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.
Hi Peter,
Here is the picture to go with my 6624.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3600826910_f2e2a1aced_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
You and Peter have been discussing theoretical “air cylinder” “thought games”.
Here is a simple air bottle experiment that demonstrates why air cools as it rises to regions of lower pressures at higher elevations (without the benefit of any greenhouse effect).
The air is warmed by the Earth’s surface, and as it is warmed it rises. As a rising parcel of air moves into regions of lower pressure, it expands. And as it expands, it cools. The reason for this is that the air has to do work to expand, and so its temperature must decrease—in an adiabatic system, since the only possible source of energy for the work of the expansion is the thermal energy of the gas itself.
http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/docs/CMMAP/tenthings/ExpansionCooling.pdf
It’s really all about physics as we learned it, way back in the days before multi-million dollar climate model computers and politically motivated high-pressure AGW salesmen.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I think the explanation given in the Colorado State Uni link you’ve given is correct, at least as far as it goes. This means that the temperature in our cylinder of gas in a gravitational field is not constant but does vary with that field. This maybe is a little counter intuitive. After all Bob_FJ has reminded us that heat does flow from hot to cold but in this case everything is stable and no heat is flowing.
I previously said that if there were no GHE the temperature on Mt Everest would be the same as elsewhere as on the same latitude. I’ve now changed my opinion on that. Yes I agree now that it would be colder. But how much colder?
If the natural GHE has no bearing at all on the answer, then just as we can say that the surface of the earth, at sea level, would be 33 degC colder without the GHE so also would it be at the summit of Mt Everest. But the summit of Mt Everest is well above most of the water vapour and other GHG’s that cause the GHE. So wouldn’t the GH effect would be much less there?
If I’m correct in saying this, then this means there are two factors involved in the explanation of why atmospheric temperature varies with altitude.
It would be good to know what proportion each effect contributes to the whole. In principle, if this were known and enough temperatures were taken at different altitudes it should be possible to directly measure the GHE and any changes to it caused by changing amounts of GH gases in the atmosphere.
Hi Peter,
Regarding the temperature change with increased altitude, the theory tells us that the dry adiabatic lapse rate for air equals 9.8C per km.
The theory also tells us that at 100% relative humidity, the saturated adiabatic lapse rate is only 4.9C per km, due to the latent heat added from the condensing water at lower temperatures.
Apparently the actual environmental lapse rate varies from location to location but is (on average) around 6.5C per km, or somewhere between the theoretical dry and saturated adiabatic lapse rates.
I have no idea how much the greenhouse effect contributes to the environmental lapse rate and how much is due to the ideal gas law (plus convection currents, clouds, etc.).
I have not heard anywhere that the average environmental lapse rate has changed significantly since the Industrial Revolution, but maybe there is some info out there on this.
I personally do not believe that the greenhouse effect has much to do with the lapse rate, and that it is mostly controlled by adiabatic processes, local differences in relative humidity, air circulation patterns, clouds, etc. (but I am no meteorologist).
Regards,
Max
Hi Max; Reur 6622, 6623, and 6627, concerning adiabatic lapse rates.
When I first sighted your posts, earlier in the day, especially the first two, I had to go, but framed some thoughts for this evening, that perhaps your posts were far too complicated for Pete to understand. The simpler approach that I have preferred was that a hypothetically TOTALLY TRANSPARENT atmosphere could not exist at a background absolute T of ~ minus 271C, because of conduction etc from the mostly -solar heated planetary surface, and that consequently, law 2 means that the atmosphere MUST have a declining T gradient upwards, in order for the evident and provable heat transfer to take place. (remember that originally, Pete was gob-smackingly asserting that a transparent atmosphere would have zero T gradient! …. It is still not clear to me if that assertion of his was based on his own intuition, or rather something from Gavin, or Tamino, et vomito!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, to my big surprise, if I can adequately translate Pete’s weasel words in his 6628, it seems to me that there may be some light at the end of the tube!
And yet still: there are some glaring points upon which Pete should exert more care, or recognition of the facts thereupon, and here are but two:
(a) For instance, he rambled in part:
“…This means that the temperature in our cylinder of gas in a gravitational field is not constant but does vary with that field. This maybe is a little counter intuitive… [blah blah blah]…”Oh Lordy Lordy! If Pete is referring to his original experiment of an enclosed perfect cylinder of gas, this has absolutely no analogy with a column of free atmospheric air. (the latter being your recent topic Max)
To affirm and elaborate concerning; A PERFECT cylinder of air, (pressure vessel), presumably initially at sea level, (as firstly proposed by Peter Martin), contains air at ~14.7 PSI absolute. It matters not how its spatial orientations or subsequent location in the universe or whatnot are altered, or the magnitude of the gas pressure; it is fact that the steady state of the captured air (within a PERFECT pressure vessel) would be perfectly uniformly maintained.
If this may seem counter intuitive to the reader, then some consideration of the QM may be helpful!
It may also be helpful to contemplate a cylinder of say liquid nitrogen, and lug it around to a variety of extereme environments.
(b) Max you wrote in part in your 6623:
“…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 [top of the list]>>>
So….. ~80% of the earth’s atmosphere has a rather healthy “heat capacity ratio”, WRT lapse rate, and so I wonder if Pete noticed that Nitrogen (80%) is very transparent to the Armageddon GHE wavelengths?
Gotta go for now!
Bob_FJ
You may have mentioned this in an earlier post, but a very interesting alternate theory on global warming proposed by the Hungarian mathematician, Ferenc Miskolczi, contains a simple proof that the greenhouse effect is bound to a fixed value and cannot ‘runaway’, or even increase.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/New_developments.htm
According to the theory, adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapor to maintain a constant greenhouse effect, resulting in a negligible effect on global temperatures.
Any warming we have seen over the past century can be attributed to solar influence, changes in land use and surface albedo, etc., but not due to an enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from human CO2 emissions.
Miskolczi supports his theory with physical observations of humidity trends at various altitudes. These show that the relative humidity has been dropping since 1948, especially at higher elevations, allowing more heat to escape to space.
He also takes on the “missing CO2 hotspot”.
A detailed review of the theory of Miskolczi (with some interesting comments) can be read on:
http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/
http://landshape.org/enm/the-virial-theorem-miskolczi-part-2/
http://landshape.org/enm/kirchhoff-law-miskolczi-part-3/
http://landshape.org/enm/radiative-equilibrium-miskolczi-part-4/
http://landshape.org/enm/models-of-greenhouse-effect/
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-physics/
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-physics/
This gets into some pretty heavy mathematics and physics, but it is interesting to read, particularly the review and comments.
It appears that there is something to this theory (although I am sure that James E. Hansen would not agree).
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
My last post to you is still in the filter, but I just noticed that I forgot a link:
http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ
That link is
http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
This may all be “old hat” to you, but here is another link that may be of interest, which explains the Miskolczi theory in simpler terms and shows how it ties to actual physical observations:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
Hello everyone,
I’ve been involved in a large project, and have been unable to actively participate in the thread, though I have been able to catch-up in an expedited fashion. I’ve not had the time to dig into the posts, nor, certainly, comment myself, but I’m glad to see that Max and Peter are still standing toe-to-toe, but disappointed that in my extended absence you collectively haven’t solved the problem!
I may be able to get more involved over the next few weeks.
Well done, everyone!
“Dr Miskolczi’s theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.”
You guys obviously won’t agree with this theory as you are of the opinion that CO2 won’t produce much, if any warming, anyway. Or are you saying that you’ll accept CO2 warming but only if its ‘eventually’ offset later? How long is eventually? What happens if there is no offset? Do you go back to your earlier position? Or don’t you care what theory is correct so long as its not one of global warming?
Max,
Good to see you quoting all those equations from Wiki. It must have been heavy going checking through them all for correctness and completeness. But I know that you must have done that. After all we all know that Wiki is not to be trusted as a reference.
Didn’t you find even the tiniest of errors?
Hi Peter,
You wrote:
Actually, this is all stuff that I learned many years ago, but Wiki does give a good summary.
I have found that on straight scientific, non-AGW related, topics Wiki is a fairly good on-line source for simplified explanations, such as this one. When they get into more political stuff, such as the “science” behind AGW they are less reliable, since they apparently have a “pro-alarming-AGW” input filter.
As far as Dr. Miskolczi’s theory is concerned, it is just that. It appears to be logical and plausible, but it is far from proven.
His strongest point, I believe, is the NOAA data on historical relative humidity trends at various altitudes since 1948. As you know from previous posts, I am much more convinced by actual physical observations than by computer model outputs based on dicey input assumptions.
The NOAA data show a fairly steady reduction in relative humidity over this long-term period, at the same time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures were rising.
If nothing else, it does show that the IPCC assumption of constant relative humidity with rising temperature (leading to strongly positive water vapor feedback), is not supported by the long-term record (as Minschwaner + Dessler also demonstrated with satellite observations over a shorter time frame).
Whether or not Miskolczi’s hypothesis of an offsetting CO2 /water vapor equilibrium to maintain a constant overall greenhouse effect is correct remains to be seen.
It certainly challenges the currently prevailing “mainstream” AGW paradigm, so it is normal that defenders of the paradigm (incl. sites such as RealClimate) are trying to discredit the theory. So far, I have seen no convincing rebuttal, however.
An independent neutral audit of the theory was made on the Niche Modeling (landscape) site (references cited in post to Bob_FJ).
It’s all worth reading, just to get another possible viewpoint on the whole story, don’t you think?
Or are you one of the guys that believes “the science is settled”?
Regards,
Max
JZSmith
Welcome back!
Looking forward to your contributions here.
Max
Hi Peter,
We have gotten a bit distracted with our interesting exchanges with Bob_FJ, JamesP, Robin and others on the Ideal Gas Law as it applies to the lapse rate, the Miskolczi theory of a constant greenhouse effect, your inability (or unwillingness) to answer Robin’s question on the scientific evidence supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat, etc.
But you have still not answered my three straightforward questions.
Here are the questions again (please refer also to the table in my #6582, which I am re-posting here to refresh your memory):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3592387554_9c9703dbd6_b.jpg
Peter, for the sake of your own credibility, you should stop dancing around these simple questions and answer them.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Another “nail” in the “strongly positive water vapor feedback due to assumed constant relative humidity with warming” coffin.
Ouch!
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/?p=e209f4ac50044f93a421b19e0a636d4b&pi=0
Max
Hi Peter,
Looks like there is another GIGO assumption in the models cited by IPCC.
One of the largest “positive feedbacks” assumed by the climate models cited by IPCC is the water vapor feedback.
This feedback is theoretically derived based on the assumption that the relative humidity of the atmosphere will remain constant as temperature increases, and therefore that the water vapor content will increase.
How valid is this assumption?
As noted earlier, a study by Minschwaner + Dessler showed that the relative humidity decreases with increased temperature, rather than remaining constant. This was based on satellite observations over a 5.5 year period.
But there is an even longer range record of atmospheric water vapor content based on radiosonde data published by NOAA. This record goes back to 1948. It lists both relative humidity trends (in %) over this period, as well as absolute water content trends (specific humidity in g/kg).
This 60-year record shows that the atmospheric water content has actually decreased as globally averaged temperature has increased. So there was no physically observed increase in water vapor (and resulting “positive” feedback) as temperature rose, but a net decrease in water vapor (which would result in a “negative” feedback) instead.
I have plotted the NOAA and Hadley data.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3606945645_3450dc4e6f_b.jpg
Peter, I think you’ll have to admit that the IPCC “positive feedback story” is looking weaker and weaker, based on the physically observed facts.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
We have been talking around this subject for some time now, but you have been unable (or unwilling) to face the facts out there.
IPCC ASS-U-ME-S that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 3.2°C.
Several theoretical equations on the temperature impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 from the assumed “natural” level of 280 ppmv (back in 1750) to a projected future level of 560 ppmv (in year 2100) tell us that this impact will be around 1°C (see earlier posts).
IPCC generously ASS-U-ME-S that the 2xCO2 increase (without feedbacks) will be 1.2°C (rather than just under 1°C as the average of the various equations tell us).
The theoretical increase from 1.2° to 3.2°C is based on ASS-U-ME-D “positive feedbacks”, primarily from water vapor and clouds:
Water Vapor accounts for 1.1°C of this ASS-U-ME-D increase, with the negative Lapse Rate feedback (higher emissions into space at higher upper altitude temperatures) reducing this by around 0.6°C.
Clouds are ASS-U-ME-D to cause a further increase of 1.3°C, with Surface Albedo changes (less ice and snow to reflect incoming radiation back into space) causing a further ASS-U-ME-D increase of the remaining 0.2°C.
But let’s check actual physical observations to see how realistic these ASS-U-ME-D computer model inputs were.
The ASS-U-ME-D positive water vapor feedback was based on the assumption that relative humidity remains constant with increased temperature.
Actual physical observations (the bane of climate modelers) show that this ASS-U-ME-D constant relative humidity is incorrect. Long-term observations of atmospheric moisture content since 1948 even show that the total moisture content of the atmosphere has decreased with higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures, leading to a net negative feedback from water vapor, rather than the ASS-U-ME-D strongly positive feedback.
On clouds the ASS-U-ME-D IPCC strongly positive net feedback doesn’t do any better when compared to the actual physically observed facts.
Two independent studies show that clouds exert a strongly negative feedback with warming, of about the same order of magnitude as the ASS-U-ME-D strongly positive feedback of the IPCC models.
Surface albedo changes with a net decrease of snow and ice cover. This is ASS-U-ME-D to have occurred since 1980 or so. Actual physical observations show us that the sea ice cover has, indeed, shrunk in the Arctic. But in the Antarctic it has grown by about the same extent. Northern Hemisphere snow cover (the other part of the ASS-U-ME-D cryogenic albedo reduction) has remained roughly constant since 1980. All-in-all there has been very little change in the actually observed cryogenic surface albedo change, so that the ASS-U-ME-D positive surface albedo feedback from the IPCC climate models is also not supported by the facts on the ground.
Peter, you will have to admit that this all points to the conclusion that the theoretically ASS-U-ME-D model inputs of IPCC have not been substantiated by the actual facts on the ground, and that the ASS-U-ME-D net positive feedback of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from around 1°C to 3.2°C is a climate model input fantasy rather than fact supported by actual physical observations.
This, Peter, is your dilemma in trying to answer my three basic questions.
But I encourage you to try anyway.
Regards,
Max
PS I am sure you know why I wrote “assume” as “ASS-U-ME”. If not, I will be glad to explain.
Max,
Look we’ve been through all this before. The figure of 3.2 degs C warming is pretty much the mid point of a variety of calculations and measurements into the likely effect of doubling CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
The positive feedbacks are not just assumed. The simplest way to appreciate that they do in fact exist is to look at the natural GHE of 33 degs. If all the individual factors (CO2, water vapour, clouds, other GHGs) which contribute to the GHE were acting independently then the total effect would be much less. That the GHE is much greater than the sum of the individual parts, means that everything depends on everything else and also that the net feedbacks are positive.
If the total effect was less than the sum of the individual parts, this would indicate overall negative feedbacks.
I’m not sure why you are quibbling about the 1 degC, no feedback, figure. If you’d used the correct figure of 255 deg C for the temperature of the earth (as seen from space) you’d get the right answer too. Haven’t I told you that before?
As I’ve said before if there is any unwillingness, it is on your part in not wanting to accept any scientific answer which goes against your political beliefs. You just have to choose one or the other.
I thought all of the heat that has disappeared from the planet’s surface migrated into the oceans?
Pete,
Will you check with Joe Romm and asked where all of the heat went? I’ve been banned for writing global warming blasphemy on his site.
Max,
I think if you check the Minschwaner + Dessler paper you’ll find that they did report increased water content with temperature even though that the relative humidity decreased.
However, even if what you are suggesting about CO2 displacing water vapour were correct, you might just want to ask yourself if this would make everything alright.
We all depend on rainfall which is that water vapour condensing out of the atmosphere. That can only happen when the relative humidity increases towards 100%. Having that water vapour displaced by CO2 or even a lower relative humidity isn’t good!
Max, Reur various posts to me on Ferenc Miskolczi; many thanks for the info, and I’m sorry for delayed response. There are also several other physicists, such as those two German guys that had some interesting ideas (G & T?.… can’t think of their names at the moment…. But, unfortunately their paper included some emotional political statements and analogies that probably did not help reception in some quarters of their otherwise very good scientific paper) …. (or was it that American professor I’m thinking of?)
Whatever, although such papers do have great SCIENTIFIC VALUE and great interest to any RATIONAL scientific reader, in terms of them creating a broader acceptance of scepticism of the IPCC mantras, they may instead give opportunistic ridiculing attacks for RC and other alarmist fruitcakes. (whom prefer ridicule and ad homs, and do not appear to show any interest in the search for scientific truth…. or the long established principles of SCIENCE)
Of course, those that believe in the IPCC and various alarmist high priests such as Tamino and Gavin and….. Et vomiti…. Will be blindly sucked-in by them, and bugger the science!
A year or so ago, under my nom de blog of Black Wallaby, I was mostly active over at CA: if I can paraphrase from memory one rather sharp comment from Steve McIntyre, it went something like this; (and Tony B might confirm):
Yes, I know the work of Beck, (concerning chemically determined CO2 levels), but I don’t want it discussed here! I want us to discuss peer reviewed papers as used by the IPCC. Anything that was not used/ignored by the IPCC is not in my programme!
I respect and tend to follow this approach.
If we take this ‘ere thread, we only appear to have one AGW disciple, and despite his emphatic assertions on a wide range of scientific matters, that are apparently based only on his intuition or misunderstanding, the fact is that he displays very little in the comprehension of such scientific issues, from physics through to lowly simple data presentation, spatial perception, and whatnot!
I submit that in my view, from past observation, Peter Martin does not have any skills to even begin discussion of the Ferenc Miskolczi paper.
Sorry Max, but there are other tings that I would like to discuss.
Max
Miskolczi’s hypothesis of an offsetting CO2 /water vapor equilibrium to maintain a constant overall greenhouse effect
Seems reasonable to me. We live on a planet that has supported life for billions of years (hard to grasp, but try millions of millenia if you prefer) and yet has gone on doing so, even after major eruptions (such as Yellowstone) and meteorite strikes disruptive enough to wipe out whole species groups. To think that our ant-like activities could affect such patent stability is supreme arrogance, surely?
Bob
we only appear to have one AGW disciple
One of the most noticeable differences between AGW-supporting blogs and ones like this is the level of courtesy extended to dissenters. Peter is a useful sounding board, IMO, whatever you might think of his arguments, and I don’t think we should make him feel too unwelcome. I rarely contribute to blogs like Joe Romm’s because the replies invariably generate more heat than light and I don’t like being shouted at!
I’d feel a bit lonely in Peter’s position, too, but at least he keeps coming back…
Hi Peter,
You posted two messages to me.
I will start with #6643 where you write:
Calculations: yes. Assumptions: yes. Model outputs (based on these assumptions): yes. Actual physical observations: no.
The lack of these actual physical observations on clouds was lamented by Ramanathan and Inamdar.
The two subsequent reports that I have been able to find based on actual physical observations (Spencer, Norris) both show strongly negative feedback from clouds.
On water vapor you opined in your #6645
That’s right, Peter. As I pointed out earlier, they found an increase in water vapor over the 5.5 year study at around 10 to 20% of the amount assumed by IPCC (constant relative humidity assumption).
They show this in Fig.7 (see below).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2958955575_2c69450bd9_b.jpg
The shaded area is the actual observation, the somewhat higher dashed line is the M+D model and the steep dotted line is the constant relative humidity assumption of IPCC.
At a sea surface temperature increase of 0.5°C, you can see that the water vapor content (specific humidity) increase in ppmv is:
13 IPCC assumption at constant relative humidity
4 M+D model
1 to 2.5 actual physical observation
At 1°C (the normally used figure), these numbers are 2x the above.
So the IPCC exaggeration is around 5 to 10 times the actually observed value.
The longer range observation of NOAA shows that the water vapor content actually decreased over the period 1948 to 2008, while temperature rose, as the graph I posted (#6641) shows. I am not saying that this confirms the theory of Miskolczi, just that it refutes the IPCC assumption that relative humidity remains constant with increased temperature. It also raises serioua doubts about the IPCC assumption of any positive water vapor feedback at all.
So I believe it is high time for IPCC to take into account the actually observed physical data on both clouds and water vapor in order to correct their model assumptions to put them more in line with reality. In doing so they will end up with a net overall feedback from water vapor and clouds that is neutral to negative, as the observed data show.
Finally, you justify the positive feedback assumptions of IPCC not with actually observed physical data from today, but with a theoretical statement:
This statement proves nothing, Peter. The natural GH effect is what it is. It is caused mostly by water vapor and to a smaller extent by CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases. It in no way proves that there is a “positive feedback”. If you believe that it does, please explain your logic with some scientific evidence rather than just an assertion.
Peter, you are still waffling, but you have not answered my three basic questions yet.
I am still waiting.
Regards,
Max