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, Reur 6643, you wrote in part to Peter Martin:
Putting aside the inconvenient Antarctic facts, and whatnot, let us instead review the alleged Arctic albedo Armageddon!
This loss of albedo thingy in the Arctic, as a consequence of sea-ice melt is in my view GROSSLY OVER-HYPED, because other things come into play!
1) When the sun is in low zenith relative to the sea surface, there is very much reduced absorption of the insolation, because the photons of sunlight “ricochet“ off the surface like as to a sharply inclined mirror! (or consider a view of a sunset over the sea or a large lake in warmer climes and see the exquisitely clear evidence of low solar zenith reflection into your eyes)
2) Somewhere I have seen (from a respected university) that the albedo of old snow is about the same as water in high latitudes, per 1)
3) Water is a poor absorber of solar insolation near the surface, because it is rather transparent to daylight spectra (colour temperature of ~8000 C). However, it is “black” in infra-red colour temperatures, and IT IS THUS a strong “black body” EMITTER at those long wavelengths at the surface. (in the IR)…
4) Furthermore, the Earth’s surface water emits long-wave EMR 24/7/356, which results in CONTINUOUS HEAT LOSS, that is much greater than the heat loss from snow or ice, which by virtue of its albedo is a very poor emitter of EMR!
Gotta Go, more to come.
JamesP
Reur #6647
Yes. It does make more sense that there are natural self-regulating “negative feedbacks” in our climate system which prevent “runaway” conditions than the alternate (alarmist) view (Hansen et al.) that we are constantly being whiplashed between extremes caused by overwhelming “positive feedbacks”.
The fact that our planet has seen times when atmospheric CO2 was several times what it is today shows how absurd the Hansen prediction is that 450 ppmv (65 ppmv more than today) is a “dangerous” CO2 level which may lead to “irreversible tipping points” in our climate.
I agree with you that to think that puny man will drastically alter our planet’s global climate is anthropocentric and arrogant.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
Your post on the surface albedo changes is very interesting. The IPCC stand on this is so overly simplistic that it is ridiculous: added human CO2 should cause warming; this should cause ice and snow to melt; ice and snow are good reflectors of incoming radiation; ergo, incoming radiation should, therefore, be less effectively reflected and we should theoretically see more warming.
The problem is (besides what you mentioned on sea water as a good SW reflector and LW emitter) twofold: first, on average, the total extent of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice and N. Hemisphere snow cover has not changed appreciably since 1980, and second, the albedo effect of changes in low altitude cloud cover are ignored.
In my opinion, the myopic fixation on Arctic sea ice is as silly as the same fixation on CO2 as the principal driver of climate.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
For some time now we have been discussing the 3.2 climate sensitivity assumed by IPCC for a doubling of CO2, i.e. from the assumed “natural” level of 280 ppmv to a projected future value of 560 ppmv by year 2100.
This is the most important element of the premise that AGW is a serious threat. If there is no major increase in the theoretical 2xCO2 greenhouse impact of around 1C due to positive feedbacks, there is no threat from AGW and we can pack up IPCC and re-allocated the many billions of dollars in AGW-supported “climate research” into other areas of need (ex. providing electrical power and clean drinking water to the billions of people that are currently deprived of these basic essentials).
How logical is this 3.2C assumption? What are the bases?
You say:
But you bring no actual physical data to support your statement. Zilch. Nada. Nichts. Rien.
I provide links to several published sources of actual physical observations, which show that the underlying assumptions made to arrive at the 3.2C figure are false; these observations show (a) that the water vapor feedback in no way reflects the model assumption of constant relative humidity with increased temperature and there is even serious doubt whether warmer temperatures have actually caused any increase in atmospheric water vapor content at all, based on the long-term record, and (b) that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed for all the climate models.
So far you have brought only blah-blah, and I have provided references to actual long-term physical observations.
The debate is not going well for you, Peter. You are unable (or unwilling) to answer my 3 basic questions (all related to basic inconsistencies between the assumed 3.2C climate sensitivity and the actual facts) and you are unable to cite any actual physical data supporting this assumed climate sensitivity.
Instead you go into theoretical waffles about the natural greenhouse effect, etc.
You can regain a bit of credibility here if you answer my 3 straightforward questions.
Regards,
Max
Max
..the Hansen prediction is that 450 ppmv (65 ppmv more than today) is a “dangerous” CO2 level which may lead to “irreversible tipping points”
Funny how it’s always ‘just round the next corner’. Reminds me of the fundamentalists who so confidently predict the second coming/armageddon when it’s conveniently just far enough in the future not to rebound too heavily when it fails to materialise.
AGW as religion again – we must all be punished!
Hi Peter,
The 35-year study I referred to earlier states (along with several caveats):
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/?p=e209f4ac50044f93a421b19e0a636d4b&pi=0
[Note: words in brackets added by me for clarification.]
This seems to confirm the 60-year NOAA record on specific (and relative) humidity, which would point to a negative long-term water vapor feedback, as well.
Where is the actual physical evidence supporting the IPCC assumption of constant relative humidity with warming and, thus, a strongly positive water vapor feedback?
Can you cite any such data?
Regards,
Max
JamesP
You wrote:
Indeed. In one of the earliest existing texts, the ancient Sumerians told of the Great Flood (later re-told by the Jews in the Bible): the retribution of an angered supreme being for the sins of mankind, as retold by oracles or prophets.
Today the oracles are computer models. The prophets of doom are Hansen et al. The sins of (industrial) mankind are its (excessive) use of fossil fuels and the angered supreme being is Mother Nature herself.
But its basically the same old story, retold again.
As you say, timing is everything. James E. Hansen was born in 1943, so will be 66 this year.
Atmospheric CO2 level is 385 ppmv today and the “dangerous” level at which “irreversible tipping points” may occur is “450 ppmv”.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing by 1.9 ppmv per year, so it will take 34 years to reach Hansen’s “dangerous” level.
Hansen will be 100 years old then.
Go figure (as they say).
Max
the Great Flood
OT, but you’ve recalled a childhood memory, listening to a Stanley Holloway rendition of ‘three-halfpence (pron. ‘haypence’) a foot’ on a 78rpm record. I suspect it subliminally prevented me from ever taking religion too seriously.
http://tinyurl.com/npqgv9
It’s sung/spoken in a Lancashire (northern English) accent, hence the spelling and general lack of initial h’s..
Max,
You ask:
“Where is the actual physical evidence supporting the IPCC assumption of constant relative humidity with warming and, thus, a strongly positive water vapor feedback?”
It doesn’t have to be constant for that to happen. The relative humidity could still fall slightly with increasing temperature. This is because the definition of relative humidity, what it means, is the proportion of water vapour that the air can hold.
For example if, in in warming a certain amount, the air is capable of holding 5% more water vapour but the amount of water vapour only increases by 4%, the relative humidity have actually fallen even though there is more water in the atmosphere.
This what Minschwaner + Dessler have reported. Its still not conclusive. But, even if it turns out to be correct, I would still question your assumption that it is in any way desirable.
tempterrain (Peter):
When I question the dangerous AGW hypothesis, you like to refer me to the view of The Royal Society, your implied question being, “Do you think you know better than the Royal Society?”
You make the reference with good reason: the Royal Society is still arguably the leading scientific institution in the world and a key authority in matters of scientific controversy. Therefore, its view on a scientific question of such political and economic importance as climate change should be decisive.
Strangely, however, its policy statement on the subject carefully avoids making a definitive scientific statement – referring instead to “consensus” – and is vague about the consequences of further man-made greenhouse gas emissions:
If, as you keep saying, “the science is settled” re dangerous AGW, the Royal Society would surely make an unambiguous, conclusive and authoritative statement of confirmation. But it doesn’t.
So how is it, Peter, that you think you know better than the Royal Society?
All,
Whenever I have previously tried to suggest that you are motivated more by politics, and maybe religion to some extent, it always seems to bring forth howls of protest.
You’ve previously all been very critical of Wikipedia’s content on the AGW issue. We had allegations of thought police, censorship, overt bias etc etc etc.
And yet I was struck that Max copied out a whole list of their equations as a reference on the point of adiabatic atmospheric cooling recently.
What you seem to be saying is that Wiki have it right on scientifically everything else , for example on smoking, evolution, and anything else you care to name, but for some reason they have it all wrong on the AGW issue. None of you contaraians, or rational sceptics, or whatever you like to call yourself, strike me as capable of doing much other than copying and pasting arguments from such dubious sources as icecap, and ranting about Al Gore, but yet you come to this remarkable conclusion. I haven’t seen too much original comment or even an explanation, in your own words, of why you think the science is wrong.
Have I got it right about Wiki? Or is there anything else other that the AGW issue which you don’t like?
Robin,
I am very pleased to hear that you’re now in agreement with the scientific position of the Royal Society. It’s taken a while but its good to have some success. Good on you, mate!
In case anyone is in any doubt as to what they are actually saying I’d just refer them to the RS website.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=1&id=5851
There’s lots to digest on there, but if time is short, the exchange of letters between them and ExxonMobil should clearly indicate where they do actually stand on the the AGW issue and what they are actually saying.
Hi Peter,
Your rant (6661) about politics, religion, Wiki reliability on AGW issues, blah-blah about copy + paste versus original thought and ranting about Al Gore is a sidetrack to the real issues here (as you know full well).
You have been asked by Robin to provide scientific evidence that AGW is a serious threat, and you have been unable to do so.
I have asked you three straightforward questions on the discrepancy between (a) the greenhouse equations and (b) the physically observed data on one hand, which both support a 2xCO2 impact of around 0.9 to 1.0C and the assumptions fed into the IPCC models on the other hand that lead to a computer generated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C. Again you have been unable to answer these questions.
Stop sidetracking, Peter, and address Robin’s challenge and answer my simple questions, if you can. If not, admit it and let’s move on.
Regards,
Max
Peter
Some time ago I posted something about the gatekeeper of wiki. I will repost it here as that may help you to understand the mistrust we may have of their climate sections.
Generally I have no problem on non contentiouis issues, although the ability of being able to change pages that do not suit your views (as a reader) is somewhat disturbing
“Quite rightly, strict editorial rules exist to ensure every Tom, Dick, and Harry, don’t try to use Wikipedia to promote their personal half baked theories to a world audience. On the more specific question as to whether the gatekeeper of the Climate science section is more hostile to Sceptic submissions than Warmist ones, the following information may help readers to make their own judgements.
To achieve this aim it may be instructive to follow the role of the administrator of the climate section, Mr William Connelly
Firstly, it is worth restating the criteria for wikipedia in considering submissions made to them;
“Verifiability
Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.”
To examine the claims of bias often made against William Connelly on the matter of him favouring material submitted to him by warmists, as against that from sceptics, it is worth following a specific case-that of Lawrence Solomons- who wrote the well known sceptics book ‘The Deniers’
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
The above is a very good link re alleged wiki bias, with a subsequent blog of claim and counter claim, including a robust defence mounted by the editor of wiki who was criticised. It is instructive reading and worth staying with to the end.
This is by way of a review of the book by Solomons in The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/06/the-climate-change-deniers/
This is another review and provides some further background to the wikipedia bias claim by Solomons, so throws further light on the first link.
http://richardvigilantebooks.com/
The link below is again biased, but throws interesting light on William Connelly (The Administrator) and his alleged bias against sceptics views.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17981
This is the blog of William Connelly that is accessed from within Real Climate, in which he actively supports them by, amongst other actions, attending a conference in Vancouver.
“ I was there with my Real Climate hat on, to offer ideas and insight on blogging in particular, and public communication of science in general.”
http://www.realclimate.org/
Some people wishing to submit sceptical material question whether wiki should allow people with close links to a web site enthusiastically endorsing the views of Dr Mann (whose Hockey stick reconstructions were thought to have been widely discredited) and has known idealogical passions-he stood as a candidate for the UK Green Party-is objective enough to be allowed to oversee the editing of the climate pages of the worlds leading reference source as an administrator (definition and duties here )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators
The wiki core element of verifiability rather than truth allows some potential leeway in accepting articles that support a personal view. Consequently wiki’s objectivity- by any reasonable measure- should be called into some question (on certain controversial topics such as climate change) Checking back to original sources should be a follow up to any wiki climate related research, but many people rely on it as their primary and only source, thereby receiving a certain view of the topic.
This is William Connellys blog leading to various other topics he is interested in.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926
The guy is no ogre, has an obvious sense of humour, and has a particular world view as a UK Green party candidate. The policies of the party in general are here-they have sometimes been described as the green successors to the communist party and anti capitalist. In Britain they have a Euro M.E.P in Caroline Lucas.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Babylon-Beyond-Economics-Anti-capitalist-Anti-globalist/dp/0745323901
This about other Green party links to anti capitalist, socialist, communist and marxist movements
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/theory/ecology.htm
The Green party’s specific policies and philosophies can be read here. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspb.html
This page states the green party’s current understanding of climate change and their own mitigation policies
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsscc.html
William Connelly’s politics and beliefs are his own business in his personal life. Where they might impact on the public in a wider sense, some might say that his own deeply held beliefs and links to organisations that support his environmental or political views might make him not the most suitable person to administer the climate science pages of the worlds most referenced information source.
Footnote-There is something of a Catch 22 situation. As the IPCC report -warts and all- is considered the pinnacle of verifiable climate science it is referenced accordingly by Wikipedia, so even debatable information is presented as factual. Consequently sceptical information -which by definition is therefore incorrect- will achieve limited profile. The end result is that those from the wider world seeking information on the subject will always end up with IPCC supplied ‘factual’ data and will take a view on climate change accordingly.
TonyB
Peter
The prestigious Royal society would have us believe climate science is settled despite a motto of ‘Nullius in verba’, roughly translated as ‘Take nobody’s word for it’.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=2176
“It is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment. The Latin words are taken from a passage of Horace in which the poet compares himself to a gladiator, who, having earned peace and retirement, is free from control.”
The Royal Society was founded in 1660. The name first appears in print in 1661 and the Society produced its first books in 1662 ( John Evelyn’s Sylva and Micrographia by Robert Hooke).
In 1660 the Central England Temperature (CET) was 9.08C. In 1661 it was 9.75C. In 1662 CET was 9.50C. In 2008 it was 9.96C. A fraction of a degree in difference between the modern era and the depths of the little ice age.
http://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm
“It is claimed that skating was introduced into England during the winter of 1662/63 and that the King (Charles II) watched this new sport on the frozen Thames.”
Of course one year -or several- is weather not climate. But perhaps we need to understand much more about the climate and its long term cycles before we can truthfully say the science is settled and that man has irrevocably warmed the world.
Our understanding of clouds, solar variability, cosmic rays, ocean temperatures and currents etc is very limited and AGW remains an unproven theory not backed up by facts, experiments or observations.
Tonyb
You know, Peter (tempterrain), you’d be wise to think before you post. I’m aware of the letter you proudly cite: it’s nearly three years old and is signed by someone called the “Senior Manager, Policy Communication”. Hmm – pretty impressive. Nowhere does it state the Royal Society’s position. The best it can do is quote, for example, from a June 2005 third party document that “it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”. Er … that’s a long, long way from a definitive statement that the Royal Society shares your view that mankind’s emissions of GHGs are the prime driver of current climate change and that, unless they are radically curtailed, the consequences will be dire. The Society’s own current (vague “possible consequences”) position I’ve quoted at 6660.
So I repeat: how is it, Peter, that you think you know better than the Royal Society?
Hi TonyB,
Thanks for your very informational post with references on Wiki, the Naomi Oreskes blooper, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, William Connelly, etc.
This all point out very clearly why Wiki is a poor source of unbiased information on AGW.
I used their information on the Ideal Gas Law and its impact on adiabatic processes affecting the lapse rate, as basic info for Peter. This information was accurate and pretty uncontroversial. But this is all old stuff that has been in the physics and meteorology books for years.
But I would not use them as a source for anything as politically charged as the agenda-driven “science” supporting the political premise that AGW is a serious threat requiring “mitigation” (i.e. passage of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes), especially after reading the info you provided.
Regards,
Max
TonyB: it may that the Royal Society “would have us believe” climate science is settled. But – see my recent exchange with Peter – it does not commit itself to a positive pronouncement (thereby avoiding the creation of a hostage to fortune). Instead, it makes politically correct statements (usually by referring to “consensus” and third party positions) that superficially sound like acceptance of the dangerous AGW hypothesis) but which avoid a clear scientific commitment. Interesting.
Mention of Robert Hooke prompted me to look up his Micrographia. This extract from the Preface could have been written with AGW in mind – not bad for 1652…
“The two main foundations [senses and memory] being so deceivable, it is no wonder, that all the succeeding works which we build upon them, of arguing, concluding, defining, judging, and all the other degrees of Reason, are liable to the same imperfection, being, at best, either vain, or uncertain: So that the errors of the understanding are answerable to the two other, being defective both in the quantity and goodness of its knowledge; for the limits, to which our thoughts are confin’d, are small in respect of the vast extent of Nature itself; some parts of it are too large to be comprehended, and some too little to be perceived. And from thence it must follow, that not having a full sensation of the Object, we must be very lame and imperfect in our conceptions about it, and in all the proportions which we build upon it; hence, we often take the shadow of the things for substance, small appearances for good similitudes, similitudes for definitions; and even many of those, which we think, to be the most solid definitions, are rather expressions of our own misguided apprehensions than of the true nature of the things themselves.
The effects of these imperfections are manifested in different ways, according to the temper and disposition of the several minds of men, some they incline to gross ignorance and stupidity, and others to a presumptuous imposing on other mens Opinions, and a confident dogmatizing on matters, whereof there is no assurance to be given.”
Hi Peter,
We briefly discussed the Minschwaner + Dessler study on increased atmospheric water vapor content with increased sea surface temperature.
M+D show this in their Fig.7.
I have added some notes to this graph to make it easier to understand.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3610454667_9ac0b7773f_b.jpg
But what M+D did not tell us is that their model assumed values that are already much higher than the actual physically observed values. Their estimate of temperature impact is based on the values from their model, rather than on the actual observed values.
But the big “outlier” here is the IPCC assumption of constant relative humidity with warming.
The assumed IPCC increase in water vapor is 26 ppm per °C.
M+D based their estimate on their model result of 8 ppm per °C.
The actual physically observed range was only 1.5 to 4 ppm per °C.
So IPCC exaggerates the water vapor feedback by a factor of 6 to 17 times!
Ouch!
Do you think they will correct their model assumptions to reflect reality?
What do you think, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Robin,
Its good that your still promoting the Royal Society. To be honest, I was expecting a bit of backsliding. Its good timing too on your part. I’ve been thinking of taking a break from all this, for some time now, so I may just leave the replies to the nonsense that gets posted on this forum in your capable hands for a while.
This Royal Society release “A Guide to Fact and Fictions about Climate Change” might be useful. It contains answers to misleading arguments.
For instance if Max starts spouting on about how “the IPCC has become too politicised and does not accurately reflect the wide range of views within the scientific community…. etc etc” you’ll find you have a ready made answer. There are another 11 to follow.
It might seem a bit strange at first but, if you aren’t sure, just play a straight bat. If you aren’t sure just say that Royal Society say …..
I’ll keep an eye on things and will only intervene if you get into trouble. Good Luck.
Robin,
PS Sorry I forgot to give you this link for the RS Fact and Fictions doc.
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=3793
Peter (tempterrain): I am not “promoting the Royal Society”. My simple point (which typically you cannot, it seems, understand) is that there is nothing in the RS’s publications confirming your view that, re the dangerous AGW hypothesis, “the science is settled”. The references you have provided all confirm my simple point that it makes politically correct statements that superficially sound like acceptance of the dangerous AGW hypothesis) but which carefully avoid a clear scientific commitment. To show that I’m wrong, all you have to do is refer me to a clear RS statement that it is its view that, if we continue to emit GHGs, the inevitable consequence will be dangerous global warming.
And, before you take your break, I’d like an answer to my simple but still unanswered request: please refer me to research demonstrating unambiguously that the hypothesis that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (physically observed) evidence (publicly available and replicable) and has survived such testing intact. No answer this time and I’ll be forced to conclude that you’re running away to cover your embarrassment.
Here’s a fine example of the early days of some research using empirical data (Peter to note how real science works) that indicates that traffic pollution (from microscopic “particulates”) appears to put children at risk. If more time were spent on good practical research like this and less on posturing about “climate change”, the world would be a better place.
Robin,
It seems like you are getting cold feet about speaking up for the Royal Society
Its not that hard. Take what you have just said about the dangers of CO2 concentrations becoming too high. They’ve covered that as:
“Misleading arguments 9. Even if climate change is occurring, it won’t be that dangerous. Abrupt climate change is just another scare story. While an atmospheric concentration for carbon dioxide of 550 parts per million has been proposed as a political target, there has been no scientific determination of “dangerous” levels of greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Did you notice “Misleading argument”. Its not that hard they’ve set out the questions and answers as a nice little brief for you. You don’t have to sound like George Monbiot, its all quite middle of the road stuff.
They’ve covered your other point “research demonstrating unambiguously etc etc” as
“Misleading arguments 11. There are too many uncertainties about climate change and its impacts to justify taking action. It would be better to wait until we are more certain about climate change before acting.”
You’ve said that the RS are the “leading scientific institution in the world and a key authority in matters of scientific controversy”.
Remember?