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.
Forgot the link…..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx
This E-mail I received today struck me as funny. If you don’t know, the Energy Star program is designed to benchmark properties to attach an energy efficiency rating…….in an effort to combat “global warming”……the original meeting was cancelled due to a……BLIZZARD.
Gary Novak
In my earlier post I mentioned the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation:
To get a bit more specific as to why his does not pass the “reality test” upon closer scrutiny.
The upper 500 meters of the ocean represents a total mass of 177 million Gigatons, with a specific heat of 3990 J/kgK
The troposphere represents a total mass of 4.1 million Gt, with a specific heat of 1000 J/kgK
So, if we accept the high 2xCO2 GH warming estimate of IPCC, and assume that half of this is “hidden” in the upper ocean, we have a “warming” of the upper ocean of:
(1.6 * 4,100,000 * 1000) / (177,000,000 * 3990) = 0.009°C “warming” of the upper ocean.
Some studies conclude that it is the upper 100 meters of the ocean that exchange heat with the atmosphere (rather than the top 500 meters).
On this basis, the energy “hidden: in the upper ocean” represents a warming of 0.047°C.
And this infinitesimal “warming” is supposed to come out of “hiding” and warm the atmosphere by the “missing” 1.6°C?
Doesn’t pass my “reality test” unless someone can demonstrate the mechanism by which it is supposed to happen.
So the theory is flawed.
But, even worse, it has been invalidated by the empirical data derived from physical observation (as pointed out earlier).
Max
Bob_FJ
Over at the Colose Climate Change blog, I recall that you and I had several exchanges with the AGW faithful on the revised Trenberth et al. global and annual Earth energy budget cartoon – in particular the postulated “net imbalance” estimate of + 0.9 W/m2, and why this figure is so much greater than the annual change in GH forcing from CO2.
It finally boiled down to the fact that this estimate (made by Hansen et al. based on some “circular logic”) was based on the bizarre postulation of energy “hidden in the pipeline” (i.e. the upper ocean), which would miraculously come out of “hiding” some day in the future by some undefined mechanism to add more heat to the atmosphere, thereby enhancing global warming.
Well, as we now know, the upper ocean has cooled instead of warming, since the more accurate Argo devices started providing measurements in 2003, providing a real dilemma for Hansen’s “hidden in the pipeline” postulation.
Since the “missing heat” cannot be found in the upper ocean, Kevin Trenberth now speculates that it may be radiated out into space or absorbed by the deeper ocean, in either case invalidating the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation.
See “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat”:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
So now even Kevin Trenberth agrees that there is no warming “going to the pipeline”.
I find that very interesting, because it pulls the rug out from under Hansen’s “hidden in the pipeline” postulation, at the same time suggesting that clouds may be playing a “natural thermostat” (i.e. “negative feedback”) role.
And this coming from Kevin Trenberth!
Max
Bob_FJ
Back to Hansen’s invalidated “hidden in the pipeline” postulation.
Why is this important to the validity of the AR4 WG1 projections?
The postulation was suggested by Hansen using strange “circular logic”.
First, he assumed a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, caused by several assumed “positive feedbacks” (from model simulations) increasing the theoretical GH effect of 2xCO2 from slightly below 1°C by more than three-fold.
Then he took the observed warming (from 1883 to 2003), and noted that it was less than half the warming which “should have occurred” from the estimated increase in CO2 over the period, assuming at the same time that there were no natural factors, which may have been responsible for some or all of the observed warming and that is was all due to increased anthropogenic GHGs (primarily CO2).
Then , curiously, rather than adjusting his assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity to agree with the observed warming, he postulated that his assumed sensitivity was right and that therefore there had to be significant warming still “hidden in the pipeline” (i.e. in the “upper ocean”).
This goofy premise was then used to support the concept of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C (in perfect “circular logic”).
Now that the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation has been invalidated by the physically observed cooling of the upper ocean, it raises serious questions regarding the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, upon which all the climate model projections of future warming in IPCC’s AR4 WG1 report are based.
WG1 tells us that the anthropogenic GH effect will result in warming of 1.8 to 4.0°C by year 2100 (with an upper high estimate of 6.4°C). The projections exceeding 3°C are based on reaching atmospheric CO2 levels, which are physically impossible, based on all the fossil fuels on our planet, so can be discarded.
But even the lower projections (between 2 and 3°C) are based on a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity that is too high by a factor of 3 to 4, based on the invalidation of the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation.
So, all other things being equal, we are faced with a GH warming by year 2100 of less than 1°C, which is certainly nothing to get very excited about.
(But, as we have seen from the recent cooling despite record CO2 increase, “all other things” are not equal, and we may actually be seeing a naturally-caused prolonged cooling and no warming at all.)
Along with all the other errors and exaggerations (pointed out by PaulM) plus the weak logic on human attribution (pointed out by Robin), I would say that this is the third basic weakness in the AR4 WG1 report and its conclusions.
Max
Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/14/dr-nicolas-scaffeta-summarizes-why-the-anthropogenic-theory-proposed-by-the-ipcc-should-be-questioned/#more-17314
Top: The figure shows the global surface temperature (black) detrended of its quadratic fit function as done in Figure 1. The data are plotted against the 60 year modulation of the speed of the sun relative to the center of mass of the solar system (red) shown in Appendix T. The 60 year modulation of SCMSS has been time-shifted by +5 years. Bottom: The figure shows the global surface temperature (black) filtered within its two decadal oscillation. The temperature modulation is plotted against the SCMSS (red) shown in Appendix T. No time-shift has been applied. The figures suggest that the 60 and 20 year modulation of the SCMSS can be used for forecasting these global surface temperature oscillations and has been used to reproduce the forecast modulation curves in Figure 13.
Maybe it would just be easier to narrow down the IPCC claims that are correct?
UN climate change claims on rainforests were wrong, study suggests
The United Nations’ climate change panel is facing fresh criticism after new research contradicted the organisation’s claims about the devastating effect climate change could have on the Amazon rainforest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7437016/UN-climate-change-claims-on-rainforests-were-wrong-study-suggests.html
Max,
I know I’m flogging a dead horse and I’ve lost count of how many times that scientific references are definitely required instead of airy statements along the lines of:
“It is generally accepted that the impact of CO2 in the natural GH warming of our planet is between 3 and 7°C (out of the 33°C total).”
These statements are quite misleading.
If anyone is interested in the correct analysis its in these links:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
PeterM
You are, indeed “flogging a dead horse” (9909).
The “natural greenhouse effect” is primarily a result of the water in the atmosphere.
CO2 also plays a role, but this is much smaller.
Here is a summary, which puts the CO2 GH impact at between 9% and 26% of the total natural GH effect, or between 3°C and 8.5°C out of the total 33°C.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
[BTW, the first RC article you cited does not quibble with the 9% to 26% for the natural GH effect, but then goes into a discussion of spectral overlaps with the other absorbers and anthropogenic GH warming. The second RC article gives Gavin Schmidt’s personal opinion of whether the GH effect from water vapor should be classified as a “forcing” or a “feedback” in the “climate models” (yawn!).]
Forget RealClimate as a serious source of information, Peter, and go back to the original sources, instead.
I have plotted the formulae of several scientists in the attached graph.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3600826910_f2e2a1aced_b.jpg
This also puts the natural GH effect of CO2 at somewhere between 4° and 7°C.
Peter, that is what is generally accepted by AGW enthusiasts (incl. IPCC) as well as skeptics (such as Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen). There is nothing at all “misleading” here.
You are only fooling yourself if you try to claim otherwise.
Max
Brute
In light of all the errors that are coming to light in the latest IPCC report, you wrote
Let’s start with the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 report:
1. IPCC claims Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost mass 1993-2003, contributing to sea level rise. FALSE.
2. IPCC claims sea level rise has accelerated in late 20th century. FALSE.
3. IPCC claims atmospheric CO2 has risen since Mauna Loa measurements started. TRUE
4. IPCC claims it has warmed by around 0.6 to 0.7°C over the 20th century. TRUE
5. IPCC claims that the rate of warming has increased over the late 20th century. FALSE
6. IPCC claims Arctic sea ice has receded since measurements started in 1979. TRUE
7. IPCC claims Antarctic sea ice has not changed since 1979. FALSE
8. IPCC claims that non-polar glaciers are generally shrinking with warming. TRUE
9. IPCC claims that northern hemisphere snow cover has receded during latter part of 20th century. FALSE
10. IPCC claims troposphere has warmed more rapidly than surface. FALSE
11. IPCC claims that upper ocean has warmed from 1961 to around 2003. TRUE
12. IPCC claims discrepancy between surface and satellite readings have been resolved. FALSE
13. IPCC claims that the UHI distortion to the surface record is negligible. FALSE
14. IPCC claims that 20th century temperatures were highest in past 1300 years. FALSE
15. IPCC claims that all natural forcing factors represent less than one tenth of forcing from CO2 alone. FALSE
16. IPCC claims that 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is 3.2°C, due primarily to positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks. FALSE
17. IPCC claims that heat waves have increased and are likely to do so even more. FALSE
18. IPCC claims that heavy precipitation events have increased and are likely to do so even more. FALSE
19. IPCC claims that droughts have increased and are likely to do so even more. FALSE
20. IPCC claims that intense tropical cyclones have increased and are likely to do so even more. FALSE
21. IPCC claims that extreme high sea levels have increased and are likely to do so even more. FALSE
22. IPCC claims that cold days and nights have become less frequent. FALSE
23. IPCC claims that hot days and nights have become more frequent. FALSE
24. IPCC claims a projected warming of 0.2°C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century. FALSE
25. IPCC claims a projected increase in CO2 (two most extreme cases) that exceed the CO2 in all existing fossil fuels. FALSE
So out of 20 IPCC claims, we see that 5 are TRUE and 20 are FALSE, so it looks like your statement is correct.
Then there are all the errors and exaggerations that are being exposed in the Working Group 2 report (Himalayan glaciers disappearing, African crop losses, Amazon rain forest shrinking, etc.) It almost looks like these guys were making it up as they were going along, and (more amazingly) that this rubbish was being swallowed by the media, the politicians and a good part of the public until the revelations were recently made public.
Max
Max, Reur 9904:
If it weren’t for Trenberth’s disgraceful treatment of Chris Landsea, that caused Landsea to resign from the IPCC, (and a few etc’s), I might be tempted to think that Trenberth is really a nice cuddly guy; and to feel sorry for him tossing around at night and waking in a cold sweat screaming things like; Where has the energy gone !?!?!?!?
But, he has had agnostic sentiments since at least last October, and I come back to this Email exchange, and BTW note its circulation!
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
More on this thread at: http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1056&filename=1255550975.txt and of course at ‘Home’ with search ability.
So dear ol’ Kev’ does not agree with the oceanic “pipeline fantasy”……..Hmmmm.
Max, Reur 9905, CC Gary Novak;
That is a nice summary to which, in a word, I respond YEP!
There is also another “pipeline hypothesis” by Tamino (Grant Foster) that was cited by Ray Ladbury, followed by an unfriendly chorus from the usual suspects over at RC, that starts to get going at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/comment-page-9/#comment-164012
ALL, do you remember David B Benson?
He has joined-in on the Tamino “Volcanic forcing lull” debate as follows:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/comment-page-9/#comment-164549
Surprisingly, although David’s first post was unfriendly, he has since given me some support, that has apparently been ignored by the other church members.
It is surprising to me that many recent posts of mine have been allowed at RC, compared with past experience of deletions, and it is fun. Why don’t you guys join in?!
Max,
Yes Realclimate does suggest a figure of between 9-25% for the contribution of CO2 to the natural GHE. What you don’t like to explain is that these figures are only valid for the assumption of everything else staying the same.
However, if CO2 were somehow removed stage by stage from the atmosphere everything else wouldn’t stay the same, as the guys at Realclimate try to explain. As the atmosphere cooled due to less CO2 being present it would also become drier. The Antarctic has a much drier atmosphere than the tropics. Anyone who has ever used car’s air conditioning system to dry out the windscreen knows that too.
A drier atmosphere would mean that there would be less water to contribute to the GHE. This would mean less IR heating and an even colder climate. This is generally what is meant by water vapour being a follower. It will follow the other way too as CO2 concentrations are increased.
Meanwhile, the Australian CSIRO and the BOM have written a joint report on the state of Australia’s and the World climate. Maybe you are thinking that they have now decided that the hack of emails at CRU has magically fixed the problem?
http://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html
PeterM
Your “what if” assumptions on the relative GH importance of CO2 are very “iffy”.
The fact remains that it is generally accepted that CO2 is responsible for somewhere between 3 and 8 degreesC of the 33 degC natural greenhouse effect, and that is what we have been discussing here, not some half-baked postulation by Gavin Schmidt of what could theoretically happen if one hypothetically removed all CO2 from the atmosphere.
Forget about it, Peter. It’s not going to happen. And no one (least of all Gavin) has any earthly notion of what would happen (except that all plant and animal life on our planet would die).
Max
PeterM
In my 9904 to Bob_FJ I cited a quotation of Kevin Trenberth, which I believe bears repeating to help you understand what is going on here.
We have discussed the Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” postulation previously.
As I pointed out to Gary Novak, the theoretical basis for this postulation is weak, in itself, but, more importantly, it has recently been invalidated by the observed cooling of the upper ocean, where the “hidden” energy is supposed to be “hiding”.
Without the ”hidden energy”, the postulation of a high 2xCO2 climate sensitivity based on strongly net positive feedbacks also disappears, since the actually observed warming does not support this high climate sensitivity and these feedbacks, if there is no added warming “hidden in the pipeline”.
Now this is a real dilemma for AGW believers.
The “missing energy” has to be real, or the high climate sensitivity is invalidated.
But since it cannot be found anywhere on our planet, it must be explained in some way.
Since the “missing heat” cannot be found in the upper ocean, Kevin Trenberth now speculates that it may be radiated out into space or absorbed by the deeper ocean, in either case invalidating the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation.
See “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat”:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
So now even Kevin Trenberth agrees that there is no warming “going to the pipeline” and that the theoretical missing energy “is probably going back out into space”. And, more importantly, he now concedes, “the Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds” (i.e. a net negative feedback from clouds).
This is an enormous concession on the part of Trenberth, in that it concedes that the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation has been invalidated by the physical observations and that the net feedback from clouds is likely to be negative, acting as a “natural thermostat” by reflecting energy back out into space, rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all the climate models cited by IPCC, and as used as a basis for projected future warming.
Care to comment, Peter?
Max
Max
To your Trenberth quote can be added this from Judith Curry (from Bishop Hill)
“An omigosh moment, this. Read Judith Curry’s interview with Discover magazine. (Judith is a senior climatologist, from Georgia Tech).
Some choice excerpts:
Q Where do you come down on the whole subject of uncertainty in the climate science?
A I’m very concerned about the way uncertainty is being treated. The IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a shortcut on the actual scientific uncertainty analysis on a lot of the issues, particularly the temperature records.
…
Q Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?
A No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.”
…
Q Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
A Yes.”
Or perhaps you can add in the quote from Phil Jones that there has been no statistically meaningful warming since 1995.
Tonyb
Max,
Do you have a reference for your assertion that
“….it is generally accepted that CO2 is responsible for somewhere between 3 and 8 degreesC of the 33 degC natural greenhouse effect”?
This is not even agreed by all contrarians. Ian Plimer, for instance, claims that the Earth would be 18 degC colder without the presence of CO2.
Furthermore you’re either being naive or deliberately disingenuous to claim that the individual GH components of the atmosphere can be simply summed individually. They are all interdependent. If one is changed , like CO2 being doubled, there will be an effect on the others.
TonyB, Reur 9917
Talking of omigosh moments, it’s worth quoting this exchange I had with Gavin Schmidt in full:
484 BobFJ says:
14 March 2010 at 2:27 AM
Gavin, Reur response within my 479:
Well, I mean it in the context NOT of very recent times but of this Tamino graph , which he uses to create a model for the full period from 1880. Sure, obviously, the capabilities have been improving in recent satellite times, but uncertainties remain, according to your two links appended in my 473:
The first from NASA opens with:
“The dataset is updated when additional data or improvements become available. (Last Modified: on 2002? 04? 18) We welcome comments or suggestions regarding these data…”
And, within Sato et al, some brief extracts:
“…We describe the sources of our data and the reasons for choices among alternative sources. We would welcome information on any observations with potential for improving this data set…”
“…Although these uncertainties are large, [subjectively 50%, reducing to 25%], we believe that the estimated history of aerosol optical depth provides a useful measure of volcanic aerosol climate forcing for the past century..”
“…Therefore it is important to improve the accuracy with which the volcanic climate forcing is specified, to the extent that is practical…”
[
I’ve added bold emphasis to the last line, but maybe red, or blinking would have been appropriate.
Judith Curry does seem to have adopted a rather nuanced position recently. She seems sympathetic to people like Steve McIntyre but hostile to Lomborg.
However, unless she has fundamentally changed her views in the last couple of years she isn’t a denier!
She writes “…..skepticism about climate change is no longer focused on whether it the earth is getting warmer (it is) or whether humans are contributing to it (we are).”
and
“…but I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Max, Reur 9911, listing some WG1 “errors”
Here is one that irritates me;
26) If the Greenland ice sheet were to entirely melt, sea level would rise by ~6 m
Er no less than that probably. There would be a new large inland sea that I’ve not heard mention of. Greenland is basin shaped, surrounded by mountains around the rim.
The next one is an omission that really drives me nuts!:
27) Absolutely no mention that the recent Greenland warming is not extraordinary, and that thermometer records for Greenland suggest it was comparable or warmer there in 1930-1940!
PeterM
Am resinding this with links separate (there are so many that the ingoing filter choked on them!)
You asked for references that state that the natural GH effect of cO2 is between 9% and 26% of the total.
Here are a few.
Here is one good summary of the natural GH effect of CO2, H2O, etc.
Link 1
Here is one that lists the same 9% to 26% estimate for CO2.
Link 2
Here is another paper that cites the 9% to 26% estimate:
Link 3
Here is an encyclopedia reference, also citing the 9% to 26% range.
Link 4
Another source citing the 9% to 26% range
Link 5
Yet another
Link 6
Here’s another
Link 7
Here’s one from the grist site (Coby Beck) that puts it between 9% and 30%
Link 8
Here’s one from your favorite source, RealClimate, that says (bold type by me):
Link 9
Here is one from WUWT that puts it at 10%
Link 10
Using the formulas for calculating CO2 GH impact (the graph I posted), one also arrives at the same range, with Lindzen at the low end and Hansen at the high end.
Peter, if you have any references that are outside this range (forget Plimer), let’s see them. Otherwise back off, you are beginning to look silly.
Max
Link 1
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
Link 2
http://timeforchange.org/cause-and-effect-for-global-warming
Link 3
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3641095/Greenhouse-Gas-the-Carbon-Dioxide-and-Its-Role-in-Global-Environmental-Change
Link 4
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Greenhouse_gas
Link 5
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff2.htm
Link 6
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Greenhouse-gas