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.
TonyB
Thanks for your 6548 with the latest Lindzen presentation.
This is a very compelling and crystal-clear demonstration that the physically observed facts do not support the climate model assumptions on feedbacks and on the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
Peter is still grappling with (or evading) my questions essentially to the same effect: why do the observed facts not support the climate model assumptions on feedbacks and on the 2xCO2 impact from AGW?
He cannot answer the questions for exactly the reasons that Lindzen has stated, albeit much more scientifically and convincingly than I ever could.
Regards,
Max
This (The Age of the Age of Stupid) is long but worth reading. Here’s an extract:
BTW – for those who have the misfortune not to be British, Ed Miliband is our Minister for Climate Change. May the Lord help us.
Everyone
A famous climate scientist once said something along the lines that the end result-changing peoples habits-justified the means of not always telling the truth.
I think this is a viewpoint that many activist environmentalists would endorse in their endevour to save man from himself, even if he doesn’t need saving.
This web site brings together many of the quotes whereby the end result is being used to justify the means
http://www.green-agenda.com/index.html
I have posted here before that it is Agenda 21 that is at the bottom of this unscientific science. After reading the quotes there is an article on agenda 21 in the left hand bar of the link.
Tonyb
Max,
Oh come on Max, if you are going to post up photos don’t edit out the comments. This is the full version:
Flat out wrong? I don’t think so. There is an obvious mistake by the graphic artist.
Our atmosphere is cooler at altitude only because the upper reaches are radiating heat. The analogy would be a house with no roof insulation. The downstairs rooms would be warmer if there were a source of heating down below. Add some insulation and the temperature gradient would fall. If the insulation in the roof was absolutely perfect, meaning that no heat was radiating through it the temperature gradient would be zero.
The last sorry posting on your part with the altered text, shows that you are not at all interested in getting closer to the truth. Your only motivation is to push your campaign of disinformation. You don’t care what you have to do or say, or who you have to mislead. Its just pathetic.
Re Peter Martin’s 6544
Max, sorry for jumping in.
ALL, I have commented previously that in addition to Peter Martin being prone to making simplistic assumptions, he also seems to suffer spatial perception problems. A comparison between Max’s image, and Pete’s image, shows them to be different, suggesting that they are from different sources. Furthermore, it seems silly to assume that Max retyped all the text in Pete’s version, (in a different font), with the exclusion of the last line. A much simpler approach, IF Max was wanting to change it, would have been to cut the “offending sentence”. Another problem is that the text highlighted by Pete in green, is clearly wrong, and contradicts the diagram. It is WRONG because an atmosphere with no GHG’s is still heated from the surface by several mechanisms other than radiation. The temperature then drops with altitude primarily because of reduced density of the air.
In fact HEAT, as distinct from EMR, (radiation), cannot escape upwards without a reducing temperature gradient. (second law of thermodynamics) Even air at zero degrees F, contains HEAT, by virtue of it’s absolute temperature. Pete should know this, and I even seem to recall that he has stated it elsewhere. See comparison image @
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3590079139_7a720dcf8d_o.jpg
ALL, further to my 6555, Correction:
The last two sentences are back to front in intended sequence, and I did not intend to imply that Pete is actually aware that air at zero degrees F (~255 K? absolute) does contain quite a lot of HEAT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In case Pete chooses to deny that an atmosphere of any kind is heated by the surface by means other than EMR absorption, here is the related Kevin Trenberth cartoon which first appeared in 3AR (IPCC 2001), and again in AR4 in 2007. Well as we all know, there is no greater authority than Kev’ and unlike the hocky-stick cartoon MBH99, his was not deleted in 2007, so it must be right.
In fact Kev’ shows that ~61% of the solar energy (EMR) that is absorbed by the surface, is not lost as long-wave EMR, but as HEAT into the atmosphere, via several mechanisms.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3065365160_f057702c5a_o.gif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder what Pete would make of an atmosphere, comprising entirely of oxygen/ozone or similar that significantly absorbs sunlight. (short-wave EMR)
Wow Pete. Seems you lost this battle……………………you’d better retreat and regroup……fortify your flanks……
Why is it colder at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question186.htm
Why is weather and air cold at high altitudes and mountainous areas?
If it is because of the composition of atmosphere like nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide, then why is nitrogen cold and carbon dioxide hot?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060914030458AAabglR
Best Answer – Chosen by Asker
Wow. These answers could use more research. A lot more.
In the easiest terms….
The air is colder at higher altitudes because there is less air.
The lower atmosphere is more dense and therefore can hold more heat. The sun heats the earth and as the warm air rises it heats the atmosphere. As the air continues to rise the air becomes less dense, unable to hold the heat it has and so the rising air cools.
The medium to carry the heat is water vapour.
Our weather occurs in the lower part or “Troposphere”.
Since there is less air in the next layer “Stratosphere” there is relatively less water vapour, less heat which means colder air.
It is not due to the composition of gases, it is due to the lack of medium to carry the heat. This is why most of our weather occurs in the lower atmosphere. Airliners can fly over most of the weather for a faster and smoother flight.
There are more technical explanations but….
I hope I answered your question.
Source(s):
Aviation Weather
Bob_FJ,
You’re right. It does seem silly that Max retyped all the text (in a different font), with the exclusion of the last line. But that is exactly what he must have done.
You need to read up Roy Spencer. Or better still the guys at Realclimate. But the way heat is radiated from the earth can be visualised by considering the surface and just two atmospheric layers. In practice of course there are an infinite number of layers but just two will do to explain the process.
The earth has an average temperture of 288 degs K. The outer layer will have a lower temperature. This is the temperture needed to maintain an energy balance and is defined by the S-B equation and the incoming solar flux. At the current level of solar flux this is 255 degs and will always be that value regardless of the composition of the atmosphere.
The inner layer has an intermediate temperature. Because the inner layer is cooler than the earth there will be a net radiative transfer of heat from the earth to that inner layer. Similarly they will be a net radiative transfer from the inner layer to the outer layer. Then radiation from the outer layer into free space.
In addition there will be some percentage of direct radiation from both the earth and the inner layer into free space. The more transparent the layers the more directly the radiation is emitted. In the limit when the layers are completely transparent all heat transfer is directly from the surface to free space. At the other extreme, when there is no transparency all radiation has to go from the earth to the first layer. Then to the second layer.
The more the transparency the less the temperature gradient. Full transparency = no temperature gradient. If the transparency is reduced by adding CO2 or water vapour then the temperature gradient increases. The outer layer always has to stay at that figure of 255 degs C and so the surface of the earth warms.
Does that make sense?
Pete,
I’m looking at the website and I don’t see the same sentence that you’ve underlined in your post. Have I missed something? Is this the Michael Mann/James Hansen “adjustment”? Did Al Gore get hold of your copy?
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
Sorry, the text didn’t make the trip. This is what’s under the figure from Max’s link……It doesn’t look like yours.
Brute,
The explanation in “how stuff works” is just not correct. If I can find an email address, I will contact them.
Try clicking on to the photo in Max’s link. You should see:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/GreenhouseGasesRegulatingTemp.html
They have nearly got it right but the -60F in their graphic isn’t correct either and needs fixing.
ALL, Peter Martin in his 6558 misquoted my 6555, and restated his childish slanderous assumption, as follows:
What I actually wrote WRT this point was:
Furthermore, it seems silly [for you Pete] to assume that Max retyped all the text in Pete’s version, (in a different font), with the exclusion of the last line. A much simpler approach, IF Max was wanting to change it, would have been to cut the “offending sentence”.
Max gave the source of “his” image as:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
The image thereon is:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/GreenhouseGasesRegulatingTemp.gif
The text attached below the image is precisely as follows:
Max’s image is clearly a combination of the ucsd.edu/ image and the subject text, out of Flickr, and is identical to that combination found in the source website.
THAT WORDING DOES NOT INCLUDE: “…with a uniform temperature in the atmosphere of 0 degrees F.”
It is interesting that Pete’s image is also out of Flickr, but he does not give a source. It is also puzzling that in his version, the whole text has been retyped in a different font but with an added sentence which is WRONG. A complete retype would probably be necessary if it was wanted to add a sentence on the end, whereas if it was desired to delete the end sentence, as accused of Max, one would simply cut it, and a complete retype would be silly.
Will Pete apologise to Max for slandering him? I doubt it!
Wait for more waffle and a change in subject!
Bob_FJ,
This is the link:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/GreenhouseGasesRegulatingTemp.html
Same website. Nothing to do with flickr. I have made no changes.
And yes it does include the words: “…with a uniform temperature in the atmosphere of 0 degrees F.”
I didn’t make them up. Or edit the website. Scouts Honour! :-)
I suppose you are saying Max must have missed this? Well he’s missed a lot of thigs recently so it could be possible.
But what do you yourself think ? Are you capable of getting your head around the issues and understanding it for yourself?
All, Peter Martin in his 6561 wrote in part to Brute:
Sorry Brute for jumping in, but I’m a bit ill today, and find some spare time to blog around.
(No, it is not swine flu)
I guess Pete may find it very difficult to identify an Email address to action his threat, but immediately under the topic heading:
Why is it colder at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level?
It is very plain to see immediately below this title one of several actionables thus:
(image of Email envelope) followed by the word ‘Email’.
I clicked it and it seems to work OK …. Seems pretty easy to me!
It would be fascinating to see Pete’s Email missive to the website together with any responses if they can be bothered to respond!
Bob_FJ,
Yes I found the tab too and I’ve emailed them.
I’ve pointed out that their answer and the account of the Uni of San Diego are at variance.
I’m with the Uni of San Diego apart from the figure of -60F on their graphic which is inconsistent with their statement just discussed and which I think is just a mistake. I’ve emailed them too.
If you’ve plenty of time on your hands you might like to let us know who you think is right and why.
ALL, I see that in 6563, Peter Martin is beginning to squirm a bit when he wrote in part:
Putting aside the surprising development for the moment that there appear to be two text versions for the same image on the one website: “Max’s version” being clearly visible, and Pete’s version that was not visible, the FACT IS that the image first proffered by Pete was:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/3590608182_f4d2d962e0_o.png
Thus rather than use the simplest & quickest & most sensible & less risk-prone approach of utilising the direct URL that he has NEWLY posted in 6563, it would seem that originally he took some source into Flickr for some purpose, which will probably remain a mystery. At the same time he claims not to have changed his new reference!!!!! (so why go there, to Flickr? …. It‘s nuts!)
Pete also wrote:
THE FACT IS THAT PETE HAS SLANDERED MAX by asserting (and not apologising) that Max has altered that text. Clearly, Max has quoted verbatim what appears in clear text under the image on the website. To imply that Max may have found the hidden version in a lucky click is at best simplistic assumption, but in a word: wank!
Oh and BTW, the hidden version is in denial amongst other things of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, some strange things happen on my system when the contradictory image/text links are opened, or are saved in Windows Vista Pictures, or are opened in MS Paint. I suspect that there is some corrupt coding somewhere that I’ll think on, and advise if I can crack it. (but it is not my area of expertise)
BTW, Brute was also puzzled in his 6560 & 6559.
ALL: Further my 6566, this is becoming quite intriguing, concerning the Max versus Pete rather different versions of the text under the common image! Would you believe that ucsd.edu/ have not just two, but at least a third version?
Try:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/greenhouse_effect/01.html
The wording this time is more concise and without scientific controversy, (my bold emphasis added):
I have no problem with “Max’s version” OR this the latest, whilst “Pete’s version” denies many aspects of the accepted physics including Thermo’ Law 2!
Bob and Max
Max in his 6549 clearly cited this as the source of the diagram. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
It does NOT contain the last sentence that Peter has inserted. I make no comment as to where it came from.
Can we get back to the evidence Peter was going to provide to demonstrate the doubling co2 hypothese?
I posted a nunmber of links with Hansens original calculations in 1984 that went unchallenged and were accepted by the IPCC. I also posted his obviously incorrect assumptions about global temperatures from 1987 that he put before Congress and which again were used by the IPCC.
I was going to email him and ask him to change them but he obviously recognises global temperatures are a dodgy measurement as in the third link he confirms the average temperature could be 2degres F different to what he calculated, i.e. more than double the warming he calculated in his first paper.
I also posted some new papers about solar and cloud variability-the latter of which states this is the overwhelming driver of temperatures.
Tonyb
Hi Peter,
It looks like your erroneous accusation that I “deleted” the last sentence of the statement under the picture has been corrected by others.
Go back to the reference I cited to check this for yourself:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
The lesson to be learned, Peter: Don’t go making false accusations.
It always backfires.
Regards,
Max
ALL: Further my 6566 concerning my suspicion of corrupt coding in the images and/or accompanying texts in the different versions posted by Max versus Pete, here is but one example out of several puzzles. Pete recommended that I visit the following image:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/GreenhouseGasesRegulatingTemp.html
I did so, and noticed that the text layout in that image was different yet again.
Consequently, I tried to compare it with Pete’s original text + image within MS Paint (Vista). However, upon making the comparative paste, only the image appeared, and not the text . Sheez!
(I have not encountered anything like this before!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are there any lurkers out there that know more about this stuff than me, and might be interested in investigating it? (If so, I would describe some additional puzzles)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, I opened all the relevant websites and images, and have just finished a full system scan with “Trend Internet Security”, updated earlier today. Nothing relevant was found; just the usual 16 or so cookies, some rated medium risk. Is anyone interested in doing a scan with a different internet security product and/or operating system?
the text layout in that image was different yet again
It’s not necessarily sinister, as text and images are handled differently by most programs, up and until they are scanned, when they become a single bitmap. OCR programs exist to convert the text back into machine-readable format, but it’s often easier just to retype the words – especially if the original ones didn’t convey quite the right meaning :-)
Anything on Flickr will be a bitmap, whether the text is original or not.
ALL, in his 6565, Peter Martin wrote in part, WRT my 6564, pointing to the clear simplicity of clicking the very evident Email tab, that he had previously implied as a potential difficulty. (without him simply looking beyond the end of his nose):
I’m not sure what Pete is trying to say here.
However, does anyone disagree with me that Pete should divulge WHAT he has asked of WHOM, (like simply copy his Emails here …. Not an immensely difficult task), and subsequently fearlessly post any responses back here too?
Pete also targeted me with:
Well that is a touch vague, but has anyone noticed that he has not reacted in any way to some inconvenient scientific facts that I touched-on in 6565 & 6566. For instance, how can he DENY/IGNORE the authoritative Trenberth/IPCC 3AR/AR4 cartoon, (at least in principle), and the second law of thermodynamics?
This is gob-smacking stuff!
Hey Peter,
While you are at it changing all the textbooks on “why the atmosphere gets colder at higher elevations”, straighten these guys out, too.
http://education.sdsc.edu/teachertech/downloads/climate_answ.pdf
They still believe in the Ideal Gas Law and other silly (non-greenhouse) stuff like that.
Lots of luck with your crusade to educate the world on adiabatic processes and the greenhouse effect.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
It is time to move back off of our discussion on the Ideal Gas Law (Boyle, Charles, Clapeyron) versus the Greenhouse Effect (Arrhenius, etc.) as these apply to atmospheric temperature change with altitude, and get back onto our main topic.
By now you have undoubtedly seen the brief slideshow by Prof. Lindzen, which TonyB cited.
If not, I highly recommend you study it.
The point made by Lindzen is essentially the point I have been trying to get you to respond to:
Why is it that future anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse warming should occur at a rate (per percentage increase in CO2) that is three times higher than:
(a) the “natural” CO2 greenhouse warming up to 280 ppmv as estimated by seven different equations by different scientists?
(b) the actual “anthropogenic” CO2 greenhouse warming measured over the long-term period of the Hadley record, from around 280 ppmv to around 385 ppmv?
Together with this, comes the question:
How do you, Peter, justify a positive cloud feedback as assumed by the climate models cited by IPCC that will add 1.3C to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, when the actual physical observations of Spencer et al. show this feedback to be strongly negative instead?
These are very basic questions, Peter. So far you have danced around them, made unquantified and unsubstantiated statements about “lag time”, etc., but you have NOT answered the questions.
Please refer to my posts 6534 and 6541.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
You ask:
“does anyone disagree with me that Pete should divulge WHAT he has asked of WHOM”
No Problem.
This is what I wrote to the Uni of SanDiego:
Dear Sir,
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
On this page there seems to be a contradictory statement associated with your figure on the Greenhouse effect.
If you take a look at the attachment I have indicated what I would suggest needs changing.
Best regards
Peter Martin
The attachment was: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/3590608182_f4d2d962e0_o.png
To the “howstuffworks” website I had to use a webform and I didn’t keep a record of exactly what I wrote. But I quoted the Uni of San Diego website and pointed out the difference between the two explanations.
I haven’t got a reply from either yet but I’ll let you know if I get anything back.
Max,
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying I should be accusing you of incompetence rather than duplicity? Just let me know which one you’d prefer. I don’t mind either way.
I’d just say that if I can find the phrase “with a uniform temperature in the atmosphere of 0 degrees F” within 15 seconds of looking at your link, it does surprise me that you’d failed to spot it previously.
Whatever it is that I am accusing you of, I should thank you for giving me the link to San Diego Uni. There’s a lot of wrong info on the net on this point and almost full marks to San Diego for getting it right. I will make that full marks when they resolve the contradiction between their text comment (which is correct) and the -60degF label on their graphic (which isn’t)
All,
I know that you’ve all closed your minds to this, but maybe there are a few other people reading this who haven’t. What Max’s link shows, and what I have been trying to explain, is that the natural GH theory shows that the temperature at 5000 metres high (-255 degC or -18 degC ) is the one that is needed to explain the energy balance between the Earth and the Sun. The earth’s average temperature is 288 deg C ( +15degC). The difference between the two is 33 deg C.
That’s the natural Greenhouse effect folks!
When you climb 1000 metres ( or 3200 ft for you metrically challenged Americans) you’ll typically experience a fall in temperature of 6.6 degC. A fifth of the natural GHE.
Does this make sense or does this make sense?