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.
tempterrain (Peter): you’re avoiding the question yet again. Please refer us to the research (as defined at #6464) that supports your assertion (#6463) “the scientific message, the settled one, is that we are all in the shit over the question of CO2 emissions and the build up of CO2 concentrations”. Thanks.
Robin,
I’d say that you were avoiding the answer. You’re avoiding trying to think. Your avoiding opening your mind to the realities of science. Maybe I’m being a little unkind. Maybe it’s not capable of being opened up.
The scientific research is all referenced in various IPCC reports. Trying to sum it all up in a single sentence isn’t easy. I doubt if anyone would disagree that I have done a reasonable job of that even if they disgaree with the IPCC reports themselves.
The question is: Are they, the IPCC, right? It strikes me that the best way of answering this question is to ask what we know about the natural GHE and then apply that knowledge to the extended GHE.
Id did feel a bit guilty about using the figure of -8 degrees in the above graph. It just seemed to fit reasonably well by applying the logarithmic relationship down to 140 ppmv of CO2 concentration as Max is very keen that we should. I wouldn’t disagree BTW. But lets try to justify that figure a little bit better:
If you can bring yourself to click on the realclimate website:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
That’s a website written by people who know what they are talking about to counteract the disinformation put about by those who don’t BTW
:-)
You’ll see a list of percentages of contributions to the natural GHE from CO2, water vapour, methane etc. They are always at pains to point out that it isn’t really possible to assign a definite percentage to each individual component as everything depends on everything else. You get a range of percentages depending on how you measure things.
That doesn’t stop people on your side of the argument picking out the most favourable percentages or even just making them up. I’ve never seen the scientists do the same thing themselves by choosing the percentages at the other end of the range. That’s the problem with the Great Global Warming Conspiricists. They are just too honest!
What I’m going to do, and which they still well might disaprove off, is take the average values. It is the best we can do without getting into computer models, and I know how much you dislike them, so I hope that Gavin Schmidt and co will forgive me:
C02,9 – 26%,17.5%, 20.1%, 6.6degC
H2O + Clouds, 34-85%, 59.5%, 68.4%,22.6 degC
O3, 3-7%,5%, 5.7%, 1.9 degC
CH4 (and other GHG), 2-8%,5%,5.7%,1.9 degC
I have taken the average, rescaled everything to make it add up to 100% and then applied that percentage to the known natural GH level of 33 degC
So CO2 comes out at 6.6 degs. Rather than the 8 degrees of the graph. I think we are all guilty of forgetting about methane. That’s significant too and needs to be controlled in just the same way as CO2. If I add that figure in as well then 8 degs seems a slight underestimate.
Max, Reur 6470, that was a nice lucid summary about why the alarmists won’t respond to simple questions that are inconvenient to their dogma.
You wrote in part:
Yes quite; but what I would really LIKE TO KNOW, is how much traffic actually occurs on the various threads where I make posts. Notwithstanding that, I still find it somewhat amusing that alarmists like Mefinny2/onthefence/nefastus et al of ilk, can utter such silly irrelevant crap. (or whether it is trolling rather than genuine opinion). However, if there are significant numbers of “casual observers”, then I still feel that it is worthwhile to expose these fruitcakes to rational sanity testing from sensible lurkers.
Another irony that I find is that these fruitcakes refer to us sceptics of serious AGW, as denialists. However, I would comment that even Peter Martin, whilst sometimes an interesting devil’s advocate, is clearly in denial of some inconvenient truths, WRT his dogma/religion.
Robin, Reur umpteenth 6476, you asked yet again of Peter Martin:
Robin, you probably remember that Peter Martin raised his own lead article concerning AGW politics, in cooperation with TonyN here:
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate, By Peter Martin
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=124
Unlike you Robin, I was a bit late in joining in, but here is my #15 post to Peter Martin:
Subsequently, exchanges went through to 55 posts, whilst Peter Martin simply DENIED the inconvenient truth that the infamous MBH99 manna graph WAS NOT REPEATED in AR4. I tried some humorous analogies, but Peter Martin simply denied reality (unanswered), and ceased his contribution to this his own thread!
I see this as a classic case of denialism!
tempterrain (Peter): so it’s your contention that IPCC 2007 cites research demonstrating unambiguously that the hypothesis that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (physically observed) evidence (publicly available and replicable) and has survived such testing intact. No need to “sum it up” – just refer me to the reference or references. That should be simple enough. Thanks.
Boob_FJ,
I’m quite happy to give you my opinion, yet again, on Manns’s hockey stick and the IPCCs inclusion of it but we’ll just be going over old ground.
Max and Robin have asked me for evidence that risng CO2 levels will lead to the level of warming that that the IPCC ( and NASA, the UK Royal Society, The AAAS, the Australian CSIRO plus as many other research institutions as you’d like me to name) have predicted.
I genuinely do believe that I have answered your question in 6475 and 6477. Would you mind sticking to this question, and my answer, for now?
..the level of warming that the IPCC ( and NASA, the UK Royal Society, The AAAS, the Australian CSIRO plus as many other research institutions as you’d like me to name) have predicted.
Is this taking Hansen’s opinion as NASA’s? I seem to recall that his old boss, Dr John Theon, disagrees entirely with him!
http://landshape.org/enm/theon-eviscerates-climate-warming-community/
WRT the number of research institutions who happen to be on the same gravy train, I can do no better than quote Bertrand Russell:
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.”
Hi Peter,
Wow! You are truly a master at the fine art of chartmanship!
That was a beautiful cobbled-together curve (6475) with a “linear region” (below around 140 ppmv CO2) and a “logarithmic” region above, conveniently fudged in to make the IPCC assumption of 2xCO2 = 3.2°C force fit to a “natural” CO2 greenhouse effect of around 8°C. Hats off to your skill, Peter!
Now let me give you two reasons why your beautiful chart failed the reality test:
First, there is no logical scientifically based reason to believe that the CO2 / temperature relationship shifts abruptly from logarithmic above 140 ppmv to linear below 140 ppmv, as you have shown. The general theory is that the relationship is roughly logarithmic, but approaches a linear relationship asymptotically as “very low CO2 concentrations” are reached. Is a “very low concentration” 10 ppm, 1 ppm or 1 ppb? Who knows? But nowhere in the published literature have I seen the theory that the CO2 / temperature shifts abruptly from linear to logarithmic at 140 ppmv CO2, as your curve shows.
But here is the main reason that your curve fails the reality test. It shows 20th century warming of 1.4°C (from a bit more than 280 ppmv in 1901 to 369 ppmv in 2000).
But, Peter, it actually only warmed by 0.65°C over the 20th century, and solar experts have told us that a significant portion of this warming (let’s say 30 to 50%) can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years).
If we ignore any other natural forcing factors, the high level of late 20th Century El Niños, any UHI effect that may have distorted the record, etc., this only leaves 0.32° to 0.45°C for warming from CO2. (This translates to a 2xCO2 warming of 0.8° to 0.9°C.)
So your calculated 1.4°C warming is higher than the actually observed warming by a factor of 3 to 4.
And, using this same exaggerated CO2 / temperature relationship, you arrive at an inflated projection of 21st century warming of another 1.8°C.
Sorry, Peter, your curve has failed.
And while you have skirted around my question on “natural” versus “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse forcing with a phony cobbled-together curve, you still have not answered my second question (see attached graph for a picture of the dilemma):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/3573226712_13ef11638d_b.jpg:
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 20th century “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming from around 280 to 369 ppmv (2xCO2 = 0.8 to 0.9C)?
Still waiting for an answer, Peter.
Regards,
Max
No, Peter, your answer at 6481 won’t do. This is the fundamental question. Western governments are imposing huge burdens on their already shattered economies, burdens that threaten to damage especially some of the most vulnerable people in the world, because of the perceived need to “combat climate change”. Yet you, and other proponents of that need are unable to point to the empirical evidence that validates it. If, as you say, the IPCC report cites the relevant research, it should be easy enough to refer us to it. Please do so.
Once again, you refer, not to evidence, but to authority to support your position. Yet you know full well that freedom from the tyranny of authority was one of the main achievements of the Enlightenment – an achievement that is one of the pillars of Western science, technology, culture and economic success.
Nonetheless, out of interest I had a look at what three of the organisations you mention have to say on the subject. What I found was that, even if reference to authority was a valid argument, these wouldn’t help you. Here are extracts from their definitive statements:
So there you have it: two refer to the unscientific concept of “consensus”, one refers to the IPCC (see above) and one makes a vague and probably uncontroversial observation. Look especially at the RS statement: it’s references to “possible consequences” and “could have” don’t indicate scientific certainty – and show that, contrary to your claim, they are not making predictions.
Hi Peter,
You write:
Sorry, Peter, you have answered neither of my two questions concerning the dilemma between the IPCC assumption on CO2 greenhouse forcing and the actually observed facts.
You have skirted around my first question with your beautiful (but phony) graph showing an imagined linear CO2 / temperature relationship below 140 ppmv CO2. This is pure fantasy, Peter, and does not answer the question why “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming should occur at a much higher rate than the “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming.
The second question also remains unanswered, Peter (see my 6483 above).
Instead of simply stating that you have answered the questions, why don’t you just answer them instead?
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
Pardon me for intruding into your exchange with Robin (6477), where you made a quickie calculation of the natural CO2 greenhouse effect plus a commentary:
This was a logical statement and calculation until you suddenly switched from the natural CO2 greenhouse impact to “CO2 plus methane” in order to inflate the 6.6C up to 8C.
Forget that line of reasoning, Peter. It is double-talk, intended to confuse.
IPCC itself has stated that the radiative forcing of all other anthropogenic factors other than CO2 (including the anthropogenic portion of methane) cancel one another out.
RF of CO2 (280 to 379 ppmv) = 1.66 W/m^2, while the net total RF of all anthropogenic forcing components (from 1750 to 2005) = 1.6 W/m^2.
So we are not “guilty of forgetting about methane”.
And the RF for CO2 of 1.66 W/m^2 (Myhre et al.) corresponds to a 2xCO2 greenhouse warming of 0.87°C and not 3.2°C, as you have assumed.
This also fits very well with a total “natural” CO2 greenhouse impact of 7.1°C (not far from your calculated 6.6°C.
So it all fits together, Peter, except for the IPCC assumption of 2xCO2 = 3.2°C, which is based on climate model assumptions rather than observed physical data and clearly does not fit.
Hope this helps clear up this point.
Regards,
Max
Robin and Max
You keep asking Peter for proof of the ‘doubling CO2’ hypotheses, but it must be remembered that the only document cited as source material by the IPCC to support this claim was one by Hansen et al that he wrote back in 1984.
This certainly did not PROVE anything, but ASSUMED a number of things, amongst which was the acknowledgement by Hansen that whilst co2 by itself would only heat the atmosphere by a tiny amount, it would have an effect on water vapour, which in turn would increase the warming effect of co2 by three times. In due course -many years down the road- the minor heating caused by co2, subsequently amplifed by the water vapour, would then cause a modest temperature rise that would further amplify a variety of feedbacks which would then markedly increase temperatures well beyond the ‘asssumed’ combined affects of co2 and water vapour.
I don’t think that would be accepted as proof in any court of law.
Until Tar 4 the IPCC believed the only explanation for the slight increase in global temperature (which came from another of Hansens papers in 1987-see below)
was co2 caused by human input, whereas tar4 admits the change may be due to man AND natural variability
The first paper linked below contains Hansens 1987 paper on global temperatures which he presented to Congress. This was much used by the IPCC on which to base their supposition that they could pinpoint precise temperature increases to fractions of a degree since the mid 19th century.(a subject much beloved by Max and Peter and based on extremely dodgy methodology)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
Below is the paper on which the IPCC based their belief that an ‘assumed’ minor warming property of co2 could cause a rise in temperature to which would be added feedbacks -so the two papers need to be seen as a whole as they are pillars of IPCC science.
The actual Hansen calculations are well down the page and the paper includes Moncktons calculations, as well as those by other commentators.
The link containing these papers is written by someone who believes that Monckton and other calculations are false.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
So we are dealing with assumptions on the co2 science, which in itself is based on an extremely dubious global temperature construction from which are derived anomalies that enables Hansens paper one (1984) to prove Hansens paper two (1987)
Tonyb
Robin and Max
My 6487
I should have mentioned that to go into the Hansen co2 hypotheses you need to click on link 2 and then click on ‘Climate sensitivity Reconsidered.’ (Also see below)
When looking at Hansens Reconstructed global temperatures, it is also useful to read his paper here;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
When he confirms the global temperatures have an inaccuracy factor of 2 Degrees F, it should be remembered that margin of error is twice that being cited for proof of warming (0.6C since mid 19th Century.)
So it is useful to read all three papers in the order listed below.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
(global temperatures)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
(Hansens margin of error)
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Hansens co2 hypotheses (go to Climate sensitivity Reconsidered’ in this latter link)
You will then have the material on which the IPCC based their co2 science.
Tonyb
Max,
You say “… there is no logical scientifically based reason to believe that the CO2 / temperature relationship shifts abruptly from logarithmic above 140 ppmv to linear below 140 ppmv, as you have shown “.
You are right. Abrupt changes from a linear to a logarithmic region are not physical realistic. I think you pointed me in the direction of Lubos Motl (incidentally one of your lot) who, like me, wasn’t happy with the accepted logarithmic relationship between CO2 and increasing temperature. Whatever equation we use shouldn’t give a bad answer at low concentrations of CO2.
He came up with an equation
Delta T= 1.5 ( 1 – exp[-(concentration-280)/200 ppm] ) deg Celsius
I think there is a good argument that he is right except that I’m just not sure how he derived his constants of 1.5 and 200. So I emailed him. In his reply he said ” I just made estimates that generate sensible values”
I’d give the good Dr Motl 10/10 for the form of his equation. But he has fallen down in not trying to justify the choice of the constants used in his equation. Instead a better choice would have been:
Delta T= 5 ( 1 – exp[-(concentration-280)/300 ppm] ) deg Celsius
With these values our results agree very well:
OH yes. You were saying that the graph shows that the level of warming is lower than actually measured. Yes that is correct. If you put a kettle on a stove you know that it will boil within 5 minutes or so. However if you measure the temperature after just 2 minutes you may find that the temperature is only half way towards boiling.
In geological terms, the 20 years or so that CO2 concentrations have been above 350ppmv is comparable to that 2 mins.
Trying again to post a graph:
or http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3374/3580241163_1a7fff910d_o.png
Robin & Max, concerning denialism amongst various AGW alarmists, Peter Martin wrote to me in his 6481:
However, the core issue that I raised on his own blog-thread was that the following graphic was clearly manna to the IPCC in their 2001 3AR reports, where they sprayed it around in every niche of their various report sections, far more than any other graphic:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/3093871071_2c4a1b9802_o.gif
However, the IPCC did NOT repeat it even once in AR4, (2007), and since Peter Martin’s own blog-thread was raised by him to discuss political issues around AGW, I enquired as to what might be the political reasons for them not to reproduce it in 2007. (given its previous huge success in the media etc, including its influence on policymakers and even still in the prevailing Gore movie.
And yet:
IT IS A FACT THAT THIS MANNA GRAPH WAS NOT REPEATED in AR4; 2007.
Nevertheless, Peter Martin had the gall to waffle at great length and insist that it was repeated in AR4, despite that it was not!!!!!
BANAL/EXTREME DENIALISM!!!
I think we can guess what Scott Adams thinks of all this:
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-07/
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/
(H/t to muddypaws on Bishop Hill)
However if you measure the temperature after just 2 minutes you may find that the temperature is only half way towards boiling.
And after 5 minutes it will stop at 100deg (or 212, if you prefer), no matter how long you leave it!
Hi Peter,
Shame on you, Peter.
Taking Motl’s equation and then changing the constants in it by a factor of more than 3 to make it “force fit” your personal idea on how it should really look (6489) is cheating, and you know it.
The equation cited by Motl gives a curve that is much closer to the straight logarithmic relation of Myhre et al., and your curve is pure fantasy.
And the time for “thought games” and re-inventing all the logarithmic formulas out there for calculating the CO2 / temperature relationship to make it fit your notion is also over.
You have been unable or unwilling to answer my two straightforward questions, both relating to the exaggerated assumption by IPCC on the future impact of CO2 on temperature, i.e. why should the future impact be 3 to 4 times as high as (a) the natural CO2 greenhouse impact and (b) the actually observed long-term anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse impact?
But I believe that your inability (or unwillingness) to answer these two questions gets to the crux of the problem.
On one hand IPCC cites an estimated radiative forcing factor for CO2 (Myhre et al.), which corresponds to a 2xCO2 warming of around 0.9°C.
Yet, on the other hand, IPCC inflates this radiative forcing with assumed positive feedbacks by a factor of almost four to an assumed 2xCO2 warming of 3.2°C, which it then uses for its future predictions.
This gross inflation is not based on actual physical observations, but rather on assumed climate model inputs, which then result in these climate model outputs (GIGO).
The biggest problem is the IPCC assumption on clouds.
It is common knowledge that clouds have a very strong net cooling impact on our climate.
As Ramanathan and Inamdar have told us, low altitude water droplet clouds act as a strong reflector of incoming SW solar radiation, with an estimated cooling impact of –48 W/m^2, while high altitude ice crystal clouds act as an absorber of outgoing LW IR radiation, with an estimated greenhouse warming impact of +30 W/m^2.
This net cooling effect is around -18 W/m^2, or more than four times the estimated theoretical radiative forcing of doubling CO2 of +3.7 W/m^2.
Therefore, in view of the strongly cooling natural impact of clouds, it is curious that the assumptions (IPCC AR4 Ch.8) fed into the computer models all showed a strongly net positive (warming) impact from changes in clouds with anthropogenic warming: mean assumed value = 0.69 W/m^2°C, which equates to an increase in the 2xCO2 impact of 1.3°C (out of the total of 3.2°C).
IPCC did concede, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” (SPM 2007), but this large uncertainty did not stop it from assuming strongly positive net feedback from clouds in the climate models (and the future temperature projections).
Earlier reports on clouds expressed this uncertainty, as well. The report by Ramanathan and Inamdar lamented:
A subsequent study by Spencer et al. helped clear up the IPCC “largest source of uncertainty” and provide the “observational basis to check the model conclusions” lamented by Ramanathan and Inamdar.
This study, based on actual physical observations rather than just model assumptions, showed that the net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly negative. Spencer calculated an observed negative feedback of 6.1 W/m^2°C over the tropical area measured (20°N to 20°S), which covers roughly one-third of the Earth’s total surface, so the net overall negative feedback is at least the same order of magnitude as assumed by IPCC, but in the opposite direction.
Modifying the IPCC model assumptions for this correction alone would result in a reduction of the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C by around 2.2 to 2.5°C.
A second error in the IPCC model assumptions concerns its assumed water vapor feedback. The IPCC model assumptions are based on the premise that water vapor content will increase with warming to maintain a constant relative humidity.
A study by Minschwaner and Dessler shows that this assumption is incorrect. Water vapor does increase with temperature, but at a much lower rate than assumed in the climate models. The actually observed water vapor increase was only a fraction of the theoretical increase maintaining constant relative humidity.
This correction is smaller than the correction for clouds (only a few tenths of a °C).
Together these two corrections to the assumptions in the IPCC models result in a reduction of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from 3.2°C to around 0.8° to 0.9°C (or very close to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as estimated by the radiative forcing factor of Myhre et al.)
So we have three fairly independent indicators based on physical observations that tell us that a 2xCO2 greenhouse impact of 3.2°C, as assumed by IPCC in its model forecasts for the future, is basically incorrect and exaggerated by a factor of 3 to 4.
· The “natural” CO2 greenhouse effect of around 7.1°C corresponds with a 2xCO2 impact of 0.8° to 0.9°C
· The observed long-term “anthropogenic” CO2 warming to date (once adjusted to remove that portion of the warming attributed to increased solar activity) equals 0.3° to 0.45°C, which corresponds to a 2xCO2 warming of 0.8° to 1.0°C.
· The above adjustments of the IPCC model assumptions for cloud and water vapor feedbacks as physically observed also result in a corrected 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.8° to 0.9°C.
Peter, you must admit that this “evidence” against a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C is overwhelming.
It is a very good example of how model assumptions can go wrong if they are not checked against actual physical observations and corrected for these.
To concede on one hand “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” and on the other hand to crank in model assumptions that increase the 2xCO2 impact by almost 70% (from 1.9° to 3.2°C) is “bad science” at best (and outright lying at worst).
To ignore reports that showed that actual physical observations do not support the premise of constant relative humidity with warming and still crank this assumption into the models is also “bad science” (or outright lying).
Whatever the reason, it is clear that the IPCC model-assumed 2xCO2 impact of 3.2°C is not supported by the actual physical observations and that this should be 0.8° to 0.9°C instead.
If you have any specific objections to the above, which are based on actual physical observations rather than just climate model outputs, please state them now.
We have been beating around this bush for much too long, and you are not providing any hard data, but just irrelevant “thought games”.
Regards,
Max
tempterrain (Peter): I see that, just as you have avoided answering Max’s “two straightforward questions” (see his #6494), you haven’t yet answered my #6484 (with its observation about the Royal Society’s staying politically correct on climate change while carefully avoiding a definitive scientific statement) – despite my observation that “This is the fundamental question”. Which it is.
In previous posts, I’ve reviewed how the scientific method works – referring back to Ibn al-Haitham and Galileo, forward to Newton, Herschel, Darwin and Einstein and, most recently, to how the HIV/Aids and smoking/cancer links were established. As you don’t seem to understand any of this, I thought I’d give you an even more current illustration.
An important hypothesis of particle physics (developed in 1964 by Peter Higgs) is the existence of a particle of matter named the Higgs boson. It’s important because, if it exists – as many scientists believe – that will help to explain the origin of mass in the universe. So it’s a potential key to this most basic branch of science. As you may be aware, a major (and extraordinarily expensive) series of experiments are in hand using the Large Hadron Collider (at CERN in Geneva) that, it is hoped, should either confirm or refute the particle’s existence. These experiments have, however, been delayed by problems with the Collider. But no one is saying: “we’re having trouble with the Collider, let’s skip the evidence and assume the Higgs boson exists anyway”. Yet that’s exactly what the proponents of the dangerous man-made global warming are saying: “it’s difficult to establish the evidence that confirms or refutes the validity of our hypothesis, so let’s ignore the absence of evidence, assume it’s valid anyway and persuade politicians to impose huge additional burdens on our already shattered economies”.
It’s not science – it’s pseudo-science. And it’s appallingly irresponsible.
Hi Peter,
Not to sidetrack you from addressing the key questions in my 6494, which go to the very heart of our discussion here, but I noticed that you are back with your “kettle of water” analogy, which was shot down several months ago.
The water stops warming essentially instantly once the gas is turned off (so there is no warming “in the pipeline” that continues after the fact).
The “2 minute / 5 minute” and “20 years (?) / “short geological time” logic is silly.
You arbitrarily pick 350 ppmv as some kind of a magic number. It isn’t.
“Anthropogenic” greenhouse warming has theoretically been going on since we started exceeding the (assumed) “natural” CO2 level of 280 ppmv.
The CO2 / temperature relation tells us that the first 70 ppmv increase (from 280 to your magic number of 350 ppmv or 1.25x) should theoretically have had the same impact as the next 88 ppmv increase from 350 to 438 ppmv will have, (i.e. when we come very close to Hansen’s “irreversible tipping point” “dangerous level” of 450 ppmv).
And the forcing factors used by IPCC tell us that each of these two increases in CO2 concentration should theoretically cause an increase in globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature of around 0.28°C, say 0.3°C.
We have seen about that amount of increase in the Hadley record over the 20th century, when deducting the amount of warming attributed to increased solar activity, so it all checks, Peter.
And to carry this into the future (if the world should miraculously survive beyond the 0.6°C total theoretical greenhouse warming at Hansen’s “tipping point” of 450 ppmv), another equivalent increase to around 550 ppmv will also result in another same theoretical temperature increase of 0.3°C, as will the next increase from around 550 to around 685 ppmv, from 685 to 855 ppmv and from 855 to 1070 ppmv at some far distant time in the future by which time all fossil fuels on the planet will have been used up and we will have had a total theoretical anthropogenic CO2 warming of around 1.7°C, unless natural forcing factors start working against warming, as they appear to be doing today.
Game over! Yawn!
Let’s move on to a scarier doomsday scenario, like an invasion by hostile aliens. Roswell, here we come!
Regards,
Max
PS Don’t let this message dissuade you from responding to my 6494
Re the scientific method, some may not have seen this delightful short video. It was made (in 1964, I think) by Richard Feynman who was a physicist who did important work in particle physics (see my #6495).
Hi Robin
Great video clip, back from the (pre-giant-computer-model) days when “science was science”.
Everyone associated with IPCC (and especially the computer jockeys that crank out all these GIGO forecasts that are pawned off as “science”) should be forced to look at this video clip every morning before they start work.
Send it to RealClimate; those guys need a reality check.
Regards,
Max
Thanks, Max. Here’s a follow-up. (BTW, Peter, “temporarily right” is what I mean by “validated”.)
PS: feel free to send them to RealClimate – I can’t be bothered with them.
And, Max, fortunately in some disciplines “science is still science” – e.g. re the Higgs boson hypothesis (#6495). Those guys are not claiming that “the science is settled” or referring to “consensus” or authority. In total contrast, there’re setting out to either confirm or refute the particle’s existence by real-world observation. I’m pretty sure that, as genuine scientists, they would be happy with either result.