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.
Robin and Max
In my 6487 and 6488 I gave the 1984 Hansen calculations which were never validated in the peer reviewed manner you would expect,and which he complemented with two aditional papers of his (also cited)
As it was the early days of climate science and he had dazzled everyone with his papers the IPCC ‘assumed’ he must be right and started to use them.
They can not be validated without factoring in a 300% water vapour amplification and then a variety of other feedbacks to get to the total that Peter and the IPCC frequently cite.
These feedbacks can only be found by using computer models as they do not exist as actual observations.
Without all these hypothetical feedbacks the calculated amount from doubling is a fraction of a degree-around what miskolczi calculated who believes that there is a fall in water vapour as a result of increased carbon dioxide
Adding more co2 has very little effect as each additional unit of co2 will have one tenth of the power of the previous addition due to the logarithmic nature of the increase.
I havent seen any better calculations and at least they resemble real life rather than virtual reality
Tonyb
Robin and TonyB
I am not addressing this to Peter, since I have already scolded him for taking someone else’s formula (in this case Motl’s), and distorting it beyond all belief to make it seem to confirm his own personal belief.
Motl presented two formulas for the CO2 / temperature relationship, both of which are very close to the generally accepted logarithmic relationship (IPCC: Myhre et al.). Two others were cited by IPCC TAR: one by Shi and one by Hansen. Both are more complicated slight variations of the straight logarithmic equation of Myhre et al. All yield about the same CO2 / temperature relationship.
Peter has his own, very personal, idea of how CO2 and temperature correlate, which is radically different from any of the relations mentioned above.
So, to prove that he is right (and the others here are all wrong) he takes a formula proposed by Motl and changes the constants radically, in order to make the answer “force fit” his personal idea of what it should be.
This is cheating, of course, as I have told him.
But just to show how this kind of cheating can skew the numbers, I have taken Peter’s graph with the “modified” Motl formula and plotted the real Motl formula and data on it for comparison.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3581291297_3c32c777e5_b.jpg
It is clear that the REAL Motl formula DOES NOT show a temperature increase from 280 ppmv CO2 (IPCC “assumed pre-industrial” level in year 1750) to 560 ppmv (projected level in year 2100) of 3.2°C (as Peter shows with his “adjusted” Motl formula), but closer to 1°C (as do ALL the other formulas)..
Peter does not like this number, even though it has been confirmed by actual physical observations (the nemesis of climate modelers and disastrous AGW believers).
He prefers to remain in his “never-never” virtual reality dream world.
Robin, this is also why he is refusing to answer your or my specific questions, for to do so would force him to enter the real world, and, thereby, shatter his firm AGW doomsday belief.
Regards,
Max
Max,
The Motl equation is just the same one that I suggested in #6416 but with the origin shifted. I’d never come across it before but both equations address the same point.
The modification that you made to my plot isn’t right. This is what it should be, using the constants that Motl himself used.
The intersection on the left hand axis represents the amount of the natural GHE ( 33 degC ) that can be attributed to naturally occurring carbon dioxide .
This is a question that many scientists do seem to be reluctant to answer. But it is crucial. If Motl is right, if it is about 4.5 deg C, then I would agree that there is not too much to worry about. However, if it is 7 degrees then this pretty much confirms mainstream scientific predictions.
I previously put the range at 3-8 degrees. I’d forgotten to re-normalise the percentages to make them all add up to 100 when I did that and I’d now say it was between 4.5 degC and 9 degC.
What you really mean about the kettle analogy is that you’d closed your mind to it several months ago! I agree that there is nothing magic about 350 ppmv of CO2 its just a mark on the thermostat.
OK Forget the kettle analogy. The situation corresponds to us turning up climatic forcing in very small incremental steps yearly. Very slowly, by our experience of time scales, it gets warmer. And, just like any intelligent 5 year old may expect there is a time lag between cause and the complete effect.
Max,
Are you able to translate? (The German not the Japanese)……………maybe at least the gist of the article?
GERMANY QUIETLY KILLS EU EMISSIONS TRADING PLANS FOR AIRLINES
According to Germany’s Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee (SPD), there is no chance of the emissions trading scheme being introduced for the EU airlines industry anytime soon. He said: “The Federal Government supports in principle the plans of the EU Commission, but the emissions trading scheme should not be a competitive disadvantage for Europe’s leading airlines.”
Given current circumstances, this could not be guaranteed as the U.S. and other non-European countries continue to reject the EU emissions trading process for all incoming and outgoing flights.
http://www.airline-bewertungen.eu/airlinenews/airlinenews-1707.html
Japan considering an INCREASE in CO2 emissions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8531793
..any intelligent 5 year old may expect there is a time lag between cause and the complete effect
He might also wonder how you increase an effect when you haven’t properly identified the cause.
JamesP, ( and/or anyone else who might have something intelligent to contribute on this topic? )
Are you denying that there is a natural GHE? Of 33 degC? If not, what would you say is the relative importance of CO2 to this?
Hi Peter,
Thanks for correcting your curve.
You will see that your corrected curve is now identical to my earlier correction to your curve, except at the very low CO2 concentration (below 35 ppmv), where I took liberty with Motl’s formula as CO2 approaches 0 ppmv (where all formulas fall apart).
At the pertinent “anthropogenic” portion of the curve (above the natural 280 ppmv), you will see that the correct Motl formula gives a 2xCO2 warming (to 560 ppmv) of around 1 degC, whereas your incorrectly modified Motl formula gave 3.2 degC.
Whether you use Motl or Myhre or anyone else’s formula, you arrive at a 2xCO2 increase (from 280 to 560 ppmv) of around 0.8 to 1.0 degC, not 3.2 degC.
And Peter, that is what our whole discussion here is all about.
All the rest is hypothetical “thought games”.
Now I invite you to answer my previously posted three specific questions in this connection.
Regards,
Max
PS To your “5-year old” and the “time delay”, I would agree that it is important to look at long term records (like the entire 150 year record or the 100-year 20th century record), rather than just at short-term “blips” (like the last 25 years of the 20th century, as used by IPCC to demonstrate AGW). But that is all another discussion.
Hi Brute,
The translation into English, which you quote, is accurate.
Looks like Tiefensee is saying “NEIN” to cap and trade for European airlines, while still toeing the PC line of saying he supports the EU Commission decision, but can’t allow it to make European airlines non-competitive vis-a-vis other airlines, which have not imposed this.
A classical case of political double-talk.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
You try to revive a “dead duck” by writing:
No, Peter, that is NOT what I mean.
I showed you (as did Brute with your swimming pool analogy earlier) that the scientific basis for the “pipeline” theory is based on circular logic.
There is no “pipeline” where heat can hide undetected until it miraculously “pops out” some day.
This is voodoo.
We laid it to rest many months ago. RIP.
Regards,
Max
Max,
“where I took liberty with Motl’s formula as CO2 approaches 0 ppmv (where all formulas fall apart)”
Why should they? In fact they shouldn’t and if any particular equation or formula gives an obviously incorrect result at a particular value then it is worth being a little bit sceptical.
It’s like I said to Robin, it’s not that I’m avoiding your questions, but more that you are avoiding my answers.
If you genuinely want answers to questions that we would all like to see answered ( well wouldn’t we?) you at least need to try to understand, instead of closing your mind repeatedly.
I find it hard to understand that you can’t really understand the concept of time delays. Imagine you walked into a stone built Alpine cottage in the middle of winter. You switched on the heating. Wouldn’t you expect that you’d have to wait for a half hour or so while the internal walls soaked up most of the heat produced? Would you start complaining about Voodoo if you still had to keep your coat on after 10 minutes? On a geological timescale 50 years is nothing and can easily be compared with the half hour or so it might need to warm up a cottage.
The oceans are very much like those internal stone walls. I find it hard to believe that you haven’t got the ability the comprehend that. Mind you, my wife used to tell me stories, when she was teaching difficult children, of how they couldn’t understand what seemed to be the most trivial of problems. I just couldn’t see how they couldn’t possibly not understand. Also, I do play a bit of bridge. I’m no expert but sometimes I do wonder at what goes on in some people’s heads. Isn’t it just so obvious that there isn’t a hope that such and such a play is going to work? Often, I might think it is, but I just have to shrug my shoulders and say nothing.
Peter – As I understand it, CO2 has a minor warming effect* that is dwarfed by the effects of water vapour (+ve) and cloud cover (-ve), neither of which are controllable or predictable by us, but which happily seem to find their own equilibrium and have done for millenia. Cyclical changes over long, medium and short terms are responsible for changes in the climate, which we also have no control over.
The main repository of CO2 (and surface heat) is the ocean, which covers 2/3 of the planet. A warming sea releases more CO2 (making it an effect, not a cause) but more CO2 encourages photosynthesis, mostly taking place in phytoplankton, which also inhabit the sea, providing another balance as long as we don’t poison them all!
*Although Neils Bohr claimed that it didn’t, so some research may be needed there, too.
If I worry about anything, it’s the health of little creatures like plankton and bees, where our activities might well be implicated. Research money seems to be available, but for all the wrong things…
ALL: Peter Fartin, wrote in his 6506:
As a professional engineer, I can confidently state from my logical consideration of the physics, and matters of mathematical integration, albedo considerations, and whatnot, that the way that 33C has been derived is astonishingly simplistic, and it would take me a lot of space here to explain fully why that is so.
Meanwhile, does anyone believe that the greenhouse effect is 33C at the poles, AND 33C at 45 latitudes AND 33C at the equator?
Hi Peter,
You are waffling again (6510).
It is not very important, Peter, whether we are using a formula that covers every possible level of CO2 concentration, down to extremely low concentrations, which have never existed and will never exist on our planet.
What is important is that we use a realistic equation for calculating what we think will theoretically happen from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the assumed “pre-industrial” level of 280 ppmv to a projected future value of 560 ppmv, which may be reached by year 2100.
You say we should be skeptical of a formula that does not give correct answers at very low theoretical concentrations; I say we should be skeptical of a formula that does not give correct answers at practical concentrations we have already experienced or are likely to experience sometime in the future.
And of the six equations that we have examined (Myhre, Shi, Hansen, Lindzen, Kondradyev and two by Motl), we have an average theoretical 2xCO2 greenhouse warming impact (280 to 560 ppmv CO2) of around 0.9°C.
The physically observed long-term record confirms this 2xCO2 impact, when adjusted for the estimated long-term warming attributed to the very high level of solar activity (assumed, in this case to be between 30 and 50% of the total).
Even if we assume that the solar impact was zero (a ridiculous assumption, in view of all the solar studies out there), we still only arrive at a 2xCO2 impact of around 1.2°to 1.5°C.
To your analogy: the time delay to warm an alpine cottage by 10° to 15°C is measured in hours, as is the time delay to warm up an entire region by the same amount when the sun comes up, and you are telling me that a 100-year record is too short a time frame to measure a theoretical global greenhouse warming of a fraction of 1°C? Get serious, Peter. Sure I can understand “time delays”. Can you?
So, without falling back to theoretical analogies on time delays, tell me specifically why you believe that the 2xCO2 impact should be 3 to 4 times as high as (a) that which was actually observed over a very long period of time (100 to 150 years) or (b) that which results from the theoretical equations, which are based on a “natural” CO2 greenhouse impact of somewhere between 5°C and 8°C (or 15% to 25% of the total natural greenhouse effect)?
Answer my 3 specific questions raised earlier with specific answers, or admit that you cannot justify the 3 to 4 times exaggeration of the 2xCO2 impact, so we can wrap up this lengthy discussion.
Regards,
Max
James P,
“As I understand it…” . That’s just your problem. Your subsequent remarks show that you don’t.
Bob_FJ,
“Peter Fartin” Oh my goodness me is this the best you can manage? It’s like being back at school again.
Manacker,
Whose “we” in “we still only arrive at a 2xCO2 impact of around 1.2°to 1.5°C.” Its creeping up! I thought it was only 0.8degC a while back.
You seem happy to accept that the figure of 7 deg is a reasonable estimate of the contribution of CO2 to the natural GHE of 33 degC. That is after all what you drew in on your attempt to correct my graph. It just doesn’t make any sense to think that you can double this concentration and that the second 280ppmv will have only 13-14% of the temperature impact as the first 280ppmv.
What you need to do is admit that there is no way that you can justify the 3 to 4 times understatement of the likely 2xCO2 impact! You really need to spend less time talking about what you clearly don’t understand and get back to your day job.
..does anyone believe that the greenhouse effect is 33C at the poles, AND 33C at 45 latitudes AND 33C at the equator?
I guess that depends on how one visualises (let alone models!) the GH effect. I’m beginning to wonder, having now read about RW Wood’s experiments in 1909 and Neil Bohr’s in 1913, if the greenhouse effect even exists! Might the retention of heat simply be because the atmosphere acts as an insulator?
One of the interesting things about actual greenhouses is that they work just as well without the alleged IR-trapping properties of glass, as anyone who has worked in a poly-tunnel will attest…
That’s just your problem. Your subsequent remarks show that you don’t.
Could you expand slightly? It would be nice to know where my reasoning fails. I’m here to learn.
James P
You might be interested in some of the other historic documents compiled prior to and since Callendars seminal work on co2. He later-like Roger Revelle-doubted if his theory was correct.
wolperts method of analysing carbonic acid-halfway through the doc
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11734/11734-h/11734-h.htm#1
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/eh/8.3/baldwin.html
http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/1/7/3/11734/11734.htm
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1181215
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15889/15889-h/15889-h.htm#art05
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bibdate.htm
the above is a bibliography
Guy Stewart Callendar 1898-1964
Correlates temperature records to co2 records and claims a causal link
Callendar, G.S. (1938). “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its
Influence on Climate.” Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-40.
Callendar, G.S. (1939). “The Composition of the Atmosphere through the Ages.”
Meteorological Magazine 74: 33-39.
Callendar, G.S. (1940). “Variations in the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in Different
Air Currents.” Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 66: 395-400.
Callendar, G.S. (1941). “Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special
Reference to Atmospheric Radiation.” Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society
67: 263-75.
Callendar, G.S. (1949). “Can Carbon Dioxide Influence Climate?” Weather 4:310-14
Callendar, G.S. (1958). “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.”
Tellus 10: 243-48.
Callendar, G.S. (1961). “Temperature Fluctuations and Trends over the Earth.”
Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 87: 1-12.
For bibliography on CO2 measurements and ideas to 1951, see Stepanova (1952);
criticism: Slocum (1955); Fonselius et al. (1956); however, some evidence for a gradual increase was summarized by Junge (1958); measurements are reviewed by Bolin (1972);
other items http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/048/mwr-048-09-0535.pdf
1920 wj humphrey
Their general consensus was the one stated in
such authoritative works as the American Meteorological Society’s 1951 Compendium of
Meteorology: the idea that adding CO2 would change the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned’
This refers to all the American met society year books back to 1876 which contains all the monthly reviews. Slocums is there in 1955.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0493
This is extremely interesting report on first 6 years of mauna loa
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/091/mwr-091-10-0665.pdf
p674 deals with the co2 problem to 676 with graphs
Below from 1961 mostly theoretical but lots of references
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/089/mwr-089-12-0503.pdf
This fabulous 1920 doc is surely the first ref to co2 agw
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/048/mwr-048-09-0535.pdf
it demonstrates how it can only cause a limited rise in temp and adding more has no effect
plus read
THE COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
T;y Ur. 6. S t H u w .
[reprinted from the Aeronautical Journal, London, November. 1915. p. 382.1
Slocums skewering of Callendars theory is the most elegant rebuttal of his co2 theory, but there is much good reading.
The historic view of the theoretical fractional increase in co2 related temperatures never reached modern day hysteria and never resorted to the invention of all sorts of hypothetical ‘related’ feedbacks such as a 300% amplification of water vapour.
Tonyb
Hi Peter,
Instead of asking three simple questions I asked you long ago, in your latest waffle (6513), you ask:
Duh! Peter, you cannot possibly be so obtuse. Read what I wrote (bold italic added later to make it easier for you to see).
Did you get it this time? If not, read it again.
Then you come with the amazingly incongruous statement:
Peter, whether it “makes any sense” to you is irrelevant.
If you take the seven equations we have been discussing, which arrive at the 0.9C increase from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv and calculate what the temperature decrease would be from 280 to 1 ppmv, you arrive at an average of the seven equations of –6.0C, with a range from highest to lowest of –4.6 to –7.3C. This is 5 to 8 times the impact from 280 to 560 ppmv. Do the math yourself, if you don’t believe it.
(Please, Peter, do not make the stupid mistake of asking me what happens between 1 ppmv and 0 ppmv CO2. It is irrelevant.)
To repeat: ALL of the equations show a much greater increase for the “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming up to 280 ppmv than for the projected “anthropogenic” greenhouse warming from 280 to 560 ppmv. This is because of the logarithmic (or near logarithmic) nature of the CO2 / temperature relation, which ALL of the equations reflect.
Your next statement is nothing short of amazing, in view of all the evidence out there, which we have been discussing for weeks:
No Peter. Forgetting your silly insulting remark that I am talking about things that I “clearly do not understand”, what YOU need to do is to justify the 3 to 4 times overstatement of the theoretical 2xCO2 impact.
To do this you will need to answer three basic questions, which I will repeat below, so you do not have to scroll back.
1) Why should “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming (above 280 ppmv) occur at a rate per CO2 concentration increase (2xCO2 = 3.2C) that is several times higher than the “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming, which occurred up to 280 ppmv (2xCO2 = around 0.9C)?
2) Why will 21st century “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming (above 369 ppmv in year 2000) occur at a rate per CO2 concentration increase (2xCO2 = 3.2) that is several times higher than the observed long-term “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming from around 280 to 369 ppmv (2xCO2 = 0.8 to 0.9C)?
3) A. Why do IPCC climate models assume a strongly positive feedback from clouds (adding 1.3C to the theoretical 2xCO2 impact), when actual physical observations show a strongly negative impact (which would reduce the net impact by around the same amount)?
B. Why do IPCC climate models assume that water vapor will increase to maintain constant relative humidity when actual physical observations show that the actual increase is only a fraction of this theoretical amount (causing an exaggeration of around 0.3 to 0.4C to the theoretical 2xCO2 impact)?
C. Is there any reason why the above incorrect model assumptions should not be corrected to conform with the actual physical observations (which would put the 2xCO2 impact back to around 0.8 to 0.9C)? If so, what is the justification?
Q+A time, Peter, and the ball is in your court.
Regards,
Max
Max
Did you ever read wielicki et al 2005?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/825
He makes probably the best analysis of 20 years of satellite data that relate to increases and decreases in cloud cover that mtach periods of temperature changes.
Cloud cover is so hugely important to overall changes in climate and one the IPCC still don’t properly acknowledge, let alone model accurately.
tonyb
TonyB,
Thanks for Wielicki link.
Interesting.
Yes. Others have lamented that the GCM handling of clouds is so rudimentary to be worthless with no actual physical data base, and the IPCC model assumptions on clouds were so skewed to be complete garbage, as the subsequent physical observations of Spencer et al. have clearly shown.
There was another statistical study on clouds by Norris et al., but the original study has been scrubbed and replaced with one that doesn’t say much, so it looks like the only good hard quantitative data out there based on actual physical observations (rather than just model assumptions) is that of Spencer et al.
It was always hard for me to understand why the natural cloud impact is one of strong net cooling, but that cloud feedback with warming should be one of net warming.
But it looks like that assumption can now be laid to rest as another IPCC myth.
Regards,
Max
The New MIT Climate Study: A Real World Inversion?
http://masterresource.org/?p=2977
Pete,
Will you at least concede that IPCC prophecies and this MIT prediction are grossly overstated? I get your point about your feeling that “Ahhhhhhhhhhh! WE’VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!”……but, I would think that even you would recognize that these prophecies are nothing but fantasy.
Tonyb
Thank you for that. I will take some time to digest, but my initial reaction, noting the age of some of the research, is that it confirms the adage that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it!
That’s a thin enough excuse for a politician – for a scientist, it’s unforgiveable.
Hi Brute,
Your actual / projected temperature graph looks like a confused earthworm that just crawled out of the ground and is being told to fly.
Max
Hey Max,
Yes, pretty ugly. I don’t like the format (I didn’t create it). Not as pretty as yours and Peter’s graphs.
Here’s another:
I don’t understand. Global temperatures are dropping while CO2 is rising, but yet, the Alarmist continue to insist that its getting warmer due to CO2……………spending billions of dollars on goofy stuff………I read last week where Obama’s climate czar (funny how he adopts a Russian title for his minions) has proposed a new initiative to paint all surfaces of the Earth with white paint………………seems reasonable.
It defies common sense, but then again, the world is full of crazy people with crazy motives.
I do know this; when someone tells me that increasing CO2 levels will cause global temperatures to rise, and more of my liberty and money will need to be abrogated to “combat” rising CO2 levels……………and then the temperature drops…………there’s a polecat in the henhouse…………Someone or groups of people stand to benefit from perpetuating this lie…………I think we’ve pretty much exposed who these people/groups are.
Closer to home, we have Peter Martin telling me it’s raining on a cloudless day. Someone is terribly wrong…………and I don’t have an umbrella in my hand.
Let’s try this again.