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 all,
I’m having a quiet Christmas at home but about to leave for a ‘family get-together’.
Do you remember the following Earth’s energy budget diagram that is sometimes known as the ‘Trenberth cartoon’? (or K & T cartoon). It appears in the 2001 & 2007 IPCC report
BTW, there is a more colourful update and discussion @:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-981
It is thus interesting to examine the following Email exchange, where I bold emphasizs Trenberth’s related comments:
From: Tom Wigley
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin,
I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account
for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going“. In my eyes these are two
different things — the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
End of extract, for lengthy continuation, See:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1056&filename=1255550975.txt
Peace and happiness be with you all over the holiday season!
TonyN (8735)
Thanks for Tamino link. No. I hadn’t seen it before your post.
Had a brief interchange with him on RC on this topic. He is unable to see any warming/cooling cycles in the temperature record.
I’ll see if I can draft a response to the post you cited (after Christmas).
His argument appears to be: since he cannot figure out how to draw a perfect sine curve to fit the record, there must not be anything cyclical about the record. Duh!
Would anyone argue that the record of solar activity is not cyclical, just because each cycle is not exactly the same as the previous one?
Only a dumbbell would do so.
Is Tamino a dumbbell?
Or is he simply blind to any fact that does not support his very personal idea of how our climate works?
Who knows?
Who cares?
Max
PS Merry Christmas
TonyB
Thanks for your 8740.
As indicated to TonyN, I will probably post a response to Tamino after the Christmas holidays. Merry Christmas.
Max
Robin, James P and PeterM
The IPCC definition of “very likely” is stated to be >90%.
In practice, it is somewhat different. Here is an example.
IPCC SPM 2007, p. 8 tells us that the “likelihood of warm spells/hear waves and heavy precipitation events” having occurred “more frequently in the late 20th century” was “likely” (>66%) and that the “likelihood of a human contribution to the observed trend” was “more likely than not” (>50%), based on “expert opinion rather than formal attribution studies” (i.e. at “50/50 educated guess”).
Yet, despite the arithmetic fact that >50% * >66% = >33%, it is stated that the “likelihood of future trends based on projections for the 21st century using SRES scenarios” is “very likely” (>90%).
So what does IPCC’s “very likely” really mean?
Not much, based on this one example. But, hey, it’s just tossed in there to make the readers feel the “science is [almost] settled”, right?
Max
PS Merry Christmas to you all.
Yet another discovery about our solar system and near space that may have implication for the climate. Once more it demonstrates just how little we know about our physical world.
Thanks, Max (8754). But even your >33% overstates the case: what does “a human contribution” mean? It’s most significant that it specifically doesn’t say “human causation” (c.f. the oft quoted “due to” AGW). In contrast, “a contribution” could be as little as 1%.
In other words, according to the IPCC, there’s a better than 33% chance that warm spells/heat waves and heavy precipitation events occurred more frequently in the late 20th century – i.e. not much of a chance. And, in the rather unlikely event that they did, there’s a possibility that man might have contributed to it.
That’s the view of the IPCC’s scientists. Now compare that with our Climate Change Secretary’s belief (8728) that scientists agree that “climate change is real and is man-made and is happening”. Perhaps he (and the MSM) should pay closer attention to what’s really being said.
..chance that warm spells/heat waves and heavy precipitation events occurred more frequently in the late 20th century
Than when? I suspect that Noah might have had a view…
The IPCC and its hangers-on make these bold statements in the knowledge that there are no precise records to contradict them. Even so, I should have thought that the Roman and Mediaeval periods should count as ‘warm spells’ and who is to say how much it did or didn’t rain then?
Peter G
Thanks for that link – fascinating. I admit to being perplexed by the ability of “a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms” to maintain “a temperature of 6000 C”, though. Is there fusion still at work, or are they just very well insulated..? :-)
Peter G, Reur 8758,
Google “thermosphere temperature” for similar effect found for planet Earth e.g.
Thermosphere
The thermosphere (literally “heat sphere”) is the outer layer of the atmosphere, separated from the mesosphere by the mesopause. Within the thermosphere temperatures rise continually to well beyond 1000°C. The few molecules that are present in the thermosphere receive extraordinary amounts of energy from the Sun, causing the layer to warm to such high temperatures. Air temperature, however, is a measure of the kinetic energy of air molecules, not of the total energy stored by the air. Therefore, since the air is so thin within the thermosphere, such temperature values are not comparable to those of the troposphere or stratosphere. Although the measured temperature is very hot, the thermosphere would actually feel very cold to us because the total energy of only a few air molecules residing there would not be enough to transfer any appreciable heat to our skin.
The lower part of the thermosphere, from 80 to 550 km above the Earth’s surface, contains the ionosphere. Beyond the ionosphere extending out to perhaps 10,000 km is the exosphere or outer thermosphere, which gradually merges into space.
Whoops….My 8759
Sorry, I meant for James P
Peter G; Also thanks too for an interesting link.
James P, Reur 8757 & Max, Reur 8754:
“likelihood of warm spells/hear waves and heavy precipitation events” having occurred “more frequently in the late 20th century” was “likely”
There are heaps of records of “more severe” floods, droughts and whatnot in the past 100 years, but the issue is whether or not they may be more frequent in actuality. (as distinct from media exposure… and I‘ve even seen Tsunami‘s as blamed on climate change!)
In my 8751, I commented on Kevin Trenberth and his IPCC report’s ‘Earth’s Energy Budget’ diagram that he has virtually admitted was guesswork in recent Climategate Emails. He has also been evidently wrong on public guesswork pronouncements that he has made about increasing hurricane frequency at a Harvard symposium and in the media. Here is an extract from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29397-2005Jan22.html
Landsea’s open letter concludes with;
Full copy of his long letter at:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
Brute, I’ve noticed that you have variously made some observations concerning global warming as measured in terms of significant centimetres of depth of snow in the USA and elsewhere in the NH!
Have you seen the following recent Climategate Email from “Dear Ol’ Kev“? (Kevin Trenberth…. he being a leading light in the IPCC, and BTW note his Email circulation):
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. [@ 12 Oct 2009]. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. See [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin
Geoff Chambers, Reur 8748;
Although TonyN has on another thread suggested to me not to respond to provocation, if perhaps you are not around at the moment to respond to Peter Martin’s 8750, concerning law 2, I cannot let his comments pass by.
I see that Pete selectively uses Spencer’s words to make a point, and does not mention, (or maybe does not understand!?!?), what else Spencer writes in qualification; for instance, in the very next paragraph:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
You may be interested by a related exchange I had elsewhere, starting here:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-1066
Bob_FJ,
Yes, what Roy Spencer says about the water in the jars is perfectly correct. He’s likening the boiling water to the surface of the earth. The warm water represents the GHG components of the atmosphere. He’s showing how the heat loss, for a particular temperature, is reduced, depending on the presence or otherwise of a cooler object.
There is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The same effect can be observed with cloud cover. The earth’s surface temperature falls much more rapidly on clear nights than it does on cloudy nights, even though the temperature of the clouds is lower than the temperature of the ground.
And , no, the clouds don’t have to violate the second law of thermodynamics to have a ‘warming’ effect!
Bob (8762)
I’m intrigued by the subject of the email:
Re: BBC U-turn on climate
I can’t say I’d noticed, myself, but presumably the warmists detected a change from the Beeb’s hitherto supine position? If so, that must be a bit worrying for them!
Bob_FJ,
RE: 8762
I find it quite amusing that the esteemed, world renowned, “climatologist” Kevin Trenberth would reference extreme temperatures in one city as evidence disputing the anthropogenic global warming theory amongst his apocalyptic global warming parishioners.
This is nothing short of heresy……Mr. Trenberth should be publicly flogged (with an environmentally correct implement…………i.e. not leather) for deviating from global warming church doctrine.
I’m routinely chastised and berated by global warming authorities when I reference blizzards and record cold temperatures as curious anomalies during this age of runaway, hellish temperature increases.
Frankly, I’m appalled at Mr. Trenberth’s crisis of faith concerning this matter.
an environmentally correct implement
A hockey stick..?
No can do James………processed wood releases excess CO2 and removes a useful carbon sink from the carbon cycle.
Peter M
You asked Robin and James P (8746)
IPCC (Myhre et al.) puts it at almost 1.0°C (excluding any feedbacks)
IPCC model simulations put it at 1.9°C including feedbacks from water vapor and surface albedo (both positive) and lapse rate (negative), but excluding feedback from clouds.
IPCC model simulations put it at 3.2°C including ALL feedbacks (assuming strongly positive feedback from clouds, which represent added warming of 1.3°C).
Since IPCC published its report in 2007 (with 2006 data), two significant studies have been published, which supersede the outdated IPCC estimates.
Physical observations made by Spencer et al. show strongly negative feedback from clouds with warming, putting 2xCO2 impact at less than 1°C.
Physical observations made by Lindzen and Choi show a 2xCO2 impact of 0.5° to 0.7°C.
I’d say that the latest studies show that “the true figure should be” between 0.5° and 1.0°C.
Max
Peter M and Bob_FJ
As you both know, clouds do not have a “warming” effect, actually. It is a slowdown of the “cooling” effect.
On a cloudy night it does not warm up, it simply cools down more slowly than on a clear night.
All of the warming comes from the sun; none comes from the clouds (or the atmospheric CO2, for that matter), and the TOTAL net impact from clouds is estimated to be one of strong cooling, rather than warming.
Ramanathan + Inamdar
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcing DuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf
And later:
It is fortunate that the later studies of Spencer et al. and Lindzen and Choi have provided the “observational basis to check the model conclusions”. They have shown that the model simulations on cloud feedback were wrong, clearing up what IPCC conceded to be “the largest source of uncertainty”, as pointed out in my earlier post.
Max
Bob_FJ
Regarding Kevin Trenberth’s email, global climate change and record cold with snowfall in Boulder, CO (where KT lives):
There is nothing like shoveling two feet of snow off a long driveway on a record cold day with a nice brisk breeze to bring global climate change home in a real physical way.
The rather abstract concept of [massaged, ex post facto adjusted, variance corrected] “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” fades into oblivion as the stark reality of the numbing cold sets in.
Max
How about just hitting him over the head with a (non-limestone containing) rock?
James P, re your 8765, I think the “BBC U-turn” comment in the subject line of Kevin Trenberth’s e-mail of 12th October 2009 is likely to be a reaction to Paul Hudson’s “What happened to global warming?” article of 9th October, which raised a few eyebrows at the time. Funnily enough, I believe 12th October was also the date on which Hudson says he was sent a copy of the ClimateGate e-mails (over a month before the whole thing went public.)
Peter Geany, a belated thanks for your link to the Voyager article (#8755) – it is a fascinating subject (and I like the “Local Fluff” terminology, which makes it sound like our part of the galaxy has not had a spring clean for a while.) One phrase stood out: “Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system…” Could this account for Snowball Earth episodes that have been hypothesised as taking place in prehistoric times, e.g., the Pre-Cambrian? Wondering whether it might tie in with Svensmark/Shaviv/Veizer and the cosmic ray/climate connection.
Peter Martin, Reur 8764:
I really should follow Tony N’s recommendation of; don’t respond to provocation, however, with the spirit of the season (?):
The main point in my 8763 was that you omitted Spencer’s qualifications on your seemingly cherry-picked extract, such as with the following:
“…Furthermore, we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating…” etc.
And now, in your 8764, you are sneaking in some semantics by translating ‘reduced rate of cooling’ as ‘warming effect’. That is like saying that if one were to throw an extra blanket over the bed on a cold night, it has a ‘warming effect’. That seems to be intuitively true, but it is not the correct mechanism, wherein (in fairly complex processes), there is actually a ‘reduced rate of cooling’.
Incidentally, in the comparison of heat conduction through a metal bar, if one end is ‘hot’, and the other is ‘cold’, heat will flow from the ‘hot’ towards the ‘cold’ end at a certain rate. If we then heat the cold end, such that the potential difference is reduced, the rate of heat flow from hot to warm will be reduced accordingly. OK so far?
At the quantum theory level, there are some fundamental similarities between a photon stream (EMR) flowing through an absorptive gas, and phonons flowing in heat conduction in most solids . (or valence electrons in metals). These are three different types of energy quanta. In the latter two, their free-path lengths are invisibly short, whereas with photons, in an absorptive gas, they are massively long in comparison.
You could perhaps contemplate the effect of EMR absorptive clouds on temperature gradient in the atmosphere. (potential difference) Perhaps too, you could research; ‘phonon flow’ and ‘phonon free-path‘, etc, but it is fairly complicated, and that is the END of my Christmas spirit!
Bob_FJ,
RE: 8762
One other observation:
Pointing out extreme/record cold temperatures is immediately dismissed, without merit, by the global warming faithful……no matter the medium.
I find it curious that people who consider the health of the environment to be sacrosanct are actually disappointed when a point of improvement or data that may depict that “things aren’t really quite as bad as originally thought” are publicized.
Trenberth’s regret and dissatisfaction that the earth “isn’t warming” as he and his colleagues have prophesized is quite apparent.
These guys (including Peter Martin) are actually cheerleading for their apocalyptic revelations to come to fruition………they are actually hoping that some cataclysmic environmental event will occur……………pretty sick and twisted when you think about it.