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.
Robin (9273)
That’s wonderful! I wonder where The Guardian stands on Ozzie’s endorsement of AGW? :-)
BobFj
This is for you, as you have written previously of the effects of the winds on Australian temperatures. (Incidentally what great foiresight about the vines!)
I would like to hope Peter wil read it as well but he seems to have an aversion to climate history where it conflicts with his belief in AGW.
Observation of Watkins Tench
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tench/watkin/
December 1790
“But at Sydney, without constantly dressing the ground, it was in vain to expect them; and with it a supply of common vegetables might be procured by diligence in all seasons. Vines of every sort seem to flourish. Melons, cucumbers and pumpkins run with unbounded luxuriancy, and I am convinced that the grapes of New South Wales will, in a few years, equal those of any other country. ‘That their juice will probably hereafter furnish an indispensable article of luxury at European tables’, has already been predicted in the vehemence of speculation. Other fruits are yet in their infancy; but oranges, lemons and figs, (of which last indeed I have eaten very good ones) will, I dare believe, in a few years become plentiful.
Apples and the fruits of colder climes also promise to gratify expectation. The banana-tree has been introduced from Norfolk Island, where it grows spontaneously.
Nor will this surprise, if the genial influence of the climate be considered.
Placed in a latitude where the beams of the sun in the dreariest season are sufficiently powerful for many hours of the day to dispense warmth and nutrition, the progress of vegetation never is at a stand. The different temperatures of Rose Hill and Sydney in winter, though only twelve miles apart, afford, however, curious matter of speculation.
Of a well attested instance of ice being seen at the latter place, I never heard. At the former place its production is common, and once a few flakes of snow fell. The difference can be accounted for only by supposing that the woods stop the warm vapours of the sea from reaching Rose Hill, which is at the distance of sixteen miles inland; whereas Sydney is but four.* Again, the heats of summer are more violent at the former place than at the latter, and the variations incomparably quicker.
The thermometer has been known to alter at Rose Hill, in the course of nine hours, more than 50 degrees; standing a little before sunrise at 50 degrees, and between one and two at more than 100 degrees.
To convey an idea of the climate in summer, I shall transcribe from my meteorological journal, accounts of two particular days which were the hottest we ever suffered under at Sydney.
[*Look at the journal which describes the expedition in search of the river, said to exist to the southward of Rose Hill. At the time we felt that extraordinary degree of cold were not more than six miles south west of Rose Hill, and about nineteen miles from the the sea coast. When I mentioned this circumstance to colonel Gordon, at the Cape of Good Hope, he wondered at it; and owned, that, in his excursions into the interior parts of Africa, he had never experienced anything to match it: he attributed its production to large beds of nitre, which he said must exist in the neighbourhood.]
December 27th 1790. Wind NNW; it felt like the blast of a heated oven, and in proportion as it increased the heat was found to be more intense, the sky hazy, the sun gleaming through at intervals.
At 9 a.m. 85 degrees At noon 104 Half past twelve 107 1/2 From one p.m. until 20 minutes past two 108 1/2 At 20 minutes past two 109 At Sunset 89 At 11 p.m. 78 1/2
[By a large Thermometer made by Ramsden, and graduated on Fahrenheit’s scale.]
December 28th.
At 8 a.m. 86 10 a.m. 93 11 a.m. 101 At noon 103 1/2 Half an hour past noon 104 1/2 At one p.m. 102 At 5 p.m. 73 At sunset 69 1/2
[At a quarter past one, it stood at only 89 degrees, having, from a sudden shift of wind, fallen 13 degrees in 15 minutes.]
My observations on this extreme heat, succeeded by so rapid a change, were that of all animals, man seemed to bear it best. Our dogs, pigs and fowls, lay panting in the shade, or were rushing into the water. I remarked that a hen belonging to me, which had sat for a fortnight, frequently quitted her eggs, and shewed great uneasiness, but never remained from them many minutes at one absence; taught by instinct that the wonderful power in the animal body of generating cold in air heated beyond a certain degree, was best calculated for the production of her young.
The gardens suffered considerably. All the plants which had not taken deep root were withered by the power of the sun. No lasting ill effects, however, arose to the human constitution. A temporary sickness at the stomach, accompanied with lassitude and headache, attacked many, but they were removed generally in twenty-four hours by an emetic, followed by an anodyne.
During the time it lasted, we invariably found that the house was cooler than the open air, and that in proportion as the wind was excluded, was comfort augmented.
But even this heat was judged to be far exceeded in the latter end of the following February, when the north-west wind again set in, and blew with great violence for three days. At Sydney, it fell short by one degree of what I have just recorded: but at Rose Hill, it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world.
Unluckily they had no thermometer to ascertain its precise height. It must, however, have been intense, from the effects it produced. An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the ‘perroquettes’, though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.
Were I asked the cause of this intolerable heat, I should not hesitate to pronounce that it was occasioned by the wind blowing over immense deserts, which, I doubt not, exist in a north-west direction from Port Jackson, and not from fires kindled by the natives. This remark I feel necessary, as there were methods used by some persons in the colony, both for estimating the degree of heat and for ascertaining the cause of its production, which I deem equally unfair and unphilosophical.
The thermometer, whence my observations were constantly made, was hung in the open air in a southern aspect, never reached by the rays of the sun, at the distance of several feet above the ground.”
Apologies to all – but I’m going to refer to China again. See this from China Daily. The final paragraph:
Those ancient Chinese had a point.
TonyB Reur 9277;
Thanks for that; a fascinating history, and such lovely language!
And of course airflow patterns and their variations I’d wager are not well understood.
Like one division of NASA attributed loss of sea-ice around 2007 to unusual winds. My favourite example is the collapse of the Khmer-Angkor city civilization about 500 years ago attributed to monsoonal changes.
Looks like The New York Times, James E. Hansen, Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri have gotten a new ally in their fight against global warming
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/340-osama-bin-laden-rebukes-us-for-climate-change?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Robin (9278)
You write of ancient Chinese equivalent of USA “three strikes and you’re out” law.
“Serious review”? No.
Ancient Chinese remedy: “chop head off” and “throw work in garbage can”.
Max
Robin
Sorry. I see you have already posted on Pachauri’s new ally, Osama Bin Laden. Interesting story, though.
Max
Robin, reur 9278,
Some of the “mistakes” made by the IPCC are arguably worse than that because they are biased bad practice in the alarmist direction. I think that what you are turning up in China is of great importance because that nation (+BASIC) may well have great influence over the awakening awareness in Europe. I see that the author of the article has an Email address, and I intend to write to him/her about this aspect of exaggeration and the use of grey citations etc.
See my next post
GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC REPORT
* Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
* ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal
* Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
* Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
* GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed
05/06/07
* Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
* Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
* Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/now-its-greenpeace-reports-cited-in-the-ipcc-ar4/
TonyN
As far as I know, only one guy in history has managed to pull this off and then be praised as a “great discoverer”: Christopher Columbus. Worse than Beddington, he had a “0% understanding of where he was going”.
Max
Max, See WUWT: Nature: CO2 amplification: “it’s less than we thought””
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/
Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate.
David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos. Nature, 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769
I have not read it, but I’m intrigued that the prominent Swiss dendro’ Jan Esper is seemingly working in a different field. Mind you some time ago he expressed concerns about the divergence problem but then went quiet about it, and was apparently not popular with the IPCC or Mann. He also made some comments about Manna stuff that suggested that AR4 should only make a passing reference, rather than their long biased account on it.
Bob Fj
There is plenty of evidence to suggest the MWP and LIA were caused primarily by persistent winds from unusual directions.
In the case of Britain during the MWP we had a greater number of warm westerlies and in the LIA a greater number of cold easterlies.
Combine this with the jet stream position and the temperature of the ocean and this raises or lowers temperatures by several degrees.
Tonyb
Hi Bob-your #9286
I posted that story back on #9259. To my surprise no one commented on it despite its theme being so central to our discussions here over the last 18 months.
It’s a very interesting paper that has been analysed by various blogs. The ultimate conclusions of the authors however seems to be that although co2 amplification is much less than was thought, it won’t make any difference to the catastrophic warming that will still take place through positive feedbacks.
This study and the ones on temperatures are major body blows to the AGW cult. There also seems to be a new one circulating on water vapour having a greater effect than had at first been thought but I haven’t seen that surface anywhere yet.
Tonyb
Whoops-speak of the Devil-my 9288
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change
The Guardan has posted the story about water vapour contributing up to a third of the observed warming over the last 20 years.
Hmmm…. seem to remember the sun also contributed a similar amount. Combine this with the temperature record and the co2 story and its difficult to see whats left.
TonyN You might as well close this thread-our work is done :)
Tonyb
Bob_FJ
Thanks for link to WUWT article on latest study on “CO2 amplification” (9286).
This is a “dicey” area of “climate science” that could well fit Pachari’s definition of “voodoo science”, but here is how I understand it.
The “climate-carbon cycle feedback” invoked by IPCC has always been a bit of a “red herring” to me.
Warming of the ocean (anthropogenic, of course) should lead to a lower percentage of the suggested net CO2 imbalance (due to human emissions, of course) to be absorbed by the ocean (due to lower CO2 solubility). Currently the “unaccounted for” CO2 represents around 50% of the theoretical total and it is assumed (without any real substantiation) that this is going into the ocean.
So the postulation is that as the ocean warms up it will be unable to absorb as high a fraction, or that it will even begin to “disgorge” significant quantities of dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby leading to enhanced greenhouse warming.
This suggestion does not take into account the vast quantities of CO2 that are being absorbed and de-gassed by the ocean already, nor any increase in the vast amount of CO2 going to photosynthesis, both on land and in the ocean, removing more CO2 from the system. (So you get my drift just how dicey this whole postulation is, to start off with.)
Apparently the “party line” until now was that for every degree of ocean warming, an added 40 ppmv atmospheric CO2 would result. The new study now puts this hypothetical number at 7 ppmv, as I understand it.
For what it’s worth, this now means that the two IPCC “scenarios” which pass the “sanity test”, B1 and A1T, (see my post to you on Colose’s site, January 19, 2010, 5:26 pm), which show around 2°C warming from today (according to the bloated IPCC prediction), would show insignificant increases from 600 to 612 ppmv and from 700 to 714 ppmv, respectively, as a result of “climate-carbon cycle feedback).
Using the IPCC exaggerated estimate of “climate sensitivity” and the logarithmic ratio, this means an added warming of a whopping 0.09°C. (Yawn!)
So we can forget about the “climate-carbon cycle feedback”, Bob.
It was always “science fiction”. But I think it’s “history” now.
Max
TonyB
In the report on water vapor you cited (9298), Dr. Susan Solomon, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is quoted:
Good stuff.
Solomon’s organization, NOAA, publishes a long-term record of relative humidity as well as specific humidity (= water vapor content) of the atmosphere up to 300mb.
This shows that the measured water vapor content has decreased since 1948, despite rising temperature (see attached chart).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3606945645_3450dc4e6f_b.jpg
It is also clear that the short-term “blip” since 2000 shows a reduction in both temperature and water vapor content.
I believe that the lesson to be learned here is that it is naïve to simply invoke the Clausius-Clapeyron Law (water vapor pressure increases with temperature) and attempt to extrapolate it to our planet’s climate, i.e. assume that the relative humidity would remain constant with warming (as the IPCC models have done) and that the water vapor content would increase, thereby resulting in a “positive feedback”.
It is another example of why “assume” is spelled “ASS-U-ME”
Max
There’s a startling, and probably terminal, development in the Pachauri saga here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/
But the implications are even bigger than that.
PeterM
You wrote to Peter Geany on the “Election fever” site:
Actually, neither France nor Switzerland have actually “reduced carbon emission” (nor have they “reduced economic activity”).
Comparing CO2 and GDP figures for 1985 and 2005, we see:
1985
France: GDP: $1,388 million – CO2: 389 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $3.57
Switzerland GDP: $272 million – CO2: 42 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $6.48
2005
France: GDP: $2,155 million – CO2: 415 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $5.19
Switzerland GDP: $365 million – CO2: 46 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $7.93
So while both CO2 and GDP have increased, the “carbon efficiency” of both countries has also increased.
As a comparison, two countries, which have a far lower population density, and hence higher carbon emissions from transportation and transport of goods, show similar improvements:
1985
USA: GDP: $6,841 million – CO2: 4,585 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $1.49
Australia: GDP: $362million – CO2: 225 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $1.60
2005
USA: GDP: $12,433 million – CO2: 5,956 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $2.09
Australia: GDP: $702 million – CO2: 407 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $1.72
These improvements in all the above countries have not been achieved by imposing carbon taxes (direct or indirect), but by improving energy efficiency, cutting losses, etc.
These improvements are also starting to be seen in fast-growing giant economies, such as China and India, even though the absolute carbon efficiencies are still quite low there:
1985
China: GDP: $434 million – CO2: 1,867 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $0.23
India: GDP: $238million – CO2: 440 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $0.54
2005
China: GDP: $2,473 million – CO2: 5,398 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $0.46
India: GDP: $758 million – CO2: 1,167 million tons – GDP per ton CO2: $0.65
The “carbon efficiency” is the best measure of how energy efficient an economy is in creating wealth and improved standard of living for its population. (It can also be calculated on a per capita basis, which would make the number for China and India look a bit better, although still lower than for the developed economies.)
This is the ratio that must be improved, as is happening in virtually all of the major nations (without the need for international government intervention with direct or indirect carbon taxes).
For improving this ratio and allowing the poorest countries to also develop an efficient carbon-based energy infrastructure, will improve the standard of living of the world population, while imposing a carbon tax will not.
Max.
Yes it is a difficult one isn’t it. We all need economic growth. Everyone knows that don’t they? And you say economic growth can’t happen without CO2 and other GHG’s emissions increasing.
So, they can’t be a problem then and those scientists must have got it all wrong, musn’t they?
Scientists broke law by hiding climate change data; Won’t be prosecuted…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
The funny thing is that they predicted a “light dusting” as recently as Thursday for this area. Everyone was caught off guard. Again I ask, if these weather prophets can’t get the forecast right two days ahead of time, what are the chances that they’ll be accurate 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now. I’m certain Peter Martin will come up with some cockamamie “explanation” of how climate is not weather or short term predictions are more difficult to assess than long term conditions and the entire rational discussion will be marginalized through political correctness and character assassination for stating that the emperor has no clothes………How about regional anomalies or divine intervention Peter?
Heavy snow, ice bury southern Plains, head east…
http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&date=2010-01-29_20:00
PeterM
You wrote:
It very much looks like that is the case, Peter.
Max
PeterM
You wrote:
I did not actually write that, Peter. What I wrote is (a) that GDP growth and improved standard of living of populations has involved a growth in fossil fuel consumption and (b) that energy efficiency (expressed as GDP generated per ton of CO2 emitted) has improved in all nations as their economies develop.
This is happening today in the emerging economies (China, India, etc.) and will also occur in the poorest nations, once they develop the energy infrastructures needed to pull themselves out of poverty.
All of this has nothing to do with some international body setting carbon caps on each nation and imposing direct or indirect taxes on carbon.
These steps will do nothing to improve the plight of the poorest nations, will cause the emerging nations to stop “emerging” and will gravely cripple the industrially developed economies. A bad deal for everyone, which is not going to happen, so you can forget about it.
And so far no one, not even you, has shown me any actionable proposals to reduce CO2 emissions to stop the virtual computer-generated AGW problem.
If you think you have such a proposal, let’s hear it.
Max
Well I hope you are right Max.
Just imagine the situation we’d be in if AGW was really the problem the scientists say it is and we just couldn’t think of any way to stop GHGs increasing.
It would be like one of those Hollywood movies, you know like Speed. But this the heroine, Julia Bullock, is in a car heading towards a cliff but the bad guy has rigged the accelator pedal to a bomb, so that if she takes her foot off the gas……
TonyB Reur 9288
Concerning: WUWT: Nature: CO2 amplification: “it’s less than we thought”
Whoops, sorry, don’t know how we missed your 9259, but maybe there has been so much going on that it seemed understated, despite its huge importance. It’s of particular interest to Max at the moment because of his heavy exchanges with Patrick 027 over at Colose’s blog including feedback amplitudes.
ALL, further my 9286 on this topic, where I thought it odd that Jan Esper, a noted non-cabal Swiss dendro’ was involved in authorship, there is also an irony with it because it was published in Nature! This journal was of course the epitome of peer review that was popular with the cabal, and it published the original hocky-stick; MBH 98. I can’t stop smiling when recalling the Climategate Emails; those discussing the control of “peer review”, and what to do about those journals that allowed the publication of “inconvenient” works. So will they now ostracise Nature? Interesting!
Still, I imagine that Gavin and Tamino et al will be beavering away to discredit the new paper; at least for the benefit of the faithful on their blogs.