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.
There’s a lot of wrong info on the net on this point
Ain’t that the truth!
That’s not a particular dig at Peter, BTW – just a general observation…
Hi Peter,
You ask:
No. You do not understand me correctly.
You lied about my deleting a portion of a statement under a picture.
So I am accusing you of lying.
That’s all.
Do you understand me correctly?
Now forget all this stupid BS and get back to the unanswered questions (6534 and 6541), Peter.
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Why is the air cooler at higher altitudes?
Short answer
Source:
http://education.sdsc.edu/teachertech/downloads/climate_answ.pdf
Some basic info for you, Peter.
Does this make sense?
Max
Hey Peter,
Let us both agree to stop our exchange comparing the Ideal Gas Law with the Greenhouse theory (and their relative impacts on the temperature lapse rate), and get back to the main topic here: the incorrectly assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C.
Justify this, if you can, by answering my questions.
Regards,
Max
BobFJ,
It’s obvious that Pete worked himself into a corner with his statements in his zeal to outfox Max and now is attempting to somehow get out of his predicament by being cute.
I wouldn’t waste my (your) time researching doctored statements, (a wild goose chase).
He’s attempting to change the course of the thread to divert the discussion away from his erroneous statement. Politicians do this all of the time……some sort of scandal comes about and they create another scandal/talking point to divert the focus of discussion away from the original point until it appears to be less appalling, (see: the Obama White House daily press conference).
Gentlemen (and any lady lurkers)
I had a quick look at the diagram contested by Max and Peter.
I used the reference provided by Max
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
to get to the site, and it does indeed correspond to the entry Max posted above.
HOWEVER
If you hover your mouse over the picture in the site you’ll notice the pointer changes indicating a hyperlink that produces a pop-up the corresponds exactly to the picture Peter posted.
So strictly in the context of the picture reference they are both right. No one was apparently trying to mislead, the source info was inconsistant.
Now everyone take a deep breath and be friends again :)
Hi Peter,
To make it easier to understand your dilemma with the exaggerated IPCC AGW estimate versus the actual observed AGW increase to date as well as all of the seven equations we discussed, I’ve put this into an easy table.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3592387554_9c9703dbd6_b.jpg
Why is the IPCC estimate so far out of line with everything else?
This is basically the 3 questions in simplified form.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Max
Barelysane
Thanks for your post.
I’m OK with that.
And with getting back to our topic here, which is exaggerated IPCC estimates for AGW impact.
Regards,
Max
Here’s a short summary of his position from Dr Syun Akasofu (Peter’s erstwhile hero). I liked this:
Oh no – Climate change could kill your pet.
Hi Robin
Thanks for that link, i found point 19 particularly damning.
Hi Peter,
You have seen and studied the Spencer et al. paper on net cloud feedback, confirming that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative.
Spencer’s physical observations demonstrated that over the tropics (20°N to 20°N, an area that represents approximately 1/3 of the Earth’s surface) the net feedback was –6.1 W/m^2°K.
There was another study by Joel Norris, which has also come out after IPCC AR4, based on long-term cloud trends covering a larger portion of the Earth’s surface:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf
This was a long term study of the net effect of clouds based on annual mean cloud cover surface observations since 1952 of different types of clouds at low, middle and high altitude, compared with ERBE satellite measurements of the radiation anomaly. The study confirmed that the net feedback from clouds was strongly negative.
Copied from the study:
So we have two totally separate studies, both based on actual physical observations (rather than just climate model assumptions), which confirm that the net cloud feedback is strongly negative.
The models cited by IPCC assumed a strongly positive net feedback of +0.69 W/m^2°K, which was calculated to cause a 2xCO2 sensitivity increase of 1.3°C (out of the total of 3.2°C).
The Norris study shows us that actual physical observations do not support this assumption, and that the actual feedback should be –0.8 W/m^2°K, with a 2xCO2 sensitivity decrease of 1.5°C.
Correcting the IPCC assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity for the erroneous model assumption on cloud feedbacks, puts it at:
2xCO2 climate sensitivity = + 3.2° – 1.3° – 1.5°C = + 0.4°C
Just something for you to think about as you prepare your answers to my three questions.
Regards,
Max
Max
Peter seems reluctant to answer your three questions so to help him out I have gathered together Hansens relevant papers as they underpin the IPCC’s co2/temperature assertions
1)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
(global temperatures to 1880)
2)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
(Hansens large margin of error for global temperature)
3)
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Hansens 1984 co2 hypotheses calculations (go to Climate sensitivity Reconsidered’ in this latter link)
4) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hansen_agu2008bjerknes_lecture1.pdf
Update in 2008 explaining how the doubling figure was arrived at
5)
Readers might like to compare this with Lindzens explanation (without the emotive photos of grandchildren)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/lindzens-climate-sensitivty-talk-iccc-june-2-2009/
tonyb
Here’s a good editorial…………..
The Breath Tax
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jphillips/2009/06/01/the-breath-tax/
Max,
I’m not quite sure what it is that you think I haven’t answered. I’m happy to answer straightforward questions but not loaded questions:
They may not be exactly the same as this but this is the theme of them all:
“why are the communist IPCC trying to destroy western civilisation, and the American way of life, motherhood and apple pie, by overestimating the figure for 2xCO2 and not handing over control of their activities to, and completely ignoring, real scientists like Prof Lindzen and Dr Spencer who would make the problem go away overnight?”
The natural GHE of 33 degs is well worth studying. It’s probably the best evidence that you can’t just go doubling CO2 concentrations and expect only minimal changes. I do think you’ve closed you mind to the possibility that the IPCC may just be right. If you can’t understand the natural GHE how can you possibly say that the enhanced GHE is nothing to worry about? I do appreciate that there is contradictory information on the net about this the reason for the 33 degC temperature difference. It would do your credibility a power of good if you could explain why you think one is correct in your own words rather than just indulging battles of “cuts and paste”.
On the question of whether or not you were engaged in duplicity: It wasn’t me who first noticed that the disputed text was retyped in a different font! Why not just copy graphic and caption in exactly the same way that I did?
ALL, I see that Peter Martin wrote in part in his 6575:
This is what I wrote to the Uni of SanDiego:
As Pete should admit from reading various posts above, he should be aware that there are three different versions of the text attached to the common diagram at the ucsd.edu/ website, as follows: (with Bold emphasis added, highlighting the differences):
(1) Figure demonstrating the importance of greenhouse gases in regulating the temperature of the lower atmosphere. The top diagram shows a greenhouse Earth where the apparent temperature “surface” lies 5000m up in the atmosphere from the land surface. In the past 100 years this apparent temperature “surface” has been rising. By contrast, without a greenhouse effect, the Earth would look like the lower diagram.
[This appears to be the baseline version to which a subsequent addition and then a correction were made]
(2) Figure demonstrating the importance of greenhouse gases in regulating the temperature of the lower atmosphere. The top diagram shows a greenhouse Earth where the apparent temperature “surface” lies 5000m up in the atmosphere from the land surface. In the past 100 years this apparent temperature “surface” has been rising. By contrast, without a greenhouse effect, the Earth would look like the lower diagram, with a uniform temperature in the atmosphere of 0 °F.
(3) Figure demonstrating the importance of greenhouse gases in regulating the temperature of the lower atmosphere. The top diagram shows a greenhouse Earth (the real Earth) where the black-body (radiative) “surface” lies 5000m up in the atmosphere from the land surface. In the past 100 years this “surface” has been rising. The lower diagram shows what the Earth would look like without a greenhouse effect, with 0°F at the ground.
A logical examination of the three versions, is that (1), as first cited by Max does not offend any laws of physics, and neither does (3) which appears to be a correction of (2). However, (2) is clearly in error, and is the one that Pete wants to perform his prima donna act with. (it also offends some laws of physics)
If Pete was sincere and logical rather than in his carry-on here, then rather than suggest a correction to (2) using his (or Realclimate’s ?) unique (WRONG) interpretations of the laws of physics, he should have simply asked: which of the three is currently considered to be correct!!!
The natural GHE of 33 degs is well worth studying (Peter, 6590)
Sounds reasonable. Please forgive a basic question, but how much of that is due to CO2?
JamesP,
You ask ” how much of that [the 33 degC natural GHE] is due to CO2?”
That’s a good question. If you read the realclimate guys they make a point of saying just how hard it is to say. Depending on how its being measured it comes out between 9% and 26%. But everything depends on everything else so you really need to build a computer model to do a sensible job.
If you look at Roy Spencers website he says that 80-90% is due to water vapour with rest due to GHGs of CO2, methane, Ozone.
Shouldn’t overlook the other GHG’s. I am guilty of that sometimes. I’d say it was more like 70%-80%.
If the true answer is 90% then there probably isn’t too much to worry about. However if it is 80% water vapour and 20% GHGs that means GHG’s contribute 33/5 = 6.2 degs. Thats a worrying amount and not at all inconsistent with the IPCC’s findings.
I’d personally put it just slightly higher if pressed.
Thanks, Peter.
It’s the uncertainty of it all that bothers me most. As the San Diego site says about clouds: “Unfortunately, the role of clouds in the radiation balance is as yet poorly understood. Different types of clouds have different effects, and this makes the calculations complicated and the results uncertain.”
This is fine while generally admitted, but all of a sudden caution seems to have been thrown to the wind, and ‘the science is settled’. As this thread testifies, very little seems to be settled, yet governments and the MSM are behaving as though AGW is the law of gravity!
Hi Peter,
In your latest post (6590) you stated:
Here are the questions again (please refer also to the table in my #6582):
Question #1: Why should future anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse warming occur at a rate that is 3 times higher than the rates established by the seven equations we discussed, which I put into the simplified table #6582, (i.e. 2xCO2 =3.2°C versus 0.95°C on average)?
Question #2: The observed linear warming since 1850 has been 0.65°C. Several solar scientists tell us that between 30 and 50% of this can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity, leaving between 0.32 and 0.45°C for all other forcing factors. If we assume that this warming is 100% attributable to the greenhouse impact of human CO2, this checks fairly closely with the 2xCO2 average impact of the seven equations (i.e. 0.95°C). Why does IPCC assume that the future anthropogenic warming will occur at a 2xCO2 impact that is over 3 times this high (i.e. 3.2°C)?
Question #3: Physical observations on cloud feedbacks have shown that these are strongly negative rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all the climate models cited by IPCC, with an admitted large uncertainty (albeit prior to the release of the cited physical observations). Adjusting the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as assumed by IPCC for the actual (versus the model-assumed) feedback on clouds, puts this back at a bit less than one-third of the assumed value of 3.2°C, and back in line with #1 and #2, above. Is there any compelling reason why the model assumptions should not be revised downward to reflect this correction based on the actually observed physical data, rather than just on climate model input assumptions?
As you can see, the “gist” of these three questions has nothing to do with your silly “apple pie” statement, but that IPCC has exaggerated the projected future impact of AGW by a factor of three, as evidenced by three independent sources of data:
a) the seven theoretical equations for the CO2 greenhouse effect
b) the long-term physically observed anthropogenic warming to date
c) the physically observed strongly negative feedback on clouds
If there is something about the wording of any of these three questions that you do not like because you feel they are “loaded”, please be specific: how would you re-word the questions to eliminate the objectionable part(s)?
I am awaiting your reply. In the meantime, make sure you read the Norris study on cloud feedbacks, which I cited.
To your statement:
That discussion has been concluded. You made an accusation of either duplicity or stupidity on my part, which was shot down by several other observers and then by myself. Let it RIP, Peter. My feelings are not hurt.
To your other statement:
I can understand the natural GHE (as I’m sure Prof. Lindzen and Dr. Spencer can, as well). I conclude, as Lindzen and Spencer do, as well, that AGW is nothing to worry about, precisely because IPCC has exaggerated the problem by a factor of THREE, essentially making an alarming mountain out of an insignificant molehill.
Answer the questions, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Thanks for posting all the links for Peter to answer the 3 questions.
Maybe he will simply answer the way that Hansen does (in his latest blurb with the cute grandchildren):
or even cuter:
Nailed, indeed! And we’re screwed!
Regards,
Max
ALL: Further to my 6591, I also see that Peter Martin demonstrates in his 6558, his astonishing ignorance of some elementary physics, (or is possibly trolling?). Of course there is nothing to be ashamed of in any person knowing virtually nothing about physics, because we humans have a variety of interests, talents, and expertise that cannot possibly embrace all fields of knowledge etc. (and how wonderful to the spice of life that is! …. I doubt if e.g. Rachmaninoff would be interested in this stuff). However, I find it to be an objectionable matter when some fruitcakes make scientific assertions and attempt to lecture others on them, whom they define as denialists, when they evidently have extremely low or naïve skills in the subject!!!! (or maybe are trolling)
Anyhow, back to his 6558, Pete yet again went blah blah blah and waffle waffle, ignoring things like the IPCC/Trenberth cartoon, adiabatics and law 2, previously posted, and concluded as follows: (bold emphasis/ [context] added by me):
Sheez! This is absolute nonsense of course. For instance, if the Earth had a GHG free atmosphere, Pete appears to be assuming that the surface would be radiating at 255K (or about zero F). Yet, the fact is that (hypothetically) the surface would have an extremely wide range of T elevated above background absolute T, because it has been heated (mostly) via solar insolation.
However, if the atmosphere does not absorb any EMR (radiation) either as insolation or as outgoing long-wave EMR, then is it safe to assume that there is nothing heating it, and it should be at somewhere around background absolute T, of minus ~271C?????
Well NO, emphatically not! There is this other HEAT transfer stuff like conduction-convection, and evapo-transpiration, that the IPCC high-priest Kevin Trenberth, quantifies as 61% of the heat loss from the Earths surface into the atmosphere. (with our current atmosphere, and ~71% oceans).
Ah yes but ….Pete seems to assert that with a GHG free atmosphere this would NOT HAPPEN.
This is of course is a load of old bollocks!
Here is an experiment to establish as a simple example the behaviour of fluids to heat-induced conduction-convection. Place a pot of water on a stove and heat it in daylight and observe it until it boils. (water being easier to observe than a gas). The prime phenomena of turbulence caused by convection can be easily observed with increasing violence as boiling point is reached. Consider the fact that water is transparent to visible light, and that any long-wave EMR around can be ignored in terms of comparative energy magnitude.
Time the duration of the process.
Repeat the same experiment with identical ambient, quantities, and whatnot but this time in total darkness. Time the duration of the process, using non invasive detection techniques.
There will be no detectable difference in the results!
JamesP
Peter has given you his thoughts on the importance of CO2 as a natural GHG.
If you simply take the seven equations, which Peter and I discussed and which are shown in the table I posted with #6582, you will see that the average shows a natural CO2 GHE of 5.9°C, which is 18% of the total GHE of 33°C.
This is pretty close to Peter’s 6.2°C for all GHGs other than water.
These same equations tell us that the theoretical warming from the natural level of 280 ppmv to the present level of 385 ppmv CO2 should be on average around 0.4°C, bringing the total CO2 warming to 6.3°C out of a total GHE today of 33.4°C.
The same equations show us that if atmospheric CO2 were to rise to a level of 560 ppmv by year 2100, the added warming from today until then would be another 0.5°C.
IPCC has told us that all other anthropogenic factors other than CO2 (other GHGs, aerosols, land use changes, etc.) have essentially cancelled one another out, so we can ignore these for now.
This is obviously not “worrying”, as Peter puts it.
It would only start to become so if one adds in a bunch of assumed theoretical positive feedbacks from water vapor, clouds, etc. to inflate the theoretical greenhouse warming by a factor of 3.
Yet such an assumed multiplier is not supported by the physically observed data (the debate that Peter and I are currently having on the “three questions”).
Even at this exaggerated rate, it would tell us that the warming we could theoretically expect from CO2 to year 2100 would be 1.5°C.
I have to agree with Prof. Lindzen that AGW is not a serious threat.
Peter obviously disagrees (but he has still not answered my 3 questions).
Regards,
Max
Thanks, Max.
I noticed this on the San Diego site:
It is carbon dioxide that moves the air toward higher temperature, so that water vapor can take over and warm it some more.
This rather implies that CO2 acts as a trigger, which I’m not too convinced about, but I’d be interested to know what you think. I do find it hard to believe that anything in such a small concentration (one molecule in 2000) can have such a profound effect…
Bob_FJ,
You write: “Pete appears to be assuming that the surface would be radiating at 255K (or about zero F). Yet, the fact is that (hypothetically) the surface would have an extremely wide range of T elevated above background absolute T, because it has been heated (mostly) via solar insolation.”
Yes 255K would be an average. You’d still get wide swings between day and night and between the poles and the equatorial regions. Even more than at present. It would be more like the moon with wider temperature swings.
“However, if the atmosphere does not absorb any EMR (radiation) either as insolation or as outgoing long-wave EMR, then is it safe to assume that there is nothing heating it, and it should be at somewhere around background absolute T, of minus ~271C?”
No, its not really safe to assume that. You’d still have conduction between the surface and the air and also convection currents to move the heat around the atmosphere.
JamesP,
“Unfortunately, the role of clouds in the radiation balance is as yet poorly understood. Different types of clouds have different effects, and this makes the calculations complicated and the results uncertain.”
Well you’ll know from your own experience that clouds have the effect of making daylight temperatures cooler. Basically they reflect the incoming sunlight. On the other hand they keep night time temperatures warmer as they trap and reflect the heat (IR radiation) emitted from the ground. The extent to which they do this also depends to some extent on their altitude too. So its not a simple question to answer and it could go one way or the other. They are just one of many possible feed-backs including water vapour content, ice albedo etc none of which are other than strongly positive.
The science is settled insofar as the danger has been flagged. Arguing that we shouldn’t do something on CO2 emissions just because the danger hasn’t been precisely quantified, is like arguing that it is safe to smoke because science can’t say for sure if smoking 20 cigarettes a day is likely to shorten lifespan by 10, 20 or 30 years.