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 Peter,
In a moment of obvious loss of self-control, you wrote: ‘All this “green on the inside red on the outside” stuff is just a load of paranoid McCarthyism.’
Mc-what?
What kind of a silly statement is that, Peter? The expression comes from Europe, as I pointed out when I introduced it to this blog site..
Calm down. Cool off. Demonstrate that you are more than 15 years old.
Regards,
Max
PS to Peter
And, by the way, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside.
The other way around it’s a slightly unripe Italian prune.
Dont you guys have watermelons in Australia?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote (about USA sentiments on the AGW scare), “It’s really only the right wing of the US Republican party who seriously have a problem with the science of global warming…”
In that case, polls confirm that 67% of US citizens are members of “the right wing of the US Republican party”.
Wow! Looks like Obama does not have much of a chance against such odds to get elected there.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
As a certified Aussie, you probably noticed this blog from a shivering Brisbane bloke on the site, which Brute cited in his “cold in Brisbane post”:
“We are not denying Global Warming. As I said below, the earth was approx 2 C warmer than nowadays approx 1000 years ago!! Variation of earth’s mean temperature is not a new phenomenon at all!! Man’s industrial activity does not cause Global warming or climate change!! The main cause of climate change is orbital eccentricities of earth and variation of Sun’s output!!! Did you know that the world natural wetlands produce a greater greenhouse gas contribution, in the form of methane (CH4, 20 times more effective an IR absorber than CO2), than all human sources combined?”
Now, I did not know that fact about CH4 from wetlands, but I think Al Gore should be shouting for cement trucks to pave in all these cursed natural wetlands before we all perish. To hell with the brown pelicans, roseate spoonbills, double-crested cormorants, sandwich terns and culiseta longiareolata (mosquitos)! This is a matter of life and death!
Regards,
Ma
Brute,
“Frankly, I was having a hard time spelling Barack”
Either you don’t know the meaning of the word ‘frankly’, which I accept may be possible, or else you are being quite disingenuous. Whenever have you used the term Walker Bush? You seemed to have managed to spell Barack correctly just now. Your motives are exactly the same as Bill Cunningham’s which John McCain felt compelled to apologise for.
I’m sure that Mr Barack Hussein Osama has no problems with any of his three names, but it a bit rich for you to refer to him by the least used of them, when you hide behind a pseudonym and decline to disclose any of yours.
Max,
I find it hard to accept that 67% of the US population don’t accept the science of global warming. As I showed you previously, opinion polls aren’t neccessarily the unbiased intruments that is generally assumed.
I’m sure that the anti-science propoganda is more intense in the USA than in Europe, and that of course will have an effect. The point I was making is that there wouldn’t be another political party, of any size, anywhere in the world who took the same reactionary line as the right wing of the Republican party. You do have to ask yourself why the world centre of climate change scepticism is so well and truly based in the USA.
We don’t get any European comment on this blog along the lines of what we get from you and Brute. And don’t give me all that crap about your being Swiss. There are just too many postings from you in the very early hours of a Swiss morning for it to be likely that you actually live there.
Robin,
I hope that Max’s reply answers your question. I’d just say that anyone who has declared the AGW issue to be a hoax, puts them well and truly into the sceptics or deniers camp, and well outside the range of mainstream scientific opinion as expressed by the IPCC.
JZSmith 1090 wrote in part, concerning the “sub-prime“ debacle:
Regardless of who was “to blame“, and what trigger set-off the lending-feeding-frenzy, it is clear that SOMEWHERE, there was a lack of control. Whether that control should be in the behoven Wall Street or Government, or shared between them could be debated subjectively ad nauseam, but whatever; any uncontrolled free-for-all greed motivation (feeding frenzy) can lead to spectacular “bubble-bursts”
I am inclined to think that U.S. government administrators fell asleep on this one…… Nevertheless, consequently, the WORLD, has been significantly damaged by U.S. government INCOMPETENCE in NOT applying sensible banking controls. (In other words, government “interference”, as you put it, was INADEQUATE in this case)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brute 1104 wrote in part:
I’m [Bob] curious to know if you think that EVERYTHING I said way above is misguided.
For instance, do you think it is wrong for governments to legislate to improve the safety, emissions and fuel efficiency of cars? For example, do you think it was OK for U.S. CAR DESIGNERS to IMPOSE on the American public rear red turn signal lamps, because they thought they looked nicer, despite that the rest of the world thought they were DANGEROUS? (And the ROTW required amber, long beforehand)
Further my 1067 TO PeterM
I do not appear to have been graced with a response from you Pete, on four questions, clearly labelled in my 1067 thus; ONE, TWO, THREE, & FOUR, which I repeat below:
Do you [Pete] agree that:
ONE: There is no satisfactory hypothesis for a biotic origin for oil
TWO: There has been no laboratory demonstration or chemical theory that biota can be converted to oil
THREE: There has been laboratory demonstration and chemical theory that oil can be formed in the Earth’s mantel
FOUR: There are known earth sources of hydrocarbons that cannot be of biotic origin.
I think you have had enough time to cogitate on these issues, so could you please give us your wise analysis on those four points?
Pete,
According to my reckoning, we have two Americans, two Australians, one Swiss and one Englander, (I consider Tony neutral) that are currently posting. Out of those six I would consider 5 of 6 to be Realists and 1 of 6 an Alarmist. Robin and Max being the only Europeans, would mean that 100% of the Europeans posting on this site are not your “level headed Global Warming adherents” as you have pigeonholed Europeans.
Nothing wrong with being of the minority opinion Pete, it’s just that the “consensus” of this web page, (representing a large area geographically) seems to refuse to drink the Global Warming Kool Aid.
Pete……why does it matter where Max’s citizenship is derived or what his bedtime is? Maybe he works the night shift.
Is an American opinion less valid than a Swiss opinion?
Max,
About your nationality; what country do you hold citizenship…….is your passport US or Swiss? I think that will settle the debate.
Frankly (adverb): frank?ly [frángklee] In an honest, sincere, and often blunt or forthright way……….
Pete,
Any comments about this graph?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Bob_FJ,
I’m not sure why you are persisting with this especially as I’ve already said that I do accept that some hydrocarbons, methane especially, may be produced abiotically in small amounts. You yourself seemed to be getting bored with the topic and used the word “yawn” in posting # 1014 when I pressed you on the topic of C14 in hydrocarbons.
I’m not sure what can or cannot be substantiated regarding the formation of oil or coal from organic material. Maybe we need the opinion of some qualified geologists. Nevertheless, I can’t see any reason to doubt the accepted scientific position that both oil and coal are fossil fuels.
As I’ve said before, I doubt if the abiotic theory of oil production will prove to be true, but even if there does turn out to be something in what its proponents are claiming, I doubt even more that the theory will make the slightest difference to our estimates of available oil stocks.
And that is what its all about isn’t it? Nothing to do with scientific curiosity. It’s all about trying to disprove the notion that oil stocks are finite.
Peter: you asked if Max’s reply answered my question. It does so perfectly.
Just to remind you, he said “Based upon expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies, there is a >50% chance that there may have been an increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas in the late 20th century with some human contribution of non-assessed magnitude to this possible trend.” That’s a precise summary of the IPCC scientists’ finding.
Does that make these IPCC contributors “deniers”?
Bob,
Government imposed fuel efficiency “standards” regarding automobiles is not something the government should be involved with in my opinion. Seat belts should or can be provided, (not mandated); however, I believe that is up to the individual whether or not to wear them. I don’t really have an opinion of the red/amber turn indicator topic. I’ve never heard or been involved in an automobile accident where the key factor was whether or not the light lenses on the car were red or amber. (A very wise man once told me that there is no such thing as an “accident”…….accidents are the result of carelessness).
Of course government does have a role to play in our lives; however, we have moved far away from government’s original purpose/intent, (in the United States). The Federal Government should provide oversight of issues involving foreign policy, protecting our borders, national defense and many aspects of standardization effecting/affecting (God, I have trouble with the affecting/effecting terms….just a mental stumbling block!), issues in terms of railways and interstate highways, etc.
My premise is that the Federal government has ballooned into a massive bureaucracy micro-managing our day to day lives which is unacceptable, and FRANKLY, oppressive, authoritative and dictatorial. Many of these subjects could best be handled by the individual states. There will and should be some overlap, (airline safety is another example), but national legislation of speed limits and indoor temperature set-points is far from what the original framers of the United States Constitution had in mind as responsibilities of the Federal Government.
I’ve never lived overseas and am unfamiliar with the day to day involvement of other systems of government and their involvement in the lives of their citizens. Here in the US we (at least we used to), give wide latitude to protect individual rights and personal property, (freedom). The philosophy is that average everyday citizens are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how to conduct their lives and generally know what is best for themselves, their families and their communities. I’m certain that you’ve heard the term “Nanny State” which is abhorrent to most Americans. We don’t need or desire government intrusion in our daily lives….and recoil at the premise.
Another example is the US real estate market. For whatever reason, banks were providing sweetheart deals for just about anyone who walked through their doors; no credit checks, no money down, interest only loans, etc. It ended up that people were provided loans for homes that they simply could not afford, (living beyond their means). Much of this was based on inflated prices and speculation, (people wanted something for nothing). A family with a household income of $50,000 has no business purchasing a $750,000 home……Here’s another scenario…..One community that I am quite familiar with is a perfect example. Approximately 100 homes were built with the majority being purchase by foreign investors speculating that the housing market, (values) would continue to rise and they would reap a substantial profit. The bottom dropped out and the owners simply defaulted on the loans. These homes were not their primary residence, they were purchased as investments.
Now, we have the Federal government considering, (they may have already done it), passing legislation to “bail-out” the housing industry, essentially subsidizing the people that bought houses they could not afford or houses that they bought as investments that did not reap a profit. “Government” is a deceptive word. Government is not some faceless entity or bottomless pit of money that just “appears”. Government, at least the funding thereof, is comprised of taxpayers……hard working people who did not make foolish decisions and/or chose to live responsibly and within their means. This “bail-out” is exactly the same thing as me showing up in Vegas with $20,000 dollars, gambling all day and then asking the “Government” to reimburse me for my loss.
These are the types of things that the government should not be involved with. Government may be responsible for the mess to begin with by relaxing the standards, but asking me to pay for your house, (that you knew, or should have known) that you couldn’t afford is simply wrong. Max said somewhere above that government is grossly inefficient and wasteful. The vast majority of programs and initiatives that government is involved with could be handled much more efficiently and with much lower risk, less fraud and less corruption than if the same goal was attempted to be met by private industry/institutions……. That’s a fact. We have created a bloated, ineffective Federal Bureaucracy, (and local government for that matter), where private industry is paying the tab and subsidizing the Federal Government…..essentially productive, responsible citizens paying the way and subsidizing government workers and people that choose not to contribute in any meaningful way.
ALL of that being said, I’m the first one in line to give a person a helping hand that has some sort of physical malady that renders them incapable of working/producing/providing, but the market will correct itself, (producing/providing more fuel efficient automobiles/alternative energy sources if there is a market for it/them).
People complain about the high cost of gasoline and demand that “the government” DO something about it. If the government would simply get out of the way and let the oil companies do what they do best, (find and deliver their product), the price would probably cease fluctuating wildly.
Another thing….the higher price of gasoline only means to me that I have to increase my income to cover my expenses, work overtime or find a second job. I’m not “entitled” to cheap gasoline….the price of a gallon of gasoline is what it is and it is MY responsibility to make certain that I have enough money to purchase it if I want it. If I want a larger or more opulent home, then it is MY responsibility to figure out how to pay for it. What’s next, I should have a giant screen television and the government, (you and the rest of the taxpayers), should pay for it?
Hi Peter,
Yep. I’m Swiss. Carry the “petit livre rouge” (not Mao’s little red book, but the one with a white Swiss cross on the cover).
As proof I’ll send you a sentence in Swiss German: “die Chnuschprige Chäschüechli sind im Chuchichäschtli”.
Tell you later what it means.
Peter, I find it amazing that you have difficulty accepting the fact that there are many people (apparently a majority in this world) that do not share your beliefs or opinions on the “mainstream consensus science” (as you put it) on global warming, despite all the media hype and hot air from the politicians and activist groups.
Robin has given us some statistics from the UK. Brute has given us some from the USA. I’ve given you some from Switzerland. Don’t know about Australia (you and Bob_FJ may have different info on this).
It is my opinion, Peter (and you may well disagree) that these things go in waves. The AGW movement has reached its maximum extent of public acceptance and is beginning to wane, despite all the propaganda, which is 90% in support of the “mainstream” view. It is currently still very much “PC” to be on this side, politicians are milking it and some left-leaning “scientists” (Schneider, Brown, Hansen) are acting as supporting political activists.
The average guy does not care too much about all this. Most see that it really hasn’t gotten warmer than it was 10 years ago and take all the disaster predictions with a grain of salt. After all, we’ve heard all sorts of scare stories that turned out to be hoaxes. The big difference with this one is that it is heavily funded (with taxpayer money) and there is an obscene amount of money to be shuffled around by politicians/bureaucrats if the world really signs on to a carbon tax or cap and trade schemes.
There will always be those who jump on the bandwagon as long as it is “sexy” and “in” to do so. Some actually do so out of conviction (I suppose you are one of these). Others do so out of opportunism, and some are just “groupies”. Then there are rational skeptics, that question the science behind the “mainstream consensus” and insist that it be rigorous. Others may agree that there has been some warming caused by humans, but that the proposed “mitigation” solutions will achieve nothing at great cost. Some others may reject AGW out of basic suspicion of big government, in particular of the UN.
So you should not be surprised that a majority of the world’s populace has not bought in to the “imminent disaster” predictions of IPCC, no matter how verbose and glitzy their reports may be and how much media hype there is on the subject.
And time is not on the side of AGW. AGW is a fad, and fads die out and are replaced with new ones. We have had at least 8 years of no warming and the current year is cooler than several prior years. People notice these things, Peter. If it remains cooler than “normal” for a few more years, AGW will slowly die a natural death.
Of course, this is just my opinion. But it’s every bit as valid as yours.
Regards,
Max
Well put, Max. I think your assessment may well be accurate.
Hi Peter,
The Swiss-German sentence meant, “The crunchy cheese tarts are in the kitchen cupboard”.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote: [Max has] “clearly indicated his contempt for the IPCC and yes, and unlike the IPCC scientists, he is a denier or sceptic or whatever term you’d like to use.”
Peter, “contempt” is a very strong word. I do not have “contempt” for the IPCC, I just believe that it is a very costly exercise in futility. I am rationally skeptical concerning the robustness of the “science” being used to sell the concept of potentially alarming AGW, which, in turn, is being used to justify a political agenda of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes.
The deeper I dig, the more I uncover “weak spots”, exaggerations and omissions in the “science”, and the more skeptical I become. It’s sort of like peeling an onion.
The term “denier” implies that there is a fact, which is being “denied”. It is a poor descriptive for a person who is rationally skeptical of “scientific” claims being used to justify a political agenda and who insists that this science be objective, robust and rigorous.
If IPCC ignores an exhaustive study, for example, which shows that the Antarctic Ice Sheet gained mass over a 10-year period of time and makes exactly an opposite claim that the AIS lost mass over exactly the same time period, I could say that IPCC “denied” the observed facts, and is, therefore, a “denier”. It might be a bit more appropriate than calling a rational skeptic a “denier”, but I believe it would still be a poor descriptive.
If you, for example, were to tell me that global average surface temperature anomaly has not flattened out or even cooled off since 2001, I could say that you were in “denial” of the recorded fact that it, indeed, has. But this would not make you a “denier”, per se (it could just be that you were unaware of the recent temperature record).
Forget that word, Peter. It conjures up thoughts of “holocaust deniers” (as it was intended to do by the person who first “coined” it), and is therefore polemic.
Stick with “rational skeptic”. It’s a more appropriate descriptive.
Regards,
Max
Just in time for the Democrat Presidential Convention!
Aug 16, 2008
Colorado Sees Flood Warnings, Snow and Record Cold
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10223854
Aug 16, 2008
The Moral Issue
By Norm Kalmanovitch
I have spent the last 3 days driving back to Calgary from Montreal which has given me the opportunity to ponder the reality of this whole issue (of man-made global warming). Our letter to the UN demonstrates that this is not an issue of science but a moral issue of self serving individuals imposing their ideology on the world under the guise of environmentalism and this has caused nothing but hardship for the entire world.
It is not about science because the globe is cooling and CO2 is increasing falsifying the hypothesis. It is not about reducing fossil fuel consumption because biofuels do not increase the energy supply but in fact require more energy than they produce. Sequestering CO2 is also a negative with respect to energy because the compression of CO2 to 30 atmospheres requires the energy equivalent of about 5000bbls for each megatonne sequestered.
It is not about the environment because CO2 is not a pollutant and this issue focuses primarily on reducing CO2 and totally ignores the actual pollution from fossil fuels as is clearly demonstrated by the current state of the air quality in Beijing which has resulted primarily from coal fired power plants that have no pollution controls. It is not about economics because unlike the premise of the Stern Report that states economic
benefit to addressing human caused global warming now as opposed to the cost of dealing with its consequences, there is no human caused global warming to address so there are no consequences of human caused global warming to face in the future.
Like it or not the global economy is based on energy. The countries with the highest energy consumption are the economic leaders and those with the lowest are the poorest countries. All of the global temperature datasets show that the world has cooled since 2002. In 2002 the oil price was $27.60/bbl; in the last month it has peaked to over $145.00/bbl. By 2002 the warmers realized that the global thermometers were not supporting their agenda and they stepped up the rhetoric about impending disasters and vilified CO2 as a pollutant and the source of this problem. The most significant consequence of this attack on CO2 was to make new coal fired power generation an uneconomic venture because “clean coal” now required sequestering CO2 which increases the cost by at least 3 times. Effectively this removes coal as a competitive energy source and with nuclear energy already in the environmental bad books there is no competitive alternative to oil and therefore no price control. Without this control, speculators can take advantage of every rumor about possible threats to the oil supply and drive up the price of oil to its current level with no energy alternative providing a ceiling cap to the price. Read full report here.
Beware, PDF File………
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/Moral_issue.pdf
The Really Inconvenient Truths
By Janet Levy, Front Page Magazine
Review of “The Really Inconvenient Truths” By Iain Murray
In The Australian July 18, scientist David Evans – a self-described, former global warming alarmist who previously developed Australia’s carbon accounting model – admitted that evidence is shaky on how carbon affects global warming. In fact, Evans wrote, the current global warming trend actually ended in 2001. He cited ice core data from six previous global warming cycles over the last 500,000 years. The data revealed that temperatures rose 800 years before any significant increases occurred in atmospheric carbon levels. A former recipient of political support, generous funding and professional satisfaction for his advocacy of global-warming intervention, Evans essentially blew the whistle on what he now believes is a fraud perpetrated on the public by many of the world’s governments.
Similarly, in The Really Inconvenient Truths, author Iain Murray, a Competitive Enterprise Institute environmental analyst and senior fellow, critically examines many of the broad, environmental notions now accepted as fact. He explores how these false notions have led to questionable regulations and policies to “save” the environment which have actually endangered more species, caused more human fatalities and squandered more energy. He reveals how environmentalism, used as an anti-capitalism tool, has employed faulty data and politically engineered studies to restrict personal freedom, increase government control and spending, reduce or limit economic growth and curtail free enterprise. The liberal, environmental movement is thus masquerading as a benevolent protector of natural resources, Murray writes, with a quasi-religious moral superiority toward environmental sacred cows and view of man as a guilty interloper who disrupts nature.
The book’s subtitle, Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About Because They Helped Cause Them, provides a framework for a detailed examination of the effects of sacred-cow environmental projects such as the ban on DDT and the promotion of ethanol. He also explores the cover-up of the polluting effect of contraceptives and abortion drugs, the failure of ill-advised forestry management policies and the bankruptcy of the endangered species act. Read more here.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C45F3ED4-2535-4E95-A601-17E9AC386928
More snowfalls and heavy rain forecast (New Zealand)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10527369
A Bummer Summer
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/419809
Cold weather here to stay
Tom Saunders, Saturday August 16, 2008 – 20:23 EST
August 2008 continues to be one of the coldest on record for most of Australia with temperatures averaging as much as six degrees below normal.
The cold weather has even spread to northern Queensland with Burketown dropping to five degrees on Saturday morning for the first time in 24 years. On the Queensland coast Coolangatta has now dropped to five or less on 10 consecutive mornings, easily beating the old record of six.
Daytime has brought little relief with Orange shivering through 10 consecutive days below eight degrees for the first time in 17 years.
The prolonged cold spell is due to a strong high pressure system anchored south of WA. The high is directing southerly winds over the country, carrying cold air from the Southern Ocean well north into the tropics.
The high will finally move east early next week but a second high will maintain chilly weather until at least Sunday.
© Weatherzone 2008
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/cold-weather-here-to-stay/9718
Here you go Max. Via Green watch…………
Global Warming: Solving an Environmental Problem or Creating a Social Crisis?
By William Kininmonth of Melbourne, Australia. William Kininmonth is a former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization. Kininmonth points out that it is only unrealistic figures fed into climate models that produce worrying projections
Prevention of dangerous climate change, particularly through implementation of a national carbon pollution reduction scheme, has emerged as a primary policy objective of the Rudd government. The rationale for the policy is the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its computer-based projections of global warming. We are told by the IPCC `consensus of scientists’ that continued burning of fossil fuels, and a range of other industry activities that increase the concentration of `greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere, will lead to dangerous climate change, possibly passing a `tipping point’ causing `runaway global warming’. What does this all mean, really?
The IPCC’s most recent assessment attempts to be helpful to the casual enquirer by having a series of explanations for `frequently asked questions’, or FAQs. The first FAQ is `What factors determine earth’s climate’? We are informed that, on average, the earth emits 240 w m-2 of radiation to space and that this equates to an emission temperature of -19oC. The earth’s temperature, however, is about 14oC and the -19oC temperature is found at a height of about 5 km above the surface. To quote the IPCC: “The reason the earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the earth’s surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect”.
This explanation by the IPCC is clearly misleading, if not wrong. The inference that the greenhouse gases are acting like a blanket suggests that they are increasing the insulating properties of the atmosphere. However, the main gases of the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen, non-greenhouse gases, and they are also excellent insulators against the conduction of heat (like a blanket); adding additional trace amounts of carbon dioxide will have no appreciable impact on the insulating properties of the atmosphere.
In its third FAQ, `What is the greenhouse effect?’ the IPCC comes to the nub of the issue but provides a different and equally misleading explanation. “Much of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and the ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to earth. This is called the greenhouse effect”. According to the IPCC’s global energy budget, the surface emits 390 W m-2 of radiation and the energy radiated back to the surface is 324 W m-2. It is difficult to see how an ongoing net loss of longwave radiation energy from the surface of 66 W m-2 can lead to warming! Indeed, we are all aware that between dusk and dawn the earth’s surface cools.
The IPCC has not explained in a scientifically sound and coherent way, how the `greenhouse effect’ is maintained. The greenhouse gases do not increase the insulating properties of the atmosphere and the back radiation does not warm the surface. The IPCC explanation of the greenhouse effect is obfuscation and, even to the mildly scientific literate, reflects ignorance of basic processes of the climate system.
How then do we explain to people who are going to be affected by reactionary government policies what are the greenhouse effect and its enhancement by additional carbon dioxide?
A credible explanation has no need for smoke and mirrors. The energy flow through the climate system is predominantly by way of four stages: 1) absorption of solar radiation at the surface; 2) conduction of heat and evaporation of latent energy from the surface to the atmospheric boundary layer; 3) convective overturning that distributes heat and latent energy through the troposphere; and 4) radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space. We will see that it is the characteristics of convective overturning that keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.
The Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) global average energy budget of the earth is used by the IPCC and is a useful starting point for explanation of the establishment and maintenance of the greenhouse effect. Of the 340 units of solar radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere, 67 are absorbed by the atmosphere and 168 are absorbed at the surface. There is thus an ongoing source of solar energy available to the atmosphere and the surface. At the surface there is a net accumulation of radiation energy because the incoming solar radiation (168 units) exceeds the net loss of longwave radiation (66 units).
In the atmospheric layer there is absorption of 417 units (390 of emission from the surface, less 40 that go directly to space, plus absorption of 67 of solar radiation) and an emission of 519 units (324 back to the surface and 195 direct emission to space). The net effect of the interaction between the greenhouse gases and radiation is a tendency to cool the atmosphere because it is continually losing energy.
Overall there is a dichotomy, with radiation processes firstly tending to warm the earth’s surface and secondly tending to cool the atmosphere. Air is an excellent insulator against conduction of heat and will not transfer heat through the atmosphere, as is necessary for energy balance. Also, the thermodynamic properties of air (potential temperature increases with height) ensure that turbulent motions of the atmosphere will mix energy downward, not upward as required.
The process for transferring energy from the surface to the atmosphere, necessary to achieve overall energy balance of the climate system, was explained by Herbert Riehl and Joanne Malkus (the latter better known as Joanne Simpson) in a 1958 paper, On the heat balance of the equatorial trough zone (Geophysica). Riehl and Malkus noted that boundary layer air, rising buoyantly in the protected updraughts of deep tropical convection clouds, converts heat and latent energy to potential energy. Away from the convection, compensating subsidence converts potential energy to heat.
What is implied in the Riehl and Malkus model is that deep tropical convection, and the transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere, will not take place without buoyant updraughts within deep convection clouds. That is, there is a need for the temperature of the atmosphere to decrease with altitude and that the rate of decrease of temperature must be sufficient to allow buoyancy of the air ascending in the updraughts. From well-known thermodynamic laws, the rate of decrease of temperature must be at least 6.5oC/km to allow the buoyancy forces of convection to overcome the natural stratification of the atmosphere.
The climate system will come into energy equilibrium when temperatures are such that the net solar radiation absorbed is balanced by the longwave radiation to space. At equilibrium, the greenhouse effect (ie, that the average surface temperature of 14oC is greater than the -19oC blackbody emission temperature of earth) is an outcome from the need for convective overturning of the atmosphere.
Additional warming of the surface will come about when the greenhouse effect is enhanced. The fundamental question is how much warming will additional greenhouse gas concentrations cause and will it be dangerous?
An increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration reduces the emission of longwave radiation to space and increases the back radiation at the surface. An increase in back radiation adds energy to the surface, which will further warm the surface. However there is a constraint on the surface temperature rise because of the commensurate increase in rate of energy loss from the surface: both the rate of infrared emission and the rate of evaporation of latent heat increase with temperature.
The increase in radiation emission from the surface can be calculated from the well-known Boltzmann equation and is 5.4 units/oC at 15oC. The earth’s surface is mainly ocean or freely transpiring vegetation and evaporation will increase near exponentially with temperature according to the Claussius-Clapeyron relationship and is 6.0 units/oC at 15oC. According to the IPCC, the radiative forcing from doubling of carbon dioxide concentration is 3.7 units. The actual surface temperature increase is derived from the ratio of the radiation forcing (3.7) to the natural rate of increase in surface energy loss with temperature (5.4 + 6.0). The direct surface temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide is therefore 3.7/(5.4 + 6.0) = 0.3oC.
A 0.3oC global temperature increase towards the end of the 21st century from a doubling of current carbon dioxide concentration is not obviously dangerous. However, what also needs to be taken into account is the positive feedback. A warming of the surface temperature will cause a warming of the overlying atmosphere, an increase in the water vapour concentration (another naturally occurring greenhouse gas), a further increase in back radiation, and an incremental increase in surface temperature. Each successive incremental surface temperature increase will cause another incremental temperature increase through the positive feedback amplification.
The amplification follows standard mathematical treatment and, as long as the ratio r is less than unity, the gain is given by [1 / (1 – r)]. Here r is the ratio of natural increase in back radiation with temperature (4.8 units/oC – estimated from a standard radiation transfer model) to the natural increase of surface energy loss with temperature (as previously, 11.4 units/oC). The natural gain is 1.7 and increases the surface temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from 0.3oC to 0.5oC.
A 0.5oC increase in global temperature over the coming century is within recent short-term temperature variability and is less than the apparent global temperature rise of the past century. Moreover, both the direct forcing of surface temperature and the amplification gain are tightly constrained by the magnitude of the natural increase of surface energy loss with temperature increase. It is not immediately apparent how `runaway global warming’ could come about with such a constraint.
A fundamental question arises as to why the IPCC global temperature projections for doubling carbon dioxide concentration, based on computer models of the climate system, lead to estimates of about 3oC, or about six times the above estimate.
A clue to the conundrum can be found in published descriptions of the performance of the computer models used in the IPCC fourth assessment. Isaac Held and Brian Soden, writing in the Journal of Climate (2006) note that the rate of increase of evaporation in the computer models, on average, only increases at about one-third of the rate expected from the Claussius Clapeyron relationship. Additionally, Frank Wentz and colleagues, writing in the journal Science (2007), have confirmed the under-specification of evaporation increase with temperature and, from satellite based observations, have determined that global evaporation does indeed comply with the Claussius Clapeyron relationship.
It is clear from the above formulation of the surface temperature rise and the associated amplification gain that each is sensitive to the specification of evaporation increase with temperature. Substitution of the average evaporation specification of computer models into the formulation will boost the projected temperature rise from the above expected value of 0.5oC to 1.5oC, the lower end of IPCC projections. When the specification of evaporation increase with temperature is very low, as in the more extreme models, then the feedback amplification gain increases to a value of about ten; the temperature sensitivity of the computer model becomes highly exaggerated and model would likely simulate the behaviour of runaway global warming. The behaviour, of course, is false and arises only because of the significant under-specification of evaporation.
Despite the many claims that the IPCC projections of human-caused global warming are sound, the consensus of climate scientists and that the science is settled, there are disturbing shortcomings to both the essential explanations and to the computer modelling. The shortcomings are disturbing because the projections and their associated predictions of diabolical impacts on environmental systems are the only rational justification given for wholesale government restructuring of our industrial base and lifestyles.
This is the first time in human history that there has been a conscious move at the national level to discard the tools that have underpinned security, wellbeing and comfort. We are deliberately abrogating energy usage from proven and widely available sources on the basis of a perceived environmental threat which is poorly articulated and substantiated only by recourse to obviously deficient computer modelling. Why am I reminded of Charles MacKay’s 1841 tome, “Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds’?
More here
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003327.html
Max,
I notice that you don’t say that you actually live in Switzerland. Are you Swiss in the same way that Henry Kissinger is German or Schwarzenegger is Austrian? Brute is right, there is nothing wrong with being American, and of course their views are just as valid as anyone else’s, they just seem a a little strange at times. You wouldn’t find a European politician who publicly displayed quite the same redneck anti-intellectual sentiments as Sen James Inhofe from Oaklahoma, for instance.
I’m not sure why Robin is so keen to cast you in the role of ‘mainstream IPCC’ scientist. (BTW you seem to have mastered the Stefan Boltzmann equation -what do you do for a living?) Correct me if I’m wrong but you can’t want to be in the mainstream of science if you feel that they are engaged in scamming the public and perpetrating the hoax of global warming. It must be a hoax, musn’t it, because don’t you feel its quite stupid to believe that puny mankind can change the climate? You might want to have strong words with Robin !
Of course a single termite is quite puny , but if you have enough of them chomping away at the woodwork they can reduce once formidable structures to matchwood.