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.
Max
You said:
“The problem I see today is that a majority of the “scientific community” which is involved with “climate science” has bought into the very lucrative AGW postulation, one that suggests that human CO2 is the principal driver of our planet’s climate.
Scientists supporting this postulation are getting the research dollars today; those supporting an alternate view are not.”
I think you have hit several nails on the head. If you aren’t looking you won’t find, and most of those in this industry are either not looking, are looking the wrong way, or are wearing gold plated blinkers.
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
Reur 6422: These two charts essentially tell it all.
Regards,
Max
Hadley record showing multi-decadal warming / cooling cycles
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2614617358_235d418d98_b.jpg
Hadley record and IPCC projections
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3411826039_d291acca96_b.jpg
Hi TonyB
After going through all the references you have cited in your 6422 in detail, I am very discouraged about the blatant corruption of science in order to promote a political agenda.
The frustrated scientist who complained about the pro-AGW bias is only one voice.
The fact is that billions of dollars of research grants go to those who toe the line in order to get support for hundreds of billions of dollars of carbon taxes or cap and trade revenues.
This is “agenda driven science” at its worst.
Hopefully mores scientists will do as the one in your cited reference and speak out against this corruption of science to support a political agenda.
As a scientist, you are doing the same, and I commend you for it.
Regards,
Max
It’s getting hotter again (apparently) although exactly how much isn’t too clear:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/
That rare (unique?) thing, a cartoon combining cricket and AGW, especially for our Aussie friends
Tonyb
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/?cartoon=5391295&cc=5251673
Hey James,
Apparently, the Canadian “climate” doesn’t go to school at MIT…………it must have missed the memo………………
Canada Has a Frigid May after a Cold Winter (Caution: PDF File)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Canada_Has_a_Frigid_May_after_a_Cold_Winter.pdf
Max,
“talking about concentrations measured in a few molecules” So what’sthe limit for all practical purpoese? 10 molecules? 100? How about a million? Or even a billion? A billion molecules is a lot of molecules but a tiny amount of gas.
The simple answer to you question is that “it doesn’t”. But until you can understand the physics of what is going on and try to appreciate the atmospheric processes a little more the answer won’t mean anything to you at all.
Hi Peter,
You continue to evade answering the practical questions regarding the exaggerated anthropogenic greenhouse warming projection of IPCC, but instead came back with:
Let us hypothesize.
Motl and the Yale group have said that the logarithmic relation holds pretty well except at “very low concentrations” of CO2, with Motl giving the example at just a few molecules of CO2.
1 part per trillion (volume) sounds like a “very low CO2 concentration” to me.
At this VLC there would be around 10^32 CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, which sounds like a “very high number” of molecules (greatly exceeding your “billion molecules”).
Would you think that 1 pptv would be the level at which the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and greenhouse warming begins to asymptotically approach a linear one?
If not, at what concentration would you believe that the relationship begins this change?
What do you think, Peter: is it higher or lower than 1 pptv?
Do you have another opinion than Motl or the Yale group on the asymptotic transition from logarithmic to linear?
Please elaborate.
And then please state specifically how this has any impact on the questions I asked you, which you are avoiding so far.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
More “thought games” for you.
We are struggling with the question: is a “part per trillion” a “very low concentration”?
It is certainly 1,000 times as concentrated as a “part per quadrillion”.
But let’s look at a practical example from real life.
U.S. President Obama has proposed a budget (including various stimulus and bailout plans) of $3.6 trillion.
Let’s convert this total budget to one-dollar bills.
A one-dollar bill has a thickness of 0.0043 inches or 0.11 mm.
A stack of 3.6 trillion dollar bills would be 396,000 km high.
The average distance to the moon is 384,000 km, so Obama’s stack would more than reach to the moon.
One “part per trillion” would be a bit less than the thickness of four one-dollar bills on the way to the moon.
Just to put a “part per trillion” into practical perspective for you, Peter.
Regards,
Max
How this is interesting
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/929/Et-Tu-Francois-Skeptical-Scientist-Who-Mocked-Gores-Nobel-Prize-as-Political-Gimmick-May-Be-Appointed-to-French-SuperMinistry-Post
Sigh, meant “Now” not “How”
Brute Reur 6431, you wrote in part:
“…Canada Has a Frigid May after a Cold Winter.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Canada_Has_a_Frigid_May_after_a_Cold_Winter.pdf…”
Just out of curiosity, I did a Google on ‘Canadian spring wheat sowing‘, and found this:
Spring wheat (durum and non-durum) is planted throughout Canada from May to June, and harvested from August to October. All durum wheat in Canada is spring wheat.
However, after a somewhat chilly winter, I imagine that it will probably take a while for the soil to warm enough for good seed propagation.
I’m sure that the alarmists will be absolutely delighted by this POTENTIAL delay in a good harvest that is caused obviously, by AGW!
Hi all
It would now appear that the climate models are being used to generate historical data that then gets pumped back into the model to provide “better” projections, god help us
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6100#comments
Barelysane
Many thanks for the link about Dr Allegre. If he gets the post, that may mark the turning point in all this – it will be fun to see the BBC (and Guardian) trying not to give it some coverage!
I only hope that Christopher Monckton gets a post in the UK’s next administration…
TonyN (if you’re around): I’ve just had a post swallowed up by your spam filter.
Hi Peter,
Back from virtual “thought games” to the real world.
Just to visualize the problem with the IPCC projections for greenhouse warming from CO2 as compared to the real world out there, I have plotted the greenhouse relationship according to Kondratjev and Moskalenko.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/3573226712_13ef11638d_b.jpg
K+M estimated a higher 2xCO2 sensitivity than Lindzen (0.87°C versus 0.65°C), and a “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming of 7.1°C (compared to Lindzen’s estimate of 5.2°C and your range of 3°C to 8°C).
The actual total linear warming from 1850 through 2008 was 0.65°C according to the Hadley record.
A portion of this warming is attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity in the 20th century.
I showed you several studies that put this at around 50% of the total warming. But let’s say that it was between 30% and 50% of the total, and let’s assume that all the rest was due to anthropogenic CO2. This would then be somewhere between 0.3°C and 0.5°C.
Using the 2xCO2 sensitivity estimate of K+M, we arrive at 0.4°C, giving a fair check between actual physical observation on temperature and CO2 and the theoretical 2xCO2 sensitivity of 0.87°C as estimated by K+M.
Using the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C as assumed by the IPCC climate models, we would arrive at a warming from 1850 to today of 1.45°C, a figure that is greatly exaggerated.
In other words, a reality check on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, as assumed by the IPCC climate models, shows that it does not check with the actual physical facts as experienced.
IPCC is in effect telling us that the projected future warming from CO2 will be at a much higher rate than the warming experienced to date from CO2, both from the “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming to 280 ppmv and from the “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming from 280 to 385 ppmv, and this does not make sense.
This is the dilemma I have asked you to explain.
Regards,
Max
Hey Brute,
What do you think of Barelysane’s #6435?
French President Sarkozy, appoints Claude Allegre, a “disastrous AGW skeptic” to a top scientific post, while U.S. President Obama appointed John Holdren, an “AGW alarmist” as his top scientific advisor.
And the “mainstream consensus scientific community” (whoever that is supposed to be) is in an uproar.
Hand it to the French to rock the boat!
I love it.
Regards,
Max
James P
You talk about the “next UK administration” as if it is something that is going to happen pretty soon.
Is this correct?
From what I understand, Gordon Brown is extremely unpopular today. Is there a chance that he will be replaced?
Max
Hi Max
Hope James doesn’t mind me jumping in.
Gordon Brown is currently about as popular as a pubic louse atm, i’ve lost count of the number of MPs from various parties that have had to say they won’t stand for re-election following the expenses scandal here. It’s fairly likely that if things go badly for labour in the upcoming local council and european elections (very likely) that he’ll be forced to stand down.
We live in interesting times in the UK.
Personally i wouldn’t expect much change until post a general election and even then it’ll be a long time coming if at all.
Max – I have to admit that it was TIC, but only a bit. As Barelysane says, GB is not exactly flavour of the month at the moment, but then nor are most of his colleagues, on all sides, following recent exposure of their detailed expense (sorry, allowance) claims!
An early election is on the cards, but one is due next year anyway, by June 3rd at the latest. My suggestion of CM as a minister was a lot more in hope than expectation, although I suppose if the wheels come off the AGW bandwagon fast enough, it’s a possibility. The French decision will be interesting.
I tried and failed twice to post something on the Allègre story. So here’s another comment on it. “A second Enlightenment and a new age of reason“? Now that would be progress. And I liked the conclusion:
Sorry – here’s the link.
Essentially my failed posts (re Allègre) said – don’t get too excited, it hasn’t happened yet.
it hasn’t happened yet
That’s what I thought. Still, I’m sure the French will give him serious consideration if they think it will annoy the US! :-)
Max, Peter et al – Have you seen this? http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.112 Regards Jonathan