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.
Correlation between CO2 and Temperature
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2614626004_591a1a939e_b.jpg
Hi JZSmith,
For links to solar activity there have been a lot of studies that go back as far as the early 20th century with some satellite data for later years.
If you look at all of these, they have an “average” estimate of +0.35C increase in temperature due to all of the solar effects, including TSI (which IPCC gives a much lower weighting).
Using the IPCC (Myhre et al.) estimate of radiative forcing for CO2 (1.66 W/m^2 from 1750 to 2005) and CH4 (0.48 W/m^2 over same period), and adjust them for 20th century only, you get:
CO2: RF = 1.30 W/m^2
CH4: RF = 0.42 W/m^2
IPCC says other GHGs are essentially cancelled out by aerosols and changes in land use, so can be ignored for a “quickie” look.
Applying Stefan-Boltzmann, this gives a greenhouse warming of
CO2: +0.24C
CH4: +0.08C
For a total solar plus GHG warming of 0.67C, compared to Hadley’s 0.65C for the 20th century.
If you want links to the many solar studies, I can send them.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Just realized I’ve already posted the solar study links on this site (Post 86 through 98).
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
BTW here is the link to the Hadley record for the 20th century:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2613881675_d863e4503e_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Max,
Thanks for all the “smart guy” replies! I’ll wade through all these and let you know if I have any questions.
Thanks again,
JZS
Bob_FJ (143) — First, I think you are misreading Tamino’s graph. But do the decadal block averages your own way, plotted for each decade 10 years apart wherever you want. Doesn’t matter to me.
The decadal averages clearly show that the 1940s were a local maximum. I said that before and we both agree, I believe.
If you are attempting to make a predictor of climate, 30 years averages of the annual temperature, consider using a 30 year running average. With error bars.
Anyway, nobody says that climate inter-decadal variability has gone away.
JZ Smith — Here is Tamino’s plor of the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/t3v.jpg
Here it is as decadal averages:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg
Here is recent radiative forcing (aggi)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
and here is an accurate, but somewhat tongue-in-cheek, attempt to compare temperatures and CO2:
http://www.leif.org/research/DAleo2.png
Poster manacker’s attempt to blaim the sun is wrong, by direct observations:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=74&tstamp=200805
A Climate of Belief
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/climateofbelief.pdf
Max/Wallaby,
Your thoughts/comments?
Hi Brute,
Thanks for link to a very well thought out and presented article on the validity of GCM predictions (or “projections”).
It gets right to the point of the key weakness of the whole AGW hypothesis. It is based on model outputs rather than sound scientific observations. Uncertainties are far greater than projected impacts.
Where there are physically observed data such as the evidence of strong negative feedback, i.e. from changes in cloud cover resulting from higher surface temperatures, these are simply ignored in the models.
As the author writes, “What is credible about a prediction that sports an uncertainty 20-40 times greater than itself?”
Models do a fair job of forecasting next week’s weather. As the record shows they do a poor job (Hadley 2006, 2007) of predicting next year’s weather (or climate). And they are totally worthless for predicting “tipping points” 10+ years from today or, even more absurdly, projecting climate change 100 years in advance.
It is sort of like the famous U.S. baseball player of the 1950s (NY Yankees catcher and later coach, Yogi Berra) was quoted as saying: “Predictions are hard to make, especially for the future.”
A good lesson for those who saw the IPCC prediction of 0.2C temperature rise per decade go “poof!” with the slump in temperature rise over the past decade despite all-time record human emissions of CO2.
And in that innocent time before super-speed giant computers and the nerds who feed them GIGO feedback assumptions, storylines and scenarios, Berra also added, wisely, “The future ain’t what it used to be.”
It sure ain’t.
Regards,
Max
Thank you……Respect Your Opinion(s). This one is eye opening also.
From Vincent Gray…………
Spinning The Climate
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/spinningclimate0608.pdf
I’ll be watching this…..for guys like me, the little magnifier helps….
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Hi David,
Your comment was misguided: “Poster manacker’s attempt to blaim the sun is wrong, by direct observations.”
Check out the 12 studies I cited, David.
You will learn something that you do not yet know.
Nourish your brain with new knowledge, DBB.
The sun accounts for around 1/2 of the 20th century warming, the other 1/2 can be accounted for by increased CO2 and CH4, if you believe the greenhouse theory and the IPCC radiative forcing estimates for CO2 and CH4.
There is no need to invoke an “assumed” net positive feedback from H2O.
The observed physical data show that water has no net “positive” feedback, since the impact of clouds offsets anything that might occur due to the assumed (but unproven by physical measurement) higher water vapor.
Face it, David. The 3K climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 is an unsubstantiated assumption which has been proven by observed physical data to be incorrect. The real number is around 0.7K.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Vincent Gray is right, of course, when he writes, “The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable.”
The false prophesies of this politically motivated group have already become evident and an increasing number of rational people all over the world are seeing that this is all a political scam backed by “agenda driven pseudo-science”.
The “holdouts” are getting shriller and shriller to try to save the AGW movement as their bandwagon is headed for the ditch.
But Roy Spencer was probably right when he said that there will be no admission of error, but the AGW movement will just silently die away as everyone realizes that it was just a scam.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Some advice:
Forget about “Tamino” rehashes of temperature data, as being sent to you by David B. Benson.
Stick to the observed and reported raw data and draw your own conclusions.
You’ll be a lot better off that way.
Regards,
Max
JZS,
I see that David Benson has the gall to recommend a couple of Tamino links to you.
PLEASE; do not open them unless you are overwhelmed by curiosity. It would add to their website hit-stats!
I attempt to show above that Benson’s preferred Tamino version of Hadley data is superior to the original data. The very idea is is is …. I don’t want to get spammed …. let’s say bizarre!
This is typical Tamino and RealClimate stuff
Brute,158,
The NZClimateScience coalition is IMO a most excellent website for rationalists to visit but rather bad news for the fundies. I’m a deep admirer of Vincent Gray, because of his hundreds of very sharp expert review comments (made available for the first time under FOI) in the first and second order drafts to the AR4 WG1 IPCC report. (They were mostly rejected of course). Then of course there are other great contributors, and I’m sure you have heard of Bob Carter for example!
Whoops!
In my penultimate post above, please read
I attempt to show above that Benson’s preferred Tamino version of Hadley data is NOT superior to the original data.
(the word NOT is added)
David B. Benson 156:
Putting aside for the moment that you still have not answered various oft repeated questions, or their additional amplifications in my 143, I’ll nevertheless respond to your astonishing head-in-sand statements in your 156:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) UH? The Tamino graph is very easy to read; it comprises HIS method of averaging, (NOT mine). Because it ends with a plot point in 2005, that suggests it is an end of block average to 2005. However, it does not matter if my suggestion of such bad practice is correct or not. Regardless of what he did, it is HIS simple graph that we are studying to see if it has any relevance to “climate science“. Furthermore, although it claims to be based on Hadley data, it ends up looking different in shape and with significantly different temperature values.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) It actually shows a single pyramid point value at 1945, whereas Hadley shows a plateau of about 9 years. This is entirely a different picture, and thus I do NOT agree that Tamino’s is a realistic presentation. Perhaps more serious is that Tamino’s graph shows temperature differences both colder and hotter by up to about 0.1 C (See sample blue dots on my mark-up) How can this be if it is from the same data?
Also, can you not see that by moving the ten-year blocks a year or two to the right, it would result in a significantly different picture?
BTW, you do not comment on the black highlighted plateaus in my second link in 143
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3) UH? What is this about? I’m comfortable with 20 year smoothing used by Hadley, apart of course for the need to MSU for the last ten years, but whatever, it is not a predictor!
BTW, do you actually read and ponder the explanatory text on my mark-ups?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANYONE; did you find my graphical mark-ups hard to understand?
How would you describe the Tamino graph? (first link at 143)
SOLSTICE SEA ICE UPDATE
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.pdf
David: re my post 119 & your reply 122. The latter suggests that you don’t understand what censorship is. If Joe disagreed with my comment, he could either (a) point out the nature of his disagreement or (b) refuse to publish what I said. (a) is debate; (b) is censorship. Joe chose (b).
David: your post 124 reinforces my comment above. It seems you believe that Joe might have had good reason for disagreeing with my comment. Fair enough – but to suggest that, therefore, his refusal to publish it was not censorship is wholly absurd – even dangerous.
David: in my post 120, I said:
You replied (122) that :
Well, I’m amused to be lectured by you about this. For over 20 years, I was employed by various engineering businesses: aircraft and guided missiles, machinery control systems, marine and land navigation and communication instruments and automotive production control systems. For the last 20 years I was CEO. Of course, we made decisions based on computer modelling. But we didn’t “rely on computer projections”. I understand you are an engineer: well, if you were employed by me and wished, for example, to put a new avionics unit or steering control device into production without extensive flight or sea trials, that employment wouldn’t last very long.
Yes, in the engineering industry, computer modelling is indispensable. Nonetheless, time and time again, performance projections are found to be faulty. And the more complex the modelling, the less reliable the projections. Outside engineering, long-term economic, demographic and weather forecasting are prime examples of forecasting that has proved unreliable. Yet climate forecasting contains elements of all three – that (plus the relative infancy of climate science) is why it’s foolish to rely on it.
Hi Black Wallaby,
Have been following your lively exchange with DBB. You asked for outside feedback.
I can understand the message you are conveying with your Hadley curves showing a similarity between the start of the 30+ year cooling period starting in the 1940s with the current slowdown. If it continues in the same fashion, the current cooling trend will continue for another 20 years or so (say to 2030).
Who knows what the future will bring?
Certainly not me. Certainly not David B. Benson, despite all his “computer” know-how. There are “crystal ball” forecasters all over the map and they are all likely to be off, if you follow the Patrick Frank article supplied by Brute (158), which demonstrates that errors of margin are many times higher than projections themselves.
BTW, DBB’s table of radiative forcings for CO2 and CH4 are nothing new. They confirm a 2xCO2 sensitivity of around 0.7K (and a 2xCH4 sensitivity of around 0.2K).
Now to Tamino’s curves as supplied by DBB. The first one is just a download of the raw Hadley data with no linear trend lines or anything informative. Whether it has been “visually enhanced” to indicate more warming than has actually occurred toward the end of the record, is hard to say.
The second curve is a complete hoax. The only time Tamino would put something so silly together is when warming has essentially stopped (as it has since 1998). This is the best way to hide what is really going on out there. Had there been a recent “upswing” in rate of temperature rise, you can be sure that Tamino would not have made this sort of plot. It’s a pure artifact intended to confuse people.
DBB falls into the trap (or is it intentional?) of preferring someone’s rehash of the data to the source data itself. Is this a bad habit of computer gurus or just a struggle to try to make the facts fit the theory? Who knows?
Regards,
Max
At 14.5 million sq km in April 2008 sea ice has recovered back to same level as April 1989
and is around 3.4% lower than the 1979-2000 mean of 15.0 million sq km
The current linear average rate of decline is 3.0%/decade. If decline continues at this rate
it will take 330 years for the entire Arctic sea ice to disappear.
Hi Black Wallaby,
Have been following your lively exchange with DBB. You asked for outside feedback.
I can understand the message you are conveying with your Hadley curves showing a similarity between the start of the 30+ year cooling period starting in the 1940s with the current slowdown. If it continues in the same fashion, the current cooling trend will continue for another 20 years or so (say to 2030).
Who knows what the future will bring?
Certainly not me. Certainly not David B. Benson, despite all his “computer” know-how. There are “crystal ball” forecasters all over the map and they are all likely to be off, if you follow the Patrick Frank article supplied by Brute (158), which demonstrates that errors of margin are many times higher than projections themselves.
BTW, DBB’s table of radiative forcings for CO2 and CH4 are nothing new. They confirm a 2xCO2 sensitivity of around 0.7K (and a 2xCH4 sensitivity of around 0.2K).
Now to Tamino’s curves as supplied by DBB. The first one is just a download of the raw Hadley data with no linear trend lines or anything informative. Whether it has been “visually enhanced” to indicate more warming than has actually occurred toward the end of the record, is hard to say.
The second curve is a complete hoax. The only time Tamino would put something so silly together is when warming has essentially stopped (as it has since 1998). This is the best way to hide what is really going on out there. Had there been a recent “upswing” in rate of temperature rise, you can be sure that Tamino would not have made this sort of plot. It’s a pure artifact intended to confuse people.
DBB falls into the trap (or is it intentional?) of preferring someone’s rehash of the data to the source data itself. Is this a bad habit of computer gurus or just a struggle to try to make the facts fit the theory? Who knows?
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Looks like I got ahead of myself and tacked part of this response to your #169 onto the message for Black Wallaby.
Here goes again:
Arctic sea ice extent for May 2008 was 13.18 million square kilometers, reaching the same level as in May 1989.
This is 2.5% below the baseline level (1979-2000 mean May level of 13.6 million square kilometers) and around 4.5% above the record May low reached in May 2004
The linear average rate of decline is 3.0%/decade (over the 30-year period since measurements have started). If the decline continues at this rate, it will take 330 years for the entire Arctic sea ice to disappear.
The most recent decline has however not continued at the 3.0%/decade rate, since the May 2008 extent is back to the May 1989 extent (i.e. zero net decline in 19 years).
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
Looks like your June update confirms all this pretty well.
Regards,
Max