result of increasing levels of CO2……now you’re “adjusting” the theory to fit the observations and suddenly including the Sun?
If you want to increase taxes based on “economic equity”,”social justice” or cut energy use “just because”, then write that……but the Anthropogenic global Warming theory has fallen apart and is now in the trash bin of failed scientific theories.
Here it is again Pete, global sea ice extent for the past seven years. The data doesn’t lie and CO2 has been rising all along.
Brute,
I think what I’m saying is pretty close to the mainstream scientific position in terms of explaining how the Earth has periodically undergone glaciation cycles. So, no ,I’m not guessing.
If you spent a bit more time reading the genuine scientific websites, and a bit less time the disinformation websites like ICECAP, you wouldn’t make such silly statements as “Nobody said anything about TSI or orbital changes”.
Look up Malenkovich. He’s had plenty to say about orbital changes.
TSI. Total Solar Irradiance. I seem to remember that you posted up a graph which Max disowned on this very subject. It was fine and showed that the TSI has been level since the 50’s apart from the 11-13 year solar cycle. That’s deeper now than it has been since the early 20th century.
We know about that. We know too that ultimately the heat does come from the sun and if the sun gets hotter we get warmer too. That’s not to say, though, that we expect that the temperature inside a greenhouse to be the same as outside.
Scientists are quite smart people. They know that global temperatures are not defined by just one parameter. Yes CO2 levels are important and, unlike solar changes which could go either way, humanity is ultimate responsible for either bringing them under control or losing control.
You’ve still not told me who is behind the “we call it [CO2 emissions] life” TV ads which are running over in the US. Is it that you genuinely don’t know or is it that you genuinely don’t want to tell me?
Brute,
“…..now in the trash bin of failed scientific theories”.
I was just wondering if you really believe that. There isn’t much in the trash bin. But over the years, pretty much every important scientific discovery has been similarly criticed. There have been many ‘trash bin’ predictions along the same lines by many more highly qualified people than you or I. Hardly any, if any at all, have been right.
I’m just wondering what you (and all the others on this website) will feel about your silly prediction in 20 years time?
SCIENTIFIC COMPUTER MODELING METHOD 101
An email from Roy Tucker
I’m a bit dismayed about how computer models have come to be more important than actual observations and so I offer a formal statement of the Scientific Computer Modeling Method.
The Scientific Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.
3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.
4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.
The Scientific Computer Modeling Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.
3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.
4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.
5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.
6. Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.
7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.
Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.