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.
Max,
I’ve said this before. But I’ll say it again. Your assumptions are quite wrong and your equations are wrong. They are rules of thumb which you’ve pushed much too far.
You scientific ability just about stretches to working out a few logarithms. If I ask you why you think that the relationship between temp and CO2 concentration is purely logarithmic you can’t explain in your own words. All you can do is find something on the net which you think sounds OK and copy and paste it. This tells me you don’t understand it yourself. If you have a good grasp of your subject you don’t need, or even want, to do this.
On measurements, you take no notice at all of the time lags involved. If you look at the graph on page 13 of:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hansen_agu2008bjerknes_lecture1.pdf
You’ll see that after 50 years the climate response fuction around 50%. That’s a long time according to our preception but almost instantaneous in geological terms.
In your ‘assumption’ its 100% after one second!
Hi Peter,
You write:
Peter, you try to put down my scientific grasp of the situation with words. Yet you are unable to answer 3 straightforward questions to support your position of a 2xCO2 greenhouse impact of 3.2C (when all the equations we have discussed put this at 0.9C).
Sorry, Peter, YOU are the one who lacks the scientific ability to even defend your exaggerated views on greenhouse warming against three very basic questions.
Get with it, Peter, rather that trying to slur my scientific understanding, ANSWER THE 3 QUESTIONS (if you even can)!
Regards,
Max
JamesP
I sent you a longer post in response to your question, but it appears to have gotten lost.
The only way that the bit of warming expected from a doubling of CO2 from its (year 1750) level of 280 ppm to its predicted (year 2100) level of 560 ppm to be a serious threat is if one assiumes (as the model inputs cited by IPCC) that there are a series of strongly positive feedbacks, which multiply the theoretical 2xCO2 warming from 0.9C by a factor of more than three to 3.2C.
The biggest error here is the assumption that cloud feedbacks are strongly positive with warming (adding 1.3C to the 2xCO2 figure). Actual physical observations (2 independent studies) show that these assumed model inputs are wrong, and that the net feedback from clouds is negative by around 1.5C.
Correcting this error in the assumed model inputs puts the 2xCO2 impact back at 0.9C or even lower.
We have seen 45% of this warming to date (at 385 ppmv CO2) leaving us 0.5C from today to year 2100.
So you see that your question is right on target. How can such a small amount of CO2 increase cause such a big temperature increase?
The answer is: IT CAN’T (unless you inflate it threefold with assumed model inputs that are not supported by the actual facts out there).
This is Peter’s dilemma (and why he cannot answer the 3 basic questions I asked him).
Regards,
Max
Aw Peter,
You’re bringing up the old “delayed response” story with:
Not “one second”, Peter.
I’m looking at a 150+ year temperature record (1850 to today). This 150-year record shows me that CO2 caused between 0.32 and 0.45C warming over this long-term time period. Peanuts. How much of this is still hidden somewhere, Peter? Where is it “hidden”? How will it come out of “hiding”. Forget the unquantified “geological terms” wording, Peter, bring specifics, if you can, to show me that a 150+ year record is too short to capture most of what went on over those 150+ years.
Rather than making silly statements,
ANSWER THE THREE QUESTIONS.
Regards,
Max
All
I dont think this has been mentioned here yet.
It is about the 800 page response to the IPCC report
http://www.nipccreport.org/
Click on the small image on the right to download the pdf.
Its a shame its published by Heartland as much of the content will be immediately dismissed and that would negate the good work that has gone into this. Definitely worth a read.
Max, the section on clouds is particularly interesting and highlights some of the reports I mentioned a few days ago.
Tonyb
ALL: Well knock me over with a feather duster! Peter Martin wrote in part in his 6600, concerning one question, as follows:
Wow! he has finally agreed that there is HEAT TRANSFER from the surface into the atmosphere, even if the air is hypothetically totally transparent to EMR!
And yet, typically, and as recently as in 6558, two posts earlier, he wrote as follows: (my bold emphasis added):
However, to quote part of a song by Flanders and Swan on the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter
You can try it if you like but you far better notter
You can try it if you like but you far better notter
‘Cos the cold in the cooler with get hotter as a ruler
‘Cos the cold in the cooler with get hotter as a ruler
‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler
‘Cos the hotter body’s heat will pass to the cooler
Thus Pete should also admit that his statement; Full transparency = no temperature gradient; is impossible because it contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
(Mathematically, heat transfer from 1 to 2, is proportional to T1 – T2, where T2 is the temperature of the cooler matter)
Bob_FJ,
Maybe you could give us you wisdom on the outcome of this ‘thought experiment’?
We have a long closed cylinder of air in the horizontal position. The cylinder is made of perfectly insulating material. No heat can get through it.
We now rotate it into the vertical position. The air at the bottom is now at a higher pressure than the air at the top and therefore gets warmer.
What happens next? Does the bottom stay warmer or does the air in the tube gradually mix and it all settle down to the same temperature?
Peter Martin, Reur 6608, because I doubt if the others here are interested in your “experiment“, but that you may be trying to understand something that is puzzling you, (rather than trolling), I’ll respond to you this time:
No! Nothing changes because you are describing a pressure vessel in which the captured air exerts a uniform pressure in all directions, as a consequence of force reaction at its boundaries as defined by the vessel itself. This is very different to unrestrained atmospheric air that is “squashed” by the air column lying above it, and which is subjected to various dynamics. You could take your vessel to outer space and there would still be no change, because the vessel contains the same matter at the same energy level in steady state. Conduction and convection do not exist in this vessel, again, making it markedly different to an atmosphere . I could also give a quantum explanation or two, but this should be enough. (and is less complicated for you)
“…What happens next? Does the bottom stay warmer or does the air in the tube gradually mix and it all settle down to the same temperature?”
Well nada! I doubt that you can design an experiment along the lines of your intended hypothesis, and I won’t trouble myself over it, because it is simply a red herring, as far as I can see.
Furthermore, what was your purpose anyway?
Are you trying to evade the truths (elementary physics) explained variously above, and most recently in 6607?
Doesn’t gravity have an effect? I would expect the air at the bottom to compress, and warm, at the expense of the air at the top, which would expand and cool, adiabatically.
What happens if you take the lid off?
James P, Reur 6610, thank you for your interest in my 6609.
In reply, it is sequentially logically better if I take your two questions in reverse order thus:
You asked secondly;
Well the consequence of that would be that various atmospheric dynamics such as conduction, convection, and evaporative cooling, would then be facilitated, and gravitational effects would also have some import. (although the extremely important advection of air and the thermo-haline ciculation of ~ 71% oceans would still be prevented by the sides of the tube in Pete’s hypothetical-intent-no-go experiment!)
And, WRT your first question;
In a closed perfect steady state pressure vessel as defined in Pete’s experiment, and concerning your suggestion of a gravitational influence; there is actually no such influence. This can be verified in terms of Newtonian physics, and also quantum theory/mechanics. However, if we take the simple observable Newton’s thingy of: For every force, there is an equal and opposite reaction, then in a FLUID in an enclosed pressure vessel, one can translate that the force reaction at the “top” of the vessel is the same as at the “bottom”. This is blindingly obvious for example in the case of incompressible fluids, such as is demonstrated in say a hydraulic clutch system in a car. In the case of compressible fluids, (gas), it is perhaps less obvious, but nevertheless, Newton’s thingy still logically applies, even if it might benefit from further explanation.
A fuller verification of that WRT gases suggests an adventure into quantum mechanics/theory.
I could go looking for some preliminary reading for you, but please be warned, that if you do not accept/understand the above brevity, YOU will need to do a lot of work yet! in QM!!
Sincerely; thankyou for your interest!
Thank you, Bob. I do believe you (easier than learning QM!) but it does seem a bit counter-intuitive. If you put the tube vertically to begin with, capturing a column of atmospheric air, are you saying that the interal pressure would equalise as soon as you capped the ends, or is that not a fair corollary?
interal = internal. I’m sure you knew.
Hi JamesP
Peter has given you another “snow job” with his non-statement on clouds.
Here is the real story:
IPCC used climate model estimates based on the input assumption that clouds have a strongly positive feedback, strong enough to increase the 2xCO2 impact from 1.9°C by about 70% to 3.2°C (IPCC AR4 Report, Chapter8). This assumption was the basis for future global warming projections.
At the same time (despite making this very strong assumption on clouds), IPCC conceded, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
Other studies lamented that there were no real physical observations to confirm the model assumptions on clouds, and that (as a result) it was not possible to say whether or not the net feedback from clouds is positive (warming) or negative (cooling).
Two studies were published after IPCC published its report (Spencer, Norris).
The two studies used two different methods and time frames to observe the actual long-term feedback from clouds.
Both of these independent studies were based on extensive actual physical observations on cloud feedbacks with warming (not simply on model input assumptions). They both confirmed that clouds have a strongly negative (cooling) feedback with warming, at an order of magnitude at least as high as the net positive feedback incorrectly assumed by IPCC (one study estimates –1.5°C, the other is a bit higher).
Correcting this incorrect assumption (and clearing up this “largest source of uncertainty” of IPCC) puts the 2xCO2 impact at 3.2 – 1.3 – 1.5 = 0.4°C.
Being generous, we could say that the corrected maximum 2xCO2 impact should be no higher than 0.9°C, rather than 3.2°C, as assumed by the IPCC models.
This whole episode goes to show how incorrect input assumptions to climate models can lead to grossly exaggerated forecasts for the future.
So we should correct Peter’s statement:
An updated, more correct statement today would be:
Now to Peter’s sentence:
The science is, of course, not at all “settled” on the premise that AGW (from human CO2 emissions) is a danger at all.
The danger of smoking cigarettes, on the other hand, has been clearly demonstrated by hundreds of long-term clinical trials involving thousands of patients, which demonstrated a clear increase in pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases in those patients that smoked versus those that did not.
To compare this with global warming is not only misleading, it is totally absurd.
Just to clear up some of the BS Peter is feeding you.
Regards,
Max
JamesP,
You ask if “doesn’t gravity have an effect”. And yes, of course it does. You are quite right , initially at least, the air at the bottom is compressed and temperature rises.
You ask what happens if we take the lids off. On earth, with its atmosphere, the answer is nothing much changes. But we can consider that there is no atmosphere at all if we like. Its just a “thought experiment” and although some may consider them to be a complete waste of time, they are a very useful way of defining the essence of a particular physical problem in order to be able to understand what is going on.
So there is absolutely no doubt that you are right. The question is what happens next. Now I have previously reasoned that a vertical column of air in a gravitational field with no other influences on it whatsovever: No incoming radiation, no outgoing radiation. no heat coming in, no heat going out etc , will eventually equalise to the same temperature throughout its height. As even Bob_FJ knows, heat always moves from hot to cold.
The problem is a lot harder than it first appears. I’m still thinking about it but I do have to say that I’m now not sure I’m right about that.
Max,
You always seem to feel somewhat uncomfortable whenever the parallels between disputing the science on AGW and smoking are discussed.
The Heartland institute seem to take it all in their stride, so I can’t see why you should have a problem with it. They were very influential is delaying anti smoking legislation in the US, and elsewhere, for many years. Their main arguments may sound familiar: the science wasn’t sound, there were flaws, it was driven by a political agenda, 20000 doctors had signed to disagree with the consensus etc.
I’ve just taken a quick look at what the Heartland Institute are currently saying on the smoking issue:
http://www.heartland.org/article/23759/Smoking_Bans_and_Property_Rights_.html
It looks to me that they are still haven’t quite given up. What do you think?
Hi Peter,
You wrote:
No discomfort at all, Peter. This is a red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing debate on whether or not AGW is really a serious threat.
Direct smoking of cigarettes has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be detrimental to human health.
AGW has NOT been proven to be a serious threat.
Instead of bringing up totally irrelevant “red herrings”, answer my 3 questions, Peter, and stop waffling.
Regards,
Max
James P, Reur 6612
In the observable world, that is true, although at QM level there would be a “quantum delay“. What causes the observed pressure inside a vessel are the molecules in the gas impacting its walls. These little guys move very fast and also collide with each other at very high frequencies, such that in practical terms there is no delay in redistribution of pressure and energy level. Maxwell’s thingy; a bell curve, gives more info, and free-path lengths, speeds, and frequencies of collision, can all be calculated. These postulates are not affected by gravity.
To demonstrate that last point here is an article that is rather lengthy but that you might find interesting as it elegantly covers some basics closely related to the above:
The Historical Development of Quantum Theory
Oh, and despite its length, and I’ve only skipped through it, a digital search of the words ‘gravity’ and ‘gravitational’ are not found.
Bob_FJ,
Your post 6618 is just the most utter nonsense.
Of course, adding or removing caps, on the ends of the tube, either before or after it is placed in an upright position, is going to make stuff all difference to the pressure inside it.
Bringing QM into the argument to try to justify this nonsense? Go back to your Cabernet Merlot , Bob!
The question we are trying to answer is whether a vertical column of air in a gravitational field, with no outside influences has a stable uniform temperature gradient. And it turn, that will help answer the question of whether an atmosphere with no natural GHE would be warmer at the surface than at altitude.
Common sense would appear to suggest that it should not. But if common sense were enough why bother with science?
James P, I see that Peter Martin rambled in part, in his 6619:
Surprise, surprise; This is one of those rare occasions, where I totally agree with him! However, I thought that his “experiment” and its debate was about process! The scale or magnitude of any results in the process are irrelevant to the consideration of the processes themselves.
Pete seems to be upset about me introducing a touch of QM, in order to better understand the fundamental difference between a pressure vessel versus a column of atmospheric air. (The WHY of it). Assuming a practical earth-bound scale in those comparisons, (considered in metres, rather than kilometres), I agree; there is only trivial difference in outcome. However, the mechanics of the processes involved, are very very different.
To demonstrate how handy QM can be, to help understand worldly things, despite Pete’s objection to it:
One of the most elegantly simple QM demonstrations of HOW something works as distinct from WHAT we observe, (without necessarily defining the reason of WHY it is so), is evaporative cooling. It is exquisitely simple in QM; following on from proof that the molecules within a fluid at any given T have varying kinetic energy/velocity distribution, described under a bell curve.
In the case of water, sitting under an atmosphere, those water molecules with higher KE/velocity, are best able to escape, (evaporate into the air), by virtue of their higher energy/heat. In the process, a larger proportion of lower energy molecules are left behind, with a consequence that there is a cooling.
I don’t find the rest of Pete’s confusing self contradictory waffle to be worthy of comment.
However, please say so if you feel otherwise.
tempterrain (Peter):
I see (#4616) that you refer to the smoking/cancer link. That was unwise, Peter. I suggest you refer back to my #5959 where I show how that link was established by detailed reference to empirical evidence – something you’ve repeatedly failed to demonstrate has happened re the alleged GHG/warming link.
Tempterrain, Bob_FJ
Some basics on atmospheric lapse rate (temperature decrease with increased altitude), taken from Wikipedia for your discussion on this topic:
There are three lapse rates, which are commonly used. These explain how the atmosphere cools at higher altitudes.
The reason why it does so is explained as follows:
For an ideal gas, the equation relating temperature T and pressure p for an adiabatic process is:
(Equation 1)
p*(z)^( ? – 1) / T*(z)^ ? = constant (Equation 1)
NOTE: See attachment for Lapse Rate Equations
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3561/3599493981_cd59b92bd1_b.jpg
where ? is the heat capacity ratio (?=7/5, for dry air) and z is the altitude. A second relation between the pressure and temperature is the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium:
(Equation 2)
(dp / dz) = – (m*p*g / R*T )
where g is the standard gravity, R the gas constant and m the molecular mass. Combining these two equations to eliminate the pressure, one arrives at the result for the dry adiabatic lapse rate:
(Equation 3)
– (dT / dz) = (mg / R) * (? – 1) / ? = 9.8 °C / km
As calculated above, the dry adiabatic lapse rate DALR (the lapse rate when there is no water vapor condensing as the air cools) = 9.8°C per 1,000 meters change in altitude
The saturated adiabatic lapse rate SALR (the lapse rate when the relative humidity of the air is at 100%, or the temperature is at the dew point) = 4.9°C per 1,000 meters change in altitude. This is lower than the DALR due to the heat released from the condensing water.
The saturated adiabatic lapse rate can be calculated by the following equation:
(Equation 4)
(dT / dz) = – (2*M*g / 7*R)* [1 + (P*v*L/P*R*T)] / [ 1 + (2*P*v*L^2 / 7*P*R^2T^2)]
The environmental lapse rate ELR (the actual average lapse rate at the actual average humidity) = (on average) 6.5°C per 1,000 meters change in altitude.
The lapse rates are used by meteorologists to forecast weather. For example, they are used to determine if the parcel of rising air will rise high enough for its water to condense to form clouds, and, having formed clouds, whether the air will continue to rise and form bigger shower clouds, and whether these clouds will get even bigger and form cumulonimbus clouds (thunder clouds).
Sorry to be so long-winded, but Wiki gives a good summary of the theory behind lapse rates that might be helpful in your discussion.
Regards,
Max
Tempterrain, Bob_FJ
BTW there are published tables of the “heat capacity ratios” for various gases (for calculating the adiabatic lapse rate).
At 20 degC these are:
1.40 Nitrogen
1.40 Oxygen
1.40 Dry air
1.30 CO2
1.33 H2O (vapor)
1.67 Argon
They all tend to increase slightly at lower temperatures.
So you can see a 79/21 mix of Nitrogen/Oxygen has the same ratio as dry air, despite the bit of Argon and CO2 that have different ratios.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Here is another “thought game” related to our main topic here, which you can contemplate as you are formulating your reply to my 3 specific questions.
Let’s call this the “Peter’s Pipeline Principle” on global warming equilibrium time delay.
If refers to your statement that changes in atmospheric CO2 do not result in immediate warming, but that much of the anticipated theoretical warming remains “hidden in the pipeline” for many years as “equilibrium” is gradually reached. While not providing any quantitative data for estimating this impact, or any scientific explanation of how this works, you have hinted at a delay of 50 to 100 years for all of the warming to reach full “equilibrium”.
Let’s do another reality check on just how significant this “PPP” delay really is.
Starting with the theoretical 2xCO2 warming based on the average of the seven logarithmic and non-logarithmic equations we have discussed, we see that these tell us that the total theoretical anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse warming from pre-industrial year 1750 (280 ppmv CO2) to the projected level in year 2100 (560 ppmv) is 0.9°C (at “equilibrium”).
To date we have seen an increase to 385 ppmv, which corresponds to a total theoretical anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse warming of 0.41°C (at “equilibrium”).
If we assume that the “PPP” delay is 50 years, we have:
Warming to date = 0.41°C (of which 0.14°C is still “hidden in the pipeline”)
If we assume that the “PPP” delay is 100 years, we have:
Warming to date = 0.41°C (of which 0.20°C is still “hidden in the pipeline”)
(If you would like to see how this was calculated, let me know. It’s fairly straightforward.)
So let us look into the future, assuming that there are no offsetting or enhancing natural forcing factors (in itself, a quantum leap of faith).
Let’s assume that CO2 increases linearly from 385 to 560 ppmv from today to year 2100 (1.9 ppmv/year over the 92 years). This represents an additional theoretical warming of 0.49°C (at “equilibrium”).
With a 50-year “PPP” time lag, there will still be 0.12°C of this “hidden in the pipeline” in 2100.
With a 100-year “PPP” time lag, there will still be 0.30°C of this “hidden in the pipeline” in 2100.
So how much warming (in °C) will the thermometers show us in the year 2100?
With a 50-year “PPP” time lag:
0.27 warming observed to date
0.14 still “in the pipeline” today, but coming out by year 2100
0.49 expected theoretical warming from today to year 2100, of which
-0.12 is still “in the pipeline” in 2100
For a total observed anthropogenic CO2 GH warming of 0.78°C (and 0.12°C still “hidden in the pipeline”.
With a 100-year “PPP” time lag:
0.27 warming observed to date
0.14 still “in the pipeline” today, but coming out by year 2100
0.49 expected theoretical warming from today to year 2100, of which
-0.30 is still “in the pipeline” in 2100
For a total observed anthropogenic CO2 GH warming of 0.60°C (and 0.30°C still “hidden in the pipeline”.
These rough calculations show that the “PPP” time delay does not have a significant impact on anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse warming, and can be ignored.
Peter, if you would like to show me your “PPP” time lag calculation, it would be interesting to make a comparison.
But please don’t let these fun “thought games” distract you from answering my 3 specific questions.
Regards,
Max