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.
Blackouts in UK forecast due to climate regulations…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6118113/Britain-facing-blackouts-for-first-time-since-1970s.html
Peter,
You are still stuck on the sidetrack.
Bring the specifics to support your statement that my stated beliefs on AGW are “almost totally wrong”, rather than misquoting me on the waffle response.
Peter, your statement is beginning to look unfounded and, as a result, you are beginning to look silly to one and all on this site.
Max
Hi Brute,
The Borchert study (in German), for which you provided the link is quite detailed, and appears to be well thought out and presented.
Borchert cites a wealth of observed climate data from Europe to North America, and shows correlations with both solar activity and atmospheric CO2, citing several suggestions for the mechanisms by which the sun influences our climate.
Some excerpts (translated from German – if you see any translation errors, let me know)):
Max
Peter Martin 7318
You are such a tart Peter; it’s just a pity that I read that very page in Plimers book today. You have taken a line completely out of context, and twisted the meaning to what you want but only the opposite way around as if trying to demonstrate Pilmer is confused. It’s a bit like all the other warmists. Let me quote Plimer’s next line, no I will quote the paragraph and let the others on this blog see how you did some creative cutting and pasting. I quote:
“The Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15 degC. The tropics are some 10 degC warmer. In the atmosphere CO2 is an effective trap of energy in the infra-red wavelength band of 14 to 16.5 microns. Blocking the escape of heat radiation with wavelengths in this range reduces the radiating efficiency of the Earth by 15%. If the atmosphere had no CO2 far more heat would be lost from earth and the average surface temperature would be -3degC. The efficiency of the CO2 trap is essentially insensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. All the CO2 does is slows down heat loss. Atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat, as insulation does. If the current atmospheric CO2 content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv, there would be miniscule impact on the radiation balance and the temperature. An increase in air temperature of 0.5 degC is likely. This is hardly catastrophic. Furthermore the effects of additional CO2 would be completely masked by other climate drivers such as the Sun and the Earth’s orbit and there would be great benefits derived from accelerate plant growth. If indeed humans are slightly changing climate, then addressing climate change is not just like a home heating system where the thermostat can be changed to the desired temperature”
Now Peter that is hardly the meaning you where trying to extract from this passage. Shame on you I say.
Plimers whole point if you read the chapter is that there is no such thing as a greenhouse or the greenhouse effect. This is something that other scientists have echoed and is essentially true as our atmosphere works nowhere like a greenhouse does.
Peter Geany 7329 said
“You are such a tart Peter; it’s just a pity that I read that very page in Plimers book today. You have taken a line completely out of context, and twisted the meaning to what you want but only the opposite way around as if trying to demonstrate Pilmer is confused.”
I am dseeply shocked that you think Peter Martin is capable of even thinking of twisting the meaning, let alone would actually do it. I am sure the other ‘old hands’ here will be as disappointed as I am that you could believe such a thing of him.
Tonyb
Hey Max,
I was hoping that you’d translate. Thank you.
Do you think the paper will see the light of day? I suspect it will be buried or Borchert will be vilified as a “right wing radical” or be accused of being paid off by [insert evil corporate entity here].
I’d written before that when Warmists can no longer hide the fact that temperatures are dropping, or change the vernacular to another meaningless term such as “climate change”, they will begin to “adjust” the CO2 numbers to reflect the plummeting temperatures.
I suspect the rate of CO2 increase will begin to decline based on the “herculean efforts” of politicians and “concerned environmentalists” in their “tireless efforts to curb emissions”.
At least, that’s how it will be reported by the State-run media outlets.
Peter Geany,
The GH Effect is a name we’ll have to live with but a greenhouse as such isn’t really the best analogy. In a real greenhouse, the glass prevents convection, keeping the greenhouse warm. It doesn’t depend on the glass in the greenhose absorbing the reflected IR from the ground. This does happen, but it is a secondary effect not the primary reason why the GH warms.
In the atmosphere there is nothing to prevent the convection process. Warm air rises and cools in the process. The lapse rate of dry air being 9.8degC/1000 metres. This is not going to significantly change with extra CO2. However if it is 1 deg warmer at sea level it will still be 1 deg warmer at 1000 metres. Otherwise the lapse rate would have changed.
Where Ian Plimer is wrong, is to say that “Atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat, as insulation does”. That is exactly what CO2 and all GHGs including water vapour does. It absorbs reflected IR radiation from the ground in the 15 micron wavelength region. Insulation in your ceiling and walls is a very good analogy. For instance, if you had an amount of insulation in your house and it was 33 degC warmer than the outside , when you switched on a certain amout of heating (say 3 kW or whatever), what would happen if you doubled the amount of insulation?
It wouldn’t get another 33 degC warmer. The first layer of insulation always has more effect that the last. Arrhenius said that the heat transfer through CO2 obeyed a geometric progression 16,8,4,2 as the CO2 was increased as an arithmetic progression. So whereas the effect of additional layers is less it is not zero as Plimer would have us believe.
33 deg is the total GHE. Plimer himself says that 18 deg C is the contribution of CO2. He could be right, because of the feedbacks, but I wouldn’t put it quite so high. Max has claimed 6-7 degC. Do you have reference for that, Max?
So again I do make the point that the IPCC ‘most likely figure’ of 3 degC for a doubling of the CO2 level does not seem at all higher than would be expected.
I haven’t given any references for the points I’m making here, but if you require any I will provide them.
TonyB,
You say about the recent Royal Society report:
“This is the proper RS version” Then you give a reference to the “Daily mash”
If you really want the “proper version” shouldn’t you be giving this?
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8729
Aug 31, 2009
Democrats Delay Global Warming Bill – Again
James Inhofe
U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today said in a statement that he was not surprised to learn that Senate Democrats were forced once again to delay introduction of their global warming cap-and-trade bill. Throughout hearing after hearing in the EPW Committee this summer, it became apparent that Democrats were a long way off from reaching the votes necessary in the Senate to pass the largest tax increase in American history. Below is the last committee statement before the recess by Senator Inhofe.
Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. This is the last hearing on climate change before the August recess, so I think it’s appropriate to take stock of what we’ve learned.
Madame Chairman, since you assumed the gavel, this committee has held over thirty hearings on climate change. With testimony from numerous experts and officials from all over the country, these hearings explored various issues associated with cap-and-trade-and I’m sure my colleagues learned a great deal from them.
But over the last two years, it was not from these, at times, arcane and abstract policy discussions that we got to the essence of cap-and-trade. No, it was the Democrats who cut right to the chase; it was the Democrats over the last two years who exposed what cap-and-trade really means for the American public.
We learned, for example, from President Obama that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”
We learned from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) that cap-and-trade is “a tax, and a great big one.”
We learned from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) that “a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful GHG emission reductions. A cap-and-trade has been operating in Europe for three years and is largely a failure.”
We learned from Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that with cap-and-trade “the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. In no time they’ll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In fact, most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are ready to go. I’m not.”
We learned from Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash.) that “a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits.”
We learned from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that unilateral U.S. action to address climate change through cap-and-trade would be futile. She said in response to a question from me that “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”
We learned from Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) that “there is no way the United States of America acting alone can solve this problem. So we have to have China; we have to have India.”
We learned from Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) that if “we go too far with this,” that is, cap-and-trade, then “all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”
In sum, after a slew of hearings and three unsuccessful votes on the Senate floor, the Democrats taught us that cap-and-trade is a great big tax that will raise electricity prices on consumers, enrich Wall Street traders, and send jobs to China and India-all without any impact on global temperature.
So off we go into the August recess, secure in the knowledge that cap-and-trade is riddled with flaws, and that Democrats are seriously divided over one of President Obama’s top domestic policy priorities.
And we also know that, according to recent polling, the American public is increasingly unwilling to pay anything to fight global warming.
But all of this does not mean cap-and-trade is dead and gone. It is very much alive, as Democratic leaders, as they did in the House, are eager to distribute pork on unprecedented scales to secure the necessary votes to pass cap-and-trade into law.
So be assured of this: We will markup legislation in this committee, pass it, and then it will be combined with other bills from other committees. And we will have a debate on the Senate floor.
Throughout the debate on cap-and-trade, we will be there to say that:
According to the American Farm Bureau, the vast majority of agriculture groups oppose it;
According to GAO, it will send our jobs to China and India;
According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, it will destroy over 2 million jobs;
According to EPA and EIA, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
According to EPA, it will do nothing to reduce global temperature;
And when all is said and done, the American people will reject it and we will defeat it.
Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Peter #7333
Having already read the official link to the Royal Society explanation of their geo engineering plans, and had the benefit of listening to the author explain it on the radio (even the BBC interviewer was incredulous) I think the version I linked to is much more sensible :)
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2023&Itemid=59
tonyb
Brute,
I suppose Senator Inhofe is one of your heroes? I’d never heard of him before he claimed that the AGW problem was all a hoax. Would you say he’s based his stance on politics or science?
Would I be right in suggesting that he’d be very right wing even by US Republican standards?
James P & Max
Here are a couple of things that rather amused me in John P. Reisman’s self adulation.
~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“John P. Reisman brings more than 20 years experience in studying and developing systems and performing various types of analysis.
John worked at the University of the World with Dr. James Grier Miller, Author of Living Systems Theory and Dr. Martin Chamberlain, doing research in educational systems. While at the university, he wrote a simplified systems theory for understanding general systems operation and dynamics, and developed a methodology to help understand the health of a given system…”
While at the university? University of the World? …. Erh, here’s a description:
University of the World:
In 1982, Miller created a concept named the “University of the World”. His purpose was to create an organization that would link educational institutions in all countries, and serve the educational needs of students of all countries. The premise behind the University of the World is that a better educated world will yield improved international understanding and offer all people a better chance for peace and prosperity. The University of the World has been designed to use electronic telecommunications to disseminate educational resources to students and faculty in all countries
The Information Society: The Concept of a University of the World
http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/readers/abstracts/6/6-3%20Becker.html
~~~2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s a great mug-shot of him looking down at the camera!
Did he make the photographer kneel, or perhaps he stood on a soap box?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brute, have you ever heard of Reisman’s Centrist political party? What does it do or achieve, and why would anyone set it up in the U.S. system of two parties?
http://www.uscentrist.org/about/people/john-p-reisman
An article from NASA Earth Science:
What’s Holding Antarctic Sea Ice Back From Melting?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html
Opening paragraph:
Global temperatures are increasing. Sea levels are rising. Ice sheets in many areas of the world are retreating. Yet there’s something peculiar going on in the oceans around Antarctica: even as global air and ocean temperatures march upward, the extent of the sea ice around the southern continent isn’t decreasing. In fact, it’s increasing.
There follow three interesting hypotheses headed thus:
1) Dwindling Ozone Levels
2) A More Stratified Southern Ocean
3) Flooded Sea Ice Turns Snow to Ice
Concerning 1), I have always felt that the ‘ozone hole’ theory and the exuberant response by DuPont et al was a tad sus’, so I thought I’d revisit; “Dwindling Ozone Levels” in which I remembered that the hole “size” was at a record high in 2006.
This NASA GSFC “Ozone watch” confirms that CFC reduction shows no improvement over the 30 years period of “its great success“:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
AND, I found this:
Cyclic ozone hole proves cosmic ray theory:
http://www.theozonehole.com/cosmicray.htm
Or: Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion:
If you have 25$, it has been published @
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000102000011118501000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Max (7328)
Thanks for that excellent translation. The following statements seem pretty unequivocal:
An anthropogenic driving of the global temperature through CO2 is physically impossible.
.
.
Further CO2 emissions will not lead to higher temperature. Attempting to control CO2 [emissions] in order to supposedly protect our climate has no scientific basis.
How long before the BBC/Guardian/Royal Society/UN take a bit more notice of such opinions..?
Bob (7337)
John worked at the University of the World..
..Miller created a concept named the “University of the World”
So, Reisman’s been employed by a concept! I wonder what the pay’s like?
He doesn’t look underfed or underpaid, so I suspect that there is very little openness in his soi-disant ‘open source systems’ (the OSS foundation), whose mission statement of ‘simplification’ is rather undermined by its polysyllabic corporate jargon!
Peter (7321, to Max)
You say “I might even remind the referee
He didn’t say that. He said “If I were the IPCC, I might..” which conveys a wholly different meaning.
You did the same thing with Ian Plimer’s piece that you ‘quoted’ to me. Why?
If the only way you can substantiate your argument is by misquoting others, doesn’t that rather undermine your case? What it says to me is that you are in denial, rather like Ban-Ki-Moon, who has just visited the Arctic and pronounced it melting, without stopping to consider what might be normal for the time of year…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6124017/Ban-Ki-moon-alarmed-by-melting-glaciers-on-visit-to-Arctic.html
Hi Bob
Good NASA blurb about causes for growth of Antarctic sea ice (7338):
Causes postulated are:
a) Dwindling ozone levels, cooling stratosphere, strengthening Antarctica’s already fierce winds
b) A more stratified Southern Ocean and changes in ocean circulation
c) Flooded sea ice turning snow to ice
This is all the more curious when you look at NASA’s rough chart on what is happening to temperatures in Antarctica.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
Most of the Antarctic Continent has been cooling at 0.1 to 0.2°C per year (average annual rate), while the smaller Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Ice Shelf areas are warming at 0.1 to 0.2°C per year. But curiously, the map shows that the ocean surrounding the continent is also supposedly warming.
Does this show that sea ice loss or gain does not have so much to do with warming or cooling, but rather on other factors?
Would this apply only for the Antarctic, or for the Arctic as well?
Remember the blog exchanges we had at RC on the apparent disconnect between local temperature and retreat of the Jacobshavn Glacier at Illulisaat (Greenland)? As I recall, you were chastised by a Nick Barnes for showing that there was no relation between the glacier and global temperatures, in which he pointed out that the ”glacial response was to local, not global, temperature trends”.
I then went to the trouble of down-loading the local temperature record over the entire 20th century and found out that Barnes was wrong. There was no “temperature response” at all.
Here we have a glacier that is retreating today, despite the fact that local temperatures have not risen and actually cooled slightly over the second half of the 20th century, after a sharp increase in the first half, reaching record levels in the late 1930s and 1940s.Over the entire 20th century, there was a slight linear cooling.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/3797223161_16c1ac5e39_b.jpg
So the NASA blurb you cited is right. It’s not the local temperature that counts (or let alone the globally and annually averaged temperature), but many other local factors that determine whether or not sea ice or sea-bound glaciers shrink in extent.
And this counts for the Arctic as well as the Antarctic.
Your link to cosmic rays is interesting.
Don’t know whether you looked at the Borchert study posted by Brute (“end of global warming”). It is in German, but you should be able to follow his links between cosmic ray flux (which he calls “Höhenstrahlung” – neutrons/cm^2 hr) and various European temperature records.
Since Borchert has also compared this with records of hours of sunshine per day (with no clouds) at the same stations, he makes a good story for the cosmic ray/cloud link, based on physically observed empirical data (rather that just climate model “outputs”).
Max
records of hours of sunshine per day
A bit tangential, but you’ve reminded me that our local weather stations regularly report improbably high sunshine figures. When I queried this with one of their operators, I was told that “sunshine duration is defined by WMO as the time during which the direct
solar radiation exceeds the level of 120 W/m2”, which seems extraordinarily crude, as well as rather low – I imagine that a cloudy summer day could easily exceed that.
The old-fashioned glass ball sunshine recorders had the great merit of only working in actual sunshine…
James P 7343
We have a classic case locally whereby the Torquay sunshine recorder regularly shows much more sun than the Teignmouth recorder (7 miles away)
On a day to day basis this can be very noticeable, with Torquay showing 8 hours of sunshine whereby Teignmouth had nil.
I tracked the reasons for this down as physical observations ( I live close to both towns) showed that other than on very specfic occasions there was limited sun shine difference between the two towns. Why the disparity?
Torquay had acquired a new type of recorder which appeared to record sunshine at the slightest glimpse of brightness in an otherwise leaden sky. Teignmouth retained the old fashioned type which had a more old fashioned criteria-it actually had to be sunny for it to record sunshine!
The serious point about this is that many devices (such as Argo buoys) are often fitted with non standardised types of sensors, or are differently calibrated. This means that two floating side by side can be recording things on a quite different basis to each other.
When you extend this principle to temperature records, sea level gauges etc etc it is evident that like is not being compared with like and the subsequent parsing of data to fractions is quite nonsensical at times.
tonyb
JamesP,
I’ll quote what Max wrote in full
“If I were the IPCC, I might even remind the referee that I am indirectly involved in whether or not he receives a salary, and that I would appreciate due consideration of this hard, cold fact when he makes his next call.”
OK maybe I misunderstood what Max was saying. President Reagan did intend the IPCC to be the referee. Maybe not according to Max though. I’ll ask him what he means. See below.
I can’t quote the whole of Plimers book. He’s said that the Earth would be 18deg C colder if there were no CO2 present. I’ve said I think that’s a bit too high. You are supposed to be one of these people who have decided using science rather than politics. What figure would you put on it?
Max,
Maybe you can clarify who is the referee and who is applying the financial pressure and why?
You then go on to say
“But this is all a meaningless sidetrack, Peter.”
I wouldn’t agree. We’ve been up and down the main highway without making any real progress. I can’t see that repeating the exercise will do any good. Time to explore the sidetracks.
James P
Your reference (7341) to a Ban Ki Moon warning (during a visit to the Arctic) shortly “ahead of key climate talks in December” brought back that old “déjà vu all over again” feeling.
Shortly before the Bali boondoggle in December 2007, the good Sec. Gen. issued another op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, this time from the Antarctic (with a great photo-op of the grim-jawed Sec. Gen. looking out at icebergs, presumably emanating from “disintegrating” polar ice caps caused by anthropogenic global warming).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3880453279_95f0cb85e9_b.jpg
In this journalistic masterpiece, BKM opines:
“If it (the West Antarctic Ice Sheet) broke up, sea levels could rise by six meters. Think of the effect on the coastlines and cities: New York, Mumbai, Shanghai, not to mention small island nations. It may not happen for 100 years – or it could happen in 10. We simply do not know. But when it happens, it could occur quickly, almost overnight.”
Wow! His own IPCC tells us:
“Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain mass due to increased snowfall.”
To the Arctic ice sheet, IPCC states:
“If a negative mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination if the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m.”
OK. So the AIS is not shrinking and the GIS could disappear in “millennia” (if negative mass balance were sustained), not in 100 or even 10 years, as warned by BKM.
Then the good Sec. Gen. adds the clincher:
“I am not scaremongering”
Ouch!
Sort of like when a politician starts out a sentence with “let me be perfectly honest…”
Ban Ki Moon issues a new stern warning, and it’s time again to “break out the shovels”.
Max
What figure would you put on it?
I don’t know – that’s why I’m asking!
According to you, it’s a simple calculation, whose formula I would love to see, particularly as lots of highly qualified people seem to have difficulty arriving at the same result.
Peter Martin,
I have given you in some detail my beliefs on AGW.
You have conceded that these are my beliefs as stated, but then added that they “are almost totally wrong”.
I then challenged you to point out in detail which specific point is wrong and why or admit that you were in error in saying the points were “almost totally wrong”.
You have been unable to do this.
Instead you have opened up a sidetrack about referees, favorite football teams and all sorts of total OT rubbish in order to distract from the main issue, where you have begun to look utterly silly.
Peter, get back on track or admit that your claim was unfounded and therefore incorrect.
Max
PS If you do not “admit” that you were wrong, I’ll let the other bloggers here see if they can come up with a “consensus” opinion.
James P
I have been following your exchange with Peter Martin on Plimer’s estimate of the natural greenhouse effect (GHE) of CO2.
You make a good point that the natural GHE of CO2 is not a “fixed number”. Peter has been unable to give you a “correct” number for this.
Don’t try “nailing him to the wall” on this – it’s sort of like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
Plimer states (p.366):
“If the atmosphere had no CO2 far more heat would be lost from the Earth and the average surface temperature would be -3°C” [presumably instead of 15°, as now measured].
I have not seen any estimates putting the CO2 natural GHE as high as 18°C.
Even RealClimate only puts it at “between 9% (3°C) and 26% (8.5°C)”.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
Lindzen puts it at around 5°C, while Kondratyev put it at around 7°C.
Other studies put it between 9% (3°C) and 18% (6°C).
This study estimates that 3.6% of the natural GHE is due to CO2, or around 1.2°C.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
In other words, the range appears to be between 1.2°C and 8.5°C, so I would assume (since Plimer does not give a specific reference for his source) that his statement of 18°C is an error.
It is, however, not a key point in Plimer’s overall rationale and premise (that global climate changes are naturally caused, not anthropogenic).
He simply points out that there is a natural GHE from CO2 and that without this “far more heat would be lost from the Earth”, resulting in a lower surface temperature.
I’d say this is “no big deal”.
Max
Didn’t someone mention that the world has run out of oil? (I think it was Pete).
BP Makes ‘Giant’ Oil Discovery in Gulf of Mexico
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a44RUTBIl_3Q