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.
I’m a scientist but not a climatologyist. I develop the background science of global warming on my web site, and I find that the biggest fraud is in the basic science. Here’s a page which I recently produced:
Narrative on Absurdities
As critics become more influential and credible, the absurdities of the global warming claims are increasing rather than decreasing. This situation calls for a perspective narrative.
Warmists are getting more rudimentary in focusing on the heat producing effects of carbon dioxide and linking all adversities to the result. By rudimentary, I mean they do less explaining, because their claims are becoming less credible.
The absurdity is that carbon dioxide has no ability to add significant heat to the atmosphere. Yet even most critics claim that it does—the only question being how much. What is it about this absurdity that even the critics can’t see through it?
It’s difficult to see into other minds and explain what their problem is. There has not been a consistent description of how CO2 creates global warming. Monckton reviews dozens of descriptions that have been given, all in conflict with each other.
The promoters of the error seem to think there is something unquestionable about CO2 creating heat. Since CO2 absorbs radiation, it must create heat. Since nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb radiation, they must not create heat. So the claim is often made that the planet would be icy cold without greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
The reason why these assumptions are so preposterous is that all surrounding realities contradict the conclusion. But the promoters of the error seem to have no ability to add related factors to the subject.
The first and most obvious contradiction is that more heat enters the atmosphere through conduction and convection than radiation, which is recognized by all alarmist climatologists. They all have so-called energy budgets, which are put in chart form showing heat flowing in every direction; and conduction and convection always show more heat flow than radiation.
Presumably, such climatologists would never make the claim that the atmosphere would have no heat in it without greenhouse gasses; but they never correct the persons who make that claim. And it is often scientists who make the absurd claim. The claim is generally made by The Union of Concerned Scientists and by government bureaucrats.
Such a basic absurdity as claiming nothing but greenhouse gasses add heat to the atmosphere shows an extreme mindlessness. You would think that when someone points out the errors, they would get corrected; but it doesn’t happen. This is why critics refer to the warmist position as a religion rather than science. It follows the same pattern of belief-overriding-rationality as creationism.
Then critics/skeptics seem to assume that CO2 must add some heat to the atmosphere, even if not all of it. They will often go through the same calculations as the warmists showing the resulting heat following a logarithmic curve. How do you get a point on a curve, when the amount of conduction and convection cannot be quantified? They aren’t just saying you might get something within a particular range depending upon the influences of conduction and convection; they are saying there is a mathematical certainty to the result. It shows that even on the side of critics there can be a high degree of mindlessness involved.
Another absurdity, which seems to be too complex for the mindless nature of the subject, is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it but by an equilibrium with the amount of heat leaving. That equilibrium cannot be accounted for in the mindless calculations. Supposedly, a laboratory model can account for the rate of heat leaving the system, but the atmosphere is so vastly more complex than a laboratory model that no one could honestly claim it can be represented by a purified system.
If the rate of heat leaving the system were accounted for, it would show that the temperature of the atmosphere must be locked into a narrow set of requirements to achieve equilibrium, because rate of heat loss is determined strictly by temperature of the emitting material. You cannot get CO2 adding heat to the system, when equilibrium requires a fixed temperature. Equilibrium holds the temperature of the atmosphere fixed by resulting in more radiation escaping until the required temperature is reached. The temperature of the atmosphere follows a gradient with height, but the net result must be fixed by equilibrium requirements.
To claim that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas is like setting a jar of pickles on the kitchen table and saying it absorbs heat, therefore it heats the kitchen; and if you remove the jar of pickles, the kitchen will be as cold as the outdoors. The truth is, heat gets into the atmosphere a hundred times faster through conduction and convection than through radiation. This is why fans are used to cool electronic devices instead of relying upon radiation.
It’s irrelevant whether heat enters the atmosphere through conduction and convection or radiation, because the resulting temperature is controlled through equilibrium dynamics. There is no log curve for the result. The result doesn’t change, so where does the curve come from?
My global warming web site is here:
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Garry Novak,
You need to think about the Physics of the GHE a little more.
Firstly it not that CO2 ‘creates’ heat. It doesn’t. It slows down the process of IR radiation from the Earth’s surface causing the surface to become warmer. The natural GHE has been known since the middle of the 19th century to be resposnsible for a 33 degC warming.
The process is pretty much analagous to how clouds keep the Earth warmer at night. This is especially noticeable in Winter when a clear night is a good indicator of deep frosts.
Its not all down to CO2. H2O plays a major part too.
You need to read up on what people like Roy Spencer, who is generally considered to be more sceptical than most scientists on the AGW issue, has somewhat reluctantly to say on the topic. But he’s absolutely correct.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
PeterM
The point being (9874) that there are newspapers (and TV networks) that are more left-leaning and those that are more right-leaning and maybe even a few exceptions that walk the middle of the road.
Editorial policy is usually made by the editors, owners, managing boards, etc.
Readers (and viewers) generally choose the ones they like best.
In the major USA papers, the WSJ is “right of center” while the NYT is “left of center”. Both are well-respected papers.
We have the same constellation in Switzerland, as I am sure the UK and Australia also have.
No one newspaper or TV network is “more reliable” than another, they simply have differing editorial policies.
To claim (for example) that the WSJ presents a biased report, because Rupert Murdoch owns it would be absurd, so I am sure that this is not what you were implying earlier.
Max
Max,
You say “To claim (for example) that the WSJ presents a biased report, because Rupert Murdoch owns it would be absurd”
Why absurd? Why sshould the WSJ be any different to the Sun or Australian?
If Rupert Murdoch decided that the WSJ should take a different line on the science of Global warming, for instance, do you think it would take more than one email or phone call to the editor and journalists ? And do you think they’d have any problem with that ‘request’?
Brute
Robin is right (9872) about the US Revolutionary War hero, General LaFayette, and the key role he and his French troops played in defeating the British at Yorktown.
There are 32 US towns or cities named after LaFayette: 16 LaFayettes, 10 Fayettes, 4 Fayettevilles and 1 each Fayette City and Lake Lafayette, so he’s a pretty famous hero in your country.
For more about LaFayette’s fame in USA see:
http://www.francerevisited.com/main/node/171
Max
PeterM
You are shooting yourself in the foot again with fuzzy logic and unsupported claims.
The WSJ editorial policy on “AGW as a threat” may be different from that of the NYT, which does not make one paper “right” (as in “correct”) and the other one “wrong”.
How the editorial policy is established is fairly unimportant. Whether this is by the owners, the board of directors, etc. really does not matter.
I have read both papers regularly and have not noticed any change in the WSJ since 2007, when the Bancroft family sold it to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.
There was some wild speculation at the time that WSJ would become a “sensationalist rag” as the result of the sale, but this turned out to be wrong.
Max
Gee Pete, the Editor in Chief of the Guardian seems to be a Greenie according to Wikipedia (which you so often represent as gospel).
I wonder what the view of the reporters would be seeing that their boss is a committed Eco-Zealot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rusbridger
TonyB
Try driving through the US Appalachian mountains (say in Tennessee or West Virginia): it’s not only the signposts, but also the mailboxes along the road that are full of bullet holes.
Adds to the local flavor.
Max
One other point………
What do all of his Socialist buddies think about his half million dollar salary?
Doesn’t seem very fair that one man should be paid all that loot……….Obviously more money than he needs……..right Comrade?
Again, I’m teasing ……………Lafayette was an invaluable aide to Washington, although I often wonder how “determined” the French would have been had they not been at war with Great Britain at the time.
This quote sort of says it all………
The Complete Military History of France
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
One of my favorite characters of the American Revolution is this guy…….
Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben
Max,
Yes, it’s a local past time…………And, it requires great skill and agility to shoot a road sign or a mailbox from a speeding vehicle I’ll have you know!
– Hundred Years War
– Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.”
– Thirty Years War
– France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
Mexico, 1863-1864.
France attempts to take advantage of Mexico’s weakness following its thorough thrashing by the U.S. 20 years earlier (“Halls of Montezuma”). Not surprisingly, the only unit to distinguish itself is the French Foreign Legion (consisting of, by definition, non-Frenchmen). Booted out of the country a little over a year after arrival.
Panama jungles 1881-1890.
No one but nature to fight, France still loses; canal is eventually built by the U.S. 1904-1914.
Barbary Wars, middle ages-1830.
Pirates in North Africa continually harass European shipping in Meditteranean. France’s solution: pay them to leave us alone. America’s solution: kick their asses (“the Shores of Tripoli”). [America’s] first overseas victories, won 1801-1815.
Gary Novak
Further to the post (49) by PeterM, I believe that the greenhouse theory, per se, is usually not questioned (as Roy Spencer writes). It is also generally accepted that Earth’s temperature at the surface would be around 33°C colder if there were no atmosphere containing GH gases (principally water vapor).
What IS questioned are the following
· Importance of CO2 in the “natural” GH effect
· Impact of added human-produced CO2 on our climate
· Impact of possible “positive” and “negative” “feedbacks”
· Delayed impact of GH warming still “hidden in the pipeline”
These questions are critical to the validity of the premise that “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” (caused principally by human CO2 emissions) represents a serious potential threat.
PeterM (and the IPCC plus many climate scientists) believe that this premise is valid, although there is no empirical evidence to support this (only model simulations).
Others on this blog (including me) plus many other climate scientists do not believe that this premise is valid. We have asked PeterM (and others on other blog sites) to present the empirical evidence to support this premise. They have been unable to do so. They have shown evidence that it has warmed over the past 150 years, that Arctic sea ice has receded since satellite measurements started in 1979 (while Antarctic sea ice expanded), that sea level has been rising since the 19th century when tide gauge records started and that atmospheric CO2 has risen since measurements started at Mauna Loa in 1958. But they have not been able to provide empirical evidence to support the premise that “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” (caused principally by human CO2 emissions) represents a serious potential threat.
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).
It is also generally accepted that GH warming follows the change in atmospheric concentration in a logarithmic relationship, so that the doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv would have the same temperature impact as a further doubling from 560 to a theoretical 1120 ppmv.
A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated to result in a theoretical GH warming of 0.7 to 1.0°C. This level of warming is obviously not a problem for our environment or society. It is assumed that atmospheric CO2 will reach a level of about 560 ppmv by year 2100 (if the compounded annual rate of increase continues at the same level of the past 20 years). It is further assumed (based on ice core data) that the “pre-industrial” level was around 280 ppmv. Using the 2xCO2 estimate of 1.0°C, this means that the GH warming from “pre-industrial” year 1750 to future year 2100 would be 1.0°C. We are now at around 390 ppmv CO2, so (using the logarithmic relation) we have theoretically warmed by around 0.5°C since 1750, leaving roughly 0.5°C CO2 warming from today until year 2100.
This is obviously nothing to worry about.
And here is where the problems begin.
The IPCC and those scientists who support IPCC believe that the net feedbacks with warming from added water vapor, changes in clouds, etc. will more than triple the GH warming from CO2 alone, resulting in warming by year 2001 of 2 to 4°C.
These estimates are not based on empirical evidence, but on model studies, which have been fed various assumptions. In fact, recent actual observations (by Spencer et al. and Lindzen + Choi), which were published after the last IPCC report of 2007, demonstrate that the net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed by IPCC, resulting in a 2xCO2 GH warming of around 0.7°C with all feedbacks, or slightly below the GH effect with no feedbacks.
These results are being strongly contested by many scientists, who support the IPCC view.
There is another basic “problem” with the IPCC story on warming.
The “official line” says that all human-caused factors represent the same warming potential as CO2 alone (the other GHGs, land use changes, aerosols, etc. essentially “cancel one another out”), that all “natural forcing factors” are essentially insignificant (less than 10% of the CO2 forcing) but that 2xCO2 (with the assumed net positive feedbacks) will cause warming of 3.2°C.
On this basis, we should have seen 20th century warming of 1.3°C. But, in actual fact, we only saw around half of this amount. So, instead of reducing the assumed 2xCO2 GH impact to agree with the observed warming, the postulation is made that the other half of the GH warming is still “hidden in the pipeline”, from where it will eventually come out to cause additional GH warming of the atmosphere.
This bizarre assumption postulates that the “hidden warming” is “hiding” in the upper layer of the ocean, and will eventually be “released” into the atmosphere as added warming.
Due to the much higher specific heat of the top 500 meters of ocean than the entire atmosphere, this postulation does not pass the normal “reality test”.
But, even more importantly, it has been invalidated by the observed facts. This is the Achilles’ heel of the IPCC and the dangerous AGW premise: this premise is supported by model simulations and assumptions alone, but not by the physically observed empirical evidence.
The atmosphere (both at the surface and in the troposphere) has cooled after 2000, despite record increase in CO2.
At the same time, the upper ocean has also cooled since more accurate Argo buoys replaced the old, relatively inaccurate, expendable devices in 2003.
The latent heat in the relatively small amount of melting ice or added water vapor is too small to make a difference.
So where is the “missing heat”?
It cannot be found on our planet, so it does not exist and the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation is invalidated.
PeterM (plus many other AGW-believers) has a hard time accepting these hard and cold facts, because they invalidate the dangerous AGW premise he so much wants to believe in.
That sort of summarizes my take on the GH theory and its impact on our climate.
There are lots of other errors in the latest IPCC report, as is being shown by several recent revelations. There are others, which have not yet been picked up by the media. But that’s another story.
Max
Brute
Yep. Especially with a can of beer in one hand.
Max
Brute 9884
It was Admiral Pellew who lived in my home town who defeated the Barbary Pirates and destroyed their base of Algiers in 1820. White slaves had been taken from here by the pirates including one of Pellews descendants. I can see his house from my own and replica cannon from the battle are still present there.
I wrote a climate article which included reference to him, carried recently at TAV
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/travels-in-europe-part-1/
Ironically the French destroyed large parts of my town without warning or cause in 1690. There is a place called French Street here which just a few months ago relinquished a cannon ball from the battle.
Tonyb
To continue this hopelessly O/T exchange, Brute might note that Admiral Pellew was British and (as Captain Pellew) commanded the ship of the line Conqueror at Trafalgar – defeating the, er, French. He was one of Nelson’s “Band of Brothers”.
Nonetheless, I consider Brute’s mild dismissal of the help given by the French in the Revolutionary War is ungracious.
I apologize, I posted on the wrong story earlier……..
On Wind Energy
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100028631/what-dave-and-his-chum-barack-dont-want-you-to-know-about-green-jobs-and-green-energy/
Robin #9887
Hardly OT as I managed to sneak in a legitimate article on climate change in my 9886! :)
Perhaps to throw TonyN off the scent you need to make reference to Bonapartes retreat from Moscow during the coldest weather in years?
Tonyb
I forgot about that one…….defeated by “climate change” or would that be “weather”?……either way, another loss.
TonyB/Brute:
But don’t forget Washington’s crossing of the Delaware (taking the dastardly British by surprise) – I seem to remember reading that that was almost thwarted by ice. An early example of Americans “defeating climate change” perhaps? Maybe there’s an object lesson there for Obama.
Max
This relates to the long series of posts here last year concerning Ernst Beck. Can you hop across to the CO2 thread here
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
Please read comments 74-78 inclusive. We’ve done some work here in the past about possible outgassing amounts and it was suprisingly large. This isn’t reflected in the Mauna Loa ‘stairway to heaven’ figures but is in the highly variable historic records.
Beck has postulated that the extra CO2 that caused the high spikes came from the warming Arctic.
Do you think the amounts involved are feasible?
tonyb
TonyB
Without going into a major check of all the variables, the calculation looks right to me, using the 7% change in atmospheric CO2 per 1°C as calculated by Revelle and Suess (1957). This results in an increase in atmospheric CO2 of around 24 ppmv per 1°C warming.
There is a more recent study by Gordon and Jones which shows a 4.4% per 1°C effect, which is somewhat lower than that estimated by Revelle and Suess.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC2-488GBB8-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1244964113&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVer.
Based on this lower number, the increase in atmospheric CO2 with a 1°C warming would be around 15 ppmv, but the order of magnitude remains the same.
Max
Max
Thanks for this. So assuming the increase of ocean warmth was sufficient-which certainly appears likely during that extended 1920’s to 1940 warming episode- the spike in Co2 we saw seems perfectly possible?
The other spike was in the 1840’s which comes right in the middle of the previous arctic warming episode I wrote about. All in all Becks calculations appear perfectly feasible.
Which of course doesn’t explain the linear-rather than erratic-increase we see in modern Mauna Loa figures. Any theories on that?
Tonyb
TonyB
I do not know how the Mauna Loa numbers are “adjusted”, “corrected” or otherwise “manipulated” to arrive at such a smooth curve (it’s so smooth that it looks “unnatural” to me, but that is subjective).
I once ran a comparison between annual human CO2 emissions and annually averaged increases at Mauna Loa. This comparison was very erratic, with the theoretical “percentage of human emission staying in the atmosphere” (i.e. amount of increased atmospheric CO2 in Gt over the year divided by the Gt of human CO2 emissions over the same year, expressed as %) swinging from under 20% to over 90% (and averaging a bit more than 50%).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/3056843022_d1d107fb78_b.jpg
Since at least 1970 there has been a gradual warming, in Arctic as well as global temperature, at least up until recently.
The Mauna Loa data show a pretty steady increase, even after 2006:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It seems like the latest global temperature trends (for what they are worth) are showing cooling, both in the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) and the upper ocean.
I have not checked latest statistics on Arctic temperatures, but assuming that these are also in decline, the theory says we should start to see a slowdown in CO2 increase (or even an annual decrease in atmospheric CO2).
Realize that there may be a time lag between ocean cooling and increased CO2 solubility leading to lower atmospheric CO2 content, but this should not be that long.
Max
Max
I am inclined to think that lag is around two years at sea surface level which increases to decades then centuries the deeper you go,
How much CO2 there is in the quick to react first foot or so of ocean I don’t know. Take into account biomass and soil and ocean and that should create considerable variation. I have never been convinced that as Mauna loa is measuring such a huge flux it should present such an unnatural linear increase
tonyb
Sort of looks like a hockey stick……..I see a corrolation here……….