Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Max,

    You shouldn’t knock thought experiments. Did you read the wiki link I’d given you?

    Physics isn’t so much as applying formulae and equations. You just need a cheap PC to be able to that. Its about understanding what lies behind them. Knowing what their limitations are. When they apply and when they don’t. You’ve obviously got no idea!

    I must say you seem quite clueless as to how you might go about explaining why the logarithmic formula gives the completely wrong answer at low concentrations.

    You criticise computer models as GIGO but you are quite prepared to accept the “garbage out ” answer that you get from your equation even when what goes in is a very sensible question.

    Of course it is obvious to everyone that any equation which predicts that going from 10 molecules to 20 molecules of any GHG is going to give you the same effect as a doubling from 500ppmv to 1000 ppmv is just nonsense. Its obvious that there must be both a linear and a logarithmic region to GHG response. The question is which region are the current levels of GHG? From the results of the IPCC and their climatic models it would seem that we are in an intermediate region where the law of diminishing effects is apparent but the response isn’t totally logarithmic either.

    If you can’t see that, or even say anything intelligent on the subject, you should really think about going back to your day job of doing whatever it is you do with diesel engines.

  2. “What advice would you give the evil Mr. Blofeld, Peter?”

    How about that those who are repeating the actions of those who did everything in their power to discredit the science on the health effects of cigarette smoking but this time on the dangers of allowing GHGs to get out of control should be fed to his sharks?

  3. Brute,

    I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of what is in the youtube clip. I’m just wondering if you’ve done your homework on Patrick Moore who appears as a sort of ‘expert witness’ in this film.

    His views have changed quite a lot over the years, but he isn’t really one of you. At least he wasn’t in 2006 writing that “More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209_pf.html

    Or maybe you have done your homework and you are now in agreement with this line of argument?

  4. Robin, Reur 6370, quoting in part Booker’s response to the Mighty Moonbat.

    I would like to add that those 514 comments took place in a mere 7 days, before, for no apparent reason, the thread was closed. Also, Booker did not mention another big whoopsie by The Moonbat, that he had confused global ice with that of the Arctic alone, for which there was no apology from him!

    Thankyou for your kind thoughts for us: Barelysane, Bob_FJ, Max and tonyB – and any other contributors from this thread. (that posted to The Moonbat thread)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I also feel a bit guilty about deriding your use of the expression IMHO instead of my preferred IMO.
    Back in the 50’s, I and another hooligan stole a large wrought iron object from “The Prospect of Whitby”, (a THEN lovely famous London pub), an item described as an antique firedog, but were detected in the nearby car-park by officers of the law. We were slammered for the night and charged before a magistrate the following morning. This had serious consequences for our assumed careers, particularly WRT to essential work in the USA, so our company hired an expensive silk to remove the sentence. I don’t recall the use of the expression IMHO, but my word, there where an awful lot of humble “M’lords” spoken, to those adorned on high altitude benches above us….. Astonishing!
    I imagine since I recall that you have a legal background, that IMHO, is considered proper in your field, so please forgive me.

    Oh, BTW, enough money was paid to get us an absolute discharge!

  5. Max, Reur 6372, thankyou for your kind comments towards me, but I think you proclaiming me as a philosopher may be touch too effusive.
    Searcher for the truth, DEFINITELY yes….. I have no problem with that.

    Although I do have some philosophies on the rights of disadvantaged humans and animals, and such things as forcing bears to “dance”, and beating live dogs allegedly to make them more tender to eat, just horrify me!

  6. Bob, 6380

    I’m glad someone else has happy memories of that great hostellery years ago!

  7. Hey Peter,

    Rather than answer my fairly direct question, you come back (6376) with a “thought game” and a wiki reference.

    To your “thought game”, let us start with zero.

    Can I accept the greenhouse theory as postulated and quantified by Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann, IPCC (Myhre et al.), which states that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs outgoing reflected IR, thereby contributing to the warming of our atmosphere and our planet?

    Yes.

    Can you accept this?

    If so, we have a basic starting point.

    If not, there is not much to talk about.

    While the relation between CO2 concentration and greenhouse warming is stipulated by this theory to be logarithmic, I can fully accept that a doubling of CO2 from 5 to 10 molecules in our atmosphere will not have the same greenhouse impact as doubling from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv.

    In other words, the logarithmic relation does not hold at the extremely low end of the equation. In my mind this would be analogous to the “half life” equation for a decaying element. When it has decayed down to one atom the half life relationship can no longer hold.

    But as we are not operating at the extremely low end of the equation in the case of current levels of atmospheric CO2, I can easily accept that the logarithmic greenhouse relation as postulated is valid within the range within which we find ourselves.

    I can also accept the estimates of various physicists that the “natural” CO2 greenhouse impact is between 3 and 8C, as you have stated. Lindzen says 5.2C. The report by Kondratyev and Moskalenko, cited by John Houghton in his 1985 summary, The Global Climate, estimates this to be 7.2C.

    If we accept the logarithmic relation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature as stipulated, we see that the estimate by Lindzen correlates with a 2xCO2 greenhouse impact of around 0.65C, while that of K+M correlates with a 2xCO2 impact of around 0.87C.

    As I indicated earlier, IPCC, who accepts the logarithmic greenhouse relation in the range within which we find ourselves, has estimated radiative forcing factors for CO2 (Myhre et al.), which correlate with a 2xCO2 impact of somewhere above 0.8C, or very close to that estimated by K+M and cited in the Houghton book.

    So let us say that the K+M estimate (cited by Houghton and essentially used by IPCC) is the most representative.

    But this 2xCO2 impact is exaggerated by a factor of between 3 and 4 by programming in assumed positive feedbacks for clouds (since refuted by observed data) and water vapor (shown to be significantly exaggerated based on observed data), and then believing the validity of the climate model outputs, rather than the physically observed data.

    We are trying to “force fit” a grossly exaggerated 2xCO2 greenhouse impact into an estimated “natural” greenhouse effect and a logarithmic relation into which it does not fit, at the same time ignoring physical observations that refute this exaggerated impact, simply in order to keep alive the notion that anthropogenic greenhouse warming will be a serious threat.

    The logic here gets to be a bit too “Biblical” for me, Peter.

    Let’s stick with the basic greenhouse theory and the IPCC radiative forcing factor for CO2 rather than conjuring up a whole new relation or “thought games” to try to make it fit our notion that AGW is a serious threat. OK?

    So explain to me WHY “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming should occur at a much more accelerated rate than “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming? (I’ll give you a clue in my next post).

    Regards,

    Max

  8. Hey Peter,

    Here is a “thought game” for you.

    Let us assume:

    (a) that CO2 is the “daddy” of all GHGs
    (b) that water vapor is only a “feedback”, rather than a GHG in its own right.
    (c) “natural” CO2 level is 280 ppmv
    (d) “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming was 7.2C (K+M estimate)

    Working backward, we see that the logarithmic function would calculate to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.87C.

    The actual total “natural” greenhouse warming is estimated to be 33.3C, with 2C attributed to other GHGs.

    In other words, water vapor caused 33.3 – 2.0 – 7.2 = 24.1C “natural” greenhouse warming.

    But wait!

    IPCC has told us that the greenhouse effect from water vapor is not that of an independent greenhouse forcing, but rather that of a feedback to the greenhouse forcing from CO2.

    So the 24.1C warming from water vapor was REALLY a feedback to the 7.2C warming from CO2.

    And the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is REALLY = 0.87 * 24.1 / 7.2 = 2.9C (once the water vapor feedback has been cranked in).

    Makes sense, doesn’t it?

    All it takes, Peter, is FAITH that AGW is a serious threat, and (with enough rationalization and manipulation) you can make the numbers say anything in support of this FAITH.

    Amen, brother! The end is near!

    But you are not off the hook yet, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max

  9. Hey Peter,

    Had a bit of a hard time making the connection in your rather convoluted 6377.

    Seems to me you are equating being rationally skeptical of all the computer-supported and IPCC-generated hype on AGW out there with rejecting the conclusion of thousands of actual clinical studies, which showed beyond a doubt that first-hand, direct smoking results in a higher risk of contracting respiratory diseases, including emphysema, lung cancer, etc.

    I am sure you were not seriously trying to make such a ludicrous comparison, were you?

    It would be as absurd as if I equated the supporters of the premise that AGW is a serious threat (and we must, therefore, stop our energy-driven industrial development in oder to save the planet from this threat) to the Luddite supporters who believed that industrial weaving machines are a threat (and should, therefore, all be destroyed in order to save manual weaving jobs from this threat).

    You shoot yourself in the foot with such silly comparisons, Peter.

    There is no valid comparison between AGW and lung disease (nor between AGW-supporters and the Luddites).

    Regards,

    Max

  10. TonyN Reur: 6382, you wrote to me concerning “The Prospect of Whitby” pub:

    “I’m glad someone else has happy memories of that great hostellery years ago!”

    I have not actually found time to visit there often since my prank in the 50’s, but maybe around 1966-8, and although I’ve passed through London (and there-abouts) some 20 or 30 times since going to OZ in 1969, my most favourite destination has been Dorset.
    However, last October I was in London, and suggested to locals/friends that I would like to do “The Prospect of Whitby”, and they frowned, and suggested that there were a zillion other things that might be more rewarding.
    So why did “they” ruin that magnificent pub?

  11. I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of what is in the youtube clip.

    Pete,

    Meaning that you think banning water would be beneficial to humankind as your fellow global warming parishioners were so willing to do? Wow, speaking of doing your homework!

    Face it Pete…….these people are sheep……….mindless drones chanting the mantra that they’ve been spoon fed by politicians that want them to do their bidding…..their dirty work………I believe Stalin referred to them as “useful idiots”.

  12. Addendum to #6387

    Hey Pete,

    I especially enjoyed the footage of the global warming freaks performing the ancient ornithology fertility dance.

    Was this part of Hansen’s scientific method?

    Their parents must be so proud.

  13. In an interesting article that appeared recently in the American Thinker entitled, It’s the Climate Warming Models, Stupid!, Dr. Gregory Young, physicist at the University of Oxford, points out how faulty outputs from oversimplified climate models have led to exaggerated conclusions on the dangers of AGW.

    In his final paragraph, which I have copied below, he points out that on the purely scientific front the support for alarming climate change is diminishing as the models are being scrutinized more closely and errors are exposed.

    Dr. Young warns that on the political front, however, it will be more difficult for the truth on climate change to win out because of the vested political interests and large sums of money involved.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/its_the_climate_warming_models.html

    The Tide is Turning:

    But there is a silver lining in the clouds of despair sown by the warming alarmists. Elsewhere, in a painstaking review of the literature accessing the scientific consensus about climate change involving 539 papers published between 2004 and 2007, Schulte and Klaus-Martin in the journal Energy and Environment, published in March 2008, found no actual evidence in any of these papers regarding specific “catastrophic” climate change due to man. Nada. None. Zero.

    Additionally, from this most recent study we learn that less than 50% of the papers endorsed any notion of AGW, and only 7% did so explicitly. This means that over half of these studies did not endorse AGW. This is in contrast to just a few years ago when 75% of reviewed published papers between 1995-2003 suggested that the warming of the 50 years previous was likely to have been anthropogenic, or man-made. This reversal is big news.

    This study indicates that the tide is changing and the dissent from AGW markedly growing. As AGW climate models are being continually scrutinized and vetted, there appears to be diminishing evidence witnessed en masse in the learned journals to justify the current climate-change alarm.

    Though we shall fight on, now the trick is to begin the even harder task of changing the politicians’ minds … politicians who are already salivating for, and grown used to the idea of, a lucrative carbon-tax, and the additional power they will likely inherit with it. Science alone will not likely defeat the rapaciousness of Washington. Any suggestions?

    Max

  14. Max

    Thought you would be interested in this report by another IPCC reviewer who has jumped ship. In particlar read his scathing comments about the alleged rapid rise in sea levels which, according to my information posted here frequently, is at best static and in all likelihood is actually falling.

    Perhaps the guy does dowsing so can automatically be disqualified like Peter did with Prof Morner.

    He also talks about Co2 and other subjects so its worth a look.

    http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

    Tonyb

  15. Hey Guys,

    You will all be pleased to note that after some unusually cold and snowy WEATHER a few weeks ago, we now have record high (35°C) CLIMATE here in Switzerland (just in time for the Copenhagen caper).

    It is really all about timing!

    Hansen (bless his confused soul) tried to organize a “global warming civil disobedience” rally in the middle of a blizzard in Washington, DC. Did it fail miserably? Of course. Who in his right mind is going to stand outside in the freezing cold with a “STOP GLOBAL WARMING” sign? Only a total idiot.

    This time, though, Al Gore can pontificate to sweating beer-guzzling Scandinavians about the dangers of long-term anthropogenic global warming (oops! I mean “anthropogenic climate change”).

    As the French say, c’est le timing”.

    Love it,

    Max

  16. “we now have record high (35°C) CLIMATE here in Switzerland”

    ………..caused by global warming (or George Bush no doubt)……..

    Heavy thunderstorms here this Memorial Day afternoon………also caused by global warming….(or the cold front that moved through the Ohio Valley yesterday).

    If only Al Gore and Peter Martin would take control of the weather………..ummm “climate”, we could avoid these types of picnic ruining temperature inversions.

    Maybe the climate gods didn’t see my Ornithology mating ritual dance yesterday (as demonstrated by the “Green” hippies in my video post yesterday) beseeching them to stop the rain…..

    I knew I should’ve bought a Prius, then I wouldn’t have ruined Mrs. Brute’s potato salad/hamburger/sweet corn picnic today…………I feel so guilty……………it’s all my fault……

    If I send Al Gore some carbon credit money to make amends, will I be forgiven for my transgression?

  17. Max,

    “….the logarithmic function.. “

    You don’t really understand why the relationship between CO2 and delta T is a purely logarithmic function, do you? So it’s maybe a little unfair of me to ask you to explain in your own words why you think it should be.

    But let’s be unfair anyway! You set yourself up as a scientific know-all so you probably deserve to be put on the spot.

    Part of the reason that you don’t understand why it should be, is because it isn’t! It can’t be as the concentrations of CO2 tend towards zero. The answer that you get is plainly wrong. And how many times have you guys made the argument that the concentration of CO2 is just so tiny that it can’t be a problem?

  18. Hi TonyB

    The article by Dr. Willem DeLange was interesting: i.e. another climate scientist that is jumping ship from the highly financed paradigm of potentially alarming AGW.

    Guess you can’t buy everybody with money, after all.

    Regards,

    Max

  19. I don’t want to intrude on a good argument, but although I accept that CO2 has a minor greenhouse effect, this would appear to be outweighed by other factors that render its contribution irrelevant.

    Otherwise, how can it be that global temperatures have been much higher* with no corresponding change in CO2, and that CO2 levels have been much higher with no apparent effect on temperature?

    *And lower, during ice ages!

    Thanks to Hansen/Mann/Gore and their hockey sticks, we seem to be stuck with this correlation that has become causation, despite the fact that even that falls apart as you plot back in time. The price of fish has gone up recently, too – is this another effect of CO2?

  20. Hey Peter,

    We are going around in circles. Rather than explaining to me why the “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming impact should be 4 times less important than the predicted “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse climate impact, you again say:

    You don’t really understand why the relationship between CO2 and delta T is a purely logarithmic function, do you? So it’s maybe a little unfair of me to ask you to explain in your own words why you think it should be.

    I have no problem whatsoever understanding the logarithmic relation of the greenhouse theory as laid out by the original proponents of this theory (Arhennius, etc.) and as accepted by IPCC.

    It appears that you do have a problem understanding this.

    I can fully accept that this is the way that greenhouse warming reacts to increased CO2 concentrations in the range of concentrations within which we find ourselves.

    It appears that you have a problem with this concept, but are unable to explain exactly what your problem is, only that you somehow think current “anthropogenic” warming should be given a much higher greenhouse warming factor than past “natural” greenhouse warming.

    I, personally, believe that a given percentage concentration increase of “natural” CO2 will have exactly the same greenhouse warming impact as the same percentage concentration increase of “anthropogenic” CO2, in the range of CO2 values within which we find ourselves.

    You apparently do not believe this.

    Yet you are unable or unwilling to articulate exactly what you do believe and why.

    Let’s put it this way: we have a theory, which has been well described, which has been accepted by IPCC, which I am also prepared to accept, but which you challenge (because it does not give you the alarming anthropogenic warming you want to believe will occur from the projected future anthropogenic increase of CO2).

    So you challenge me to defend the logarithmic relation of the greenhouse theory, without even proposing an alternate, which you would find acceptable.

    So let me put my understanding down on paper as you have requested.

    1. I accept that the logarithmic relation of the greenhouse theory as postulated by Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann, Myhre et al. and IPCC is valid in the CO2 concentration limits within which we have been for the past several thousand years and will find ourselves for the next several hundred years, i.e. from 280 ppmv to 1120 ppmv.

    2. I can imagine that this logarithmic relationship may not have been valid at very low theoretical atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which have never existed in actual fact in the entire history of our planet, as far as I am aware, and are therefore irrelevant to the practical discussion of additional greenhouse warming from additional atmospheric CO2.

    Now give me YOUR take on the greenhouse theory, Peter. I am very curious.

    Please try to be specific (although I know that this is not your strength).

    Regards,

    Max

  21. James P

    You bring up very pertinent points, which challenge the practical validity of the greenhouse theory itself.

    Why did past temperature not change in goose-step with past atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

    Why did CO2 concentrations lag temperature increases by several hundred years?

    Why did increased CO2 concentrations not cause temperature to increase further, leading to “irreversible tipping points” as are now being projected?

    Why did temperatures begin to fall, just when atmospheric CO2 concentrations had reached their highest levels, in total defiance of the greenhouse theory?

    I haven’t even gotten that far with Peter as yet.

    He is still grappling with the greenhouse theory itself and with the stipulated logarithmic relation between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in greenhouse warming.

    He cannot grasp that the actual “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming and the projected “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming must follow the same logarithmic relation between CO2 and temperature.

    For this reason, I believe that it is premature to confuse him even further with the fact that the theory itself has not worked in practice in the past.

    I want him to tell me in his own words why projected “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming should occur at a rate that is several times the rate that has been estimated for past “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming.

    So far he has waffled and sidestepped with theoretical discussions outside the practical CO2 concentration range in which we find ourselves today or have in the historic past or are likely to see in the next several hundred years, but has not yet answered the basic question above.

    Based on Peter’s past track record, I honestly have little hope that he will answer the question directly, because to do so would expose the fact that AGW is not a serious threat, as he so fervently wants to believe with all his heart.

    But let’s see what he does. The ball is in his court.

    Regards,

    Max

  22. Thank you, Max. I was wondering if I had missed something obvious!

    The depth and detail of many of the arguments around AGW seem to mask (perhaps intentionally) the falsity of the basic premise that CO2 is not the primary driver of our climate. The thought that the Sun, our local source of all useful energy, might have something to do with it (durr!) seems to have escaped the warmists…

  23. Some more questions for comment lifted from the previous link that Max cited…………Peter?

    Maybe some of these questions should be pondered before we plunge headlong into “climate engineering”…………

    How cool do we want the world to be?

    What is the ideal temperature for the earth?

    Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad?

    Are there any potential benefits?

    How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth’s temperature don’t backfire, resulting in a larger than intended drop in the earth’s average temperature?

    At what temperature would the earth be too cold?

    Can we be sure that reductions in CO2 emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?

    What if industrial and automotive CO2 emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm…what do we do then?

    How long should humans try to control the world’s average temperature?
    A. For the next hundred years?
    B. For the next thousand years?
    C. Forever?

  24. Max,

    “4 times less important?” I wouldn’t expect you to disagree with Lindzen’s figure of 5.2 degC warming for the first 280ppmv. However you are saying that the next 280 ppmv will only add 0.8 degC. The IPCC are saying 3 degs C. That’s not 4 times less important. Although you could argue that it is somewhat less important.

    Its one thing to understand what a logarithm is. Its another to understand why the temperature increase due to increased CO2 should be entirely logarithmic. And you clearly don’t. Or if you do you are totally incapable of explaining just why that should be.

    I’m looking into just what the relationship might be. But its not easy. For instance CO2 at sea level is well mixed in with water vapour. If the abosrbtion bands, which spread wider with increased pressure, and are therefore likley to overlap extra CO2 will make little difference. In this region your logarithmic function will apply pretyy closely. For high altitude CO2 where there is little water vapour and the bands are narrow, CO2 will have more of an effect. The response will be also be less logarithmic.

    Of course to make a decent job of this calculation requires a computer model. That’s why serious climate scientists use them. They aren’t slavish to the logarithmic function which would allow the to get an answer , the wrong answer, with just a few taps on a $10 calculator.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha