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.
Here is an update on the the state of the Arctic Sea ice.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The NE passage is open for the first time ever. The NW passage, Amundsen Route, has been open for about three weeks, and the Parry Channel just a few days away from opening , as it did about the same time last year for the first time on record.
So has Global warming stopped? No. The earth is still gaining heat which is mainly being absorbed in the oceans at present. If it’s the Arctic ocean then the the ice melts. Just as predicted in computer models.
So what were you guys saying about ‘Good News’ from the Arctic a couple of months or so ago? Good news for shipping companies maybe. But not the environment.
Brute,
I’m sorry that I didn’t make my swimming pool analogy simple enough for you to grasp. I did my best though.
Hi Peter,
Nice side-step (Arctic sea ice).
(It’s summer up there, you know).
How about Antarctic sea ice? Any updates?
(It’s winter down there, you know.)
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To save you the trouble on sea ice I did a quick check.
Arctic sea ice (your source) is up from this date last year by 150,000 square kilometers.
Antarctic sea ice is up by 110,000 square kilometers (end-July figures).
Globally, sea ice is up by 260,000 square kilometers.
It’s all the fault of global warming.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just to put that growth in sea ice from last year into perspective:
The world’s sea ice grew by 260,000 square kilometers, as compared to this time last year.
That is an increase of area greater than the surface area of Victoria, Australia (a place I believe you’re familiar with).
Regards,
Max
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Antarctic Sea Ice?
Sure. Forget about militant environmentalists. Read what the scientists at the NSIDC have to say.
http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html
If you think that I might not be giving you the most informed view of what is going on in the Arctic too, you may be right.
So how about taking the time to listen to someone who is much better qualified than any of us, and to get the full scientific picture of what is happening there?
http://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/
If you scroll about 1/3 of the way down the page, you’ll see a lecture by: Mark C. Serreze
“Where Reality Exceeds Expectations”
Hi Peter,
Forget the BS. Forget some “scientist’s” interpretation of “what’s happening here”. Go back to the data, Peter, not some guy’s interpretation of what these data “really mean”.
Global sea ice has grown over the past 12 months (based on data you provided for the Arctic and other published data for the Antarctic by 260,000 square km., a surface area greater than that of the entire province (?) of Victoria, Australia, where you reside.
Now I’ll admit that this may not be Earth-moving information, but it tells me that global warming has not caused a reduction in sea ice over the past year, regardless of how some “scientist” you quote may want to spin this.
Does it tell you something else, and, if so what?
Stick with the data, Peter, rather than someone’s interpretation of the data, and you’ll be better informed.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
It’s truly unbelievable.
I point out to you that records show that sea ice has increased globally by 260,000 square km. over the past 12 months, and you cite an article from March 2008 (5 months ago) that states, “Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.”
260,000 square kilometers of increased sea ice over the past year globally versus 13,000 square kilometers of “ice shelf breakup” in a “fast-warming region of Antarctica”?
Get serious, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hey Guys,
I don’t know the exact numbers but from memory, I think that continental drift, (tectonics) results in the Atlantic ocean widening by about 2 cm/year, and the consequence today is obvious in that it takes some hours to fly across the pond in a jet aircraft.
However, in comparison, the ice shelves in Antarctica are verily understood to be the consequence of that Continent’s massive ice sheet creeping outwards under gravitational forces, and floating in the ocean at rates measured in metres/year. The ice shelves are also hundreds of metres thick, of which only about 10% is visible above the water.
Yet, they provenly don’t terminate by melting and tapering away at the edges, but if fully visible below the water would look more like a cliff edge hundreds of metres thick.
So……if the ice shelves of Antarctica advance very much faster than in tectonics, why is not New Zealand and Patagonia overwhelmed by this creeping terror?
The ice shelves clearly do not terminate by melting away at their edges, by virtue of their precipitous cliff-like terminations.
Can anyone suggest why this is so?
Are those icebergs (the top 10%) visible from the New Zealand coast about a century ago the consequence of global warming?
Max,
I seem to remember you making the same mistake a few post ago in that you confused sea ice which may be 10cm of so thick, with ice sheets which are 1000 to 2000 times thicker. So to get a volume comparison you need to multiply the area you have quoted for the ice sheet by this amount.
I did point that out to you in July in posting 777. That’s not so long ago that you’ve forgotten, surely? You sure you aren’t suffering from some sort of dementia? I would have thought that even a climate sceptic would have known, without me having to tell them, that you need to multiply the area of an ice flow by its thickness to get the volume. But apparently not.
I dare say you think that you could do a better job than the scientists at NSIDC. But, if you ever do get asked for an interview there, and if I can give you a little tip, you might be in with a better chance if you didn’t draw quotation marks in the air with your fingers whenever the word ‘scientist’ was mentioned.
Brute 1273,
May I recommend that you (and others) read Ian Plimer’s book: “Telling Lies For God”. This man is (I think) of a similar calibre to Bob Carter, and is a fellow “coal-face” type. (a geologist). In that book he is particularly offended by the activities of Wayne(?) Gish, a very scary American Christian fundamentalist that believes and TEACHES that the earth is just a few thousand years old. Ian is a talented and entertaining writer, and even invents a new verb: “To Gish”, which means to lie about the lies that (Gish) has previously invented. It is a great read I last did some good years ago, with only about ~1% disagreement. I’m now prompted to read it again!!!!
Pete 1285,
YAWN
Robin 1271,
I have just enjoyed listening to piano concerto No. 2 by Brahms.
I now feel in peace and harmony and wonder with all things.
You are right!
I should not be irritated by Pete’s infinite diversity in avoiding reply to simple rational questions in debate which are in conflict with his dogma.
Oh that I were the Dalai Lama, or just possessing a fraction of his spirituality and good humour!
I must try, try, try, to be a better person!
I still find it terribly interesting that we are discussing 6/10ths of one degree “average” increase in temperature, (using flawed data and which has since abated), over a 150 year period, “averaged” over the entire surface of the planet, and that people actually believe that this is the precursor to a global apocalypse divined from an electronic crystal ball and foretold by the Soothsayer Hansen “long ago”. I’ll have to do some checking and see if Nostradamus or any other aboriginal shaman concurred with Hansen.
That’ll cinch it for me.
My God, we may as well bring our lives to a complete stop……….we are obviously headed down the path to oblivion.
Entertaining joust though.
Bob,
I’ll see about picking up the book, (but really what’s the point? We’re all doomed).
Why is everyone here (alarmists and sceptics alike) so exercised about the recent loss (or otherwise) of Arctic ice?
By any measure, there has been extensive warming in the Arctic over the past several years – so some ice loss would seem to be inevitable; I don’t see how anyone can dispute that. It seems to me, however, that the important questions are: (A) what caused it? and (B) does it indicate beneficial, harmful or uncertain consequences for mankind? As to (A), Professor Akasofu’s work (see post 1268) demonstrates that the cause is probably natural, i.e. unknown. (He does this by referring to the dramatic temperature increase in the Arctic between 1920 and 1940 (seemingly greater than the recent increase) and stating that as “that can be considered to be a natural change … unless the difference between the two changes can be understood, it is not possible to say tacitly that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect.”) As to (B) – who knows?
So why the fuss about the precise amount of ice that has – or hasn’t – been lost recently? It seems to be a relatively trivial issue.
This provides an interesting cross reference to Dr Akasofu’s work (posts 1268 and 1290).
Hi Peter,
My, my! Another lapse of manners, “You sure you aren’t suffering from some sort of dementia?”
No, Peter. No dementia.
Let’s go through this latest exchange and see where the confusion lies.
To questions regarding the current cooling trend in observed temperatures, you side-stepped to citing a recent NSIDC study on Arctic sea ice.
I pointed out that your study tells me that Arctic sea ice had grown over the past year by 150,000 square kilometers.
I also cited another NSIDC study, which shows that Antarctic sea ice has also grown over this same period, by around 110,000 square kilometers.
In other words, total global sea ice (the topic you introduced) has grown by 260,000 square kilometers over the past year.
You threw out the totally absurd statement, “I dare say you think that you could do a better job than the scientists at NSIDC.”
No, Peter, it is precisely their data that I cited.
In another side-step you threw in the recent breakup of the Wilkins ice shelf, to which I pointed out that this was a relatively minor occurrence in the overall scheme of things.
Now you tell me that Wikins is “much thicker” than the other seasonal sea ice (duh!).
“I seem to remember you making the same mistake a few post ago in that you confused sea ice which may be 10cm of so thick, with ice sheets which are 1000 to 2000 times thicker. So to get a volume comparison you need to multiply the area you have quoted for the ice sheet by this amount.”
No “mistake” or confusion on my part, Peter. Sure it’s thicker.
And it has not melted, either, as I pointed out to you (784) so what does it have to do with sea ice extent (the topic you raised)?
Nothing.
Regards,
Max
Hello everyone,
I’ve been on vacation (“holiday”, for you Brits!) for the last week or so, and have just recently been able to (sort of) catch up with these many posts. I did see one post above about the BBC television show that apparently discusses cooler temperatures.
My local paper (San Diego, California) ran an article last week discussing the “cool summer” we’ve been having. Aside from some hot humid weather this week (we even had a sprinkle yesterday; nearly unheard of along the coast in southern California in August) as a result of tropical storm Julio south of us in Baja, it’s been a quite mild summer.
Hi Peter,
Earlier David B. Benson and I discussed the uncertainties surrounding the positive feedback from clouds as assumed in all the GCMs cited by IPCC but apparently contradicted by more recent physical observations (Spencer et al.).
David felt that the jury is still out on these recent observations, while I say that they provide compelling evidence for a strong net negative feedback from clouds, rather than a strong net positive feedback, as assumed by IPCC.
You chimed in (and David withdrew). There were a few posts back and forth, where you defended the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 2.5°C to 4.0°C as assumed by the IPCC climate models. We then drifted off to other topics, such as the high price of oil, without getting any further in the climate sensitivity discussion.
It is obvious that if the physical observations of Spencer et al. are correct that the assumption of a strong positive feedback from clouds will have to be re-thought by IPCC. As the Spencer et al. put it: “These observations [a strong negative feedback from clouds] should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming prediction”.
But let’s move on to water vapor feedback, where I also see some major inconsistencies. These are (just like with the clouds) based on the observation that IPCC model assumptions do not check with actual physical data, which I would see as a basic, across-the-board IPCC weakness. But let me be more specific.
In discussing projections from GCM studies, IPCC AR4 WG1 (Chapter 10, p.758) states that the mean radiative forcing for doubled atmospheric CO2 is a net 3.67 W/m^2 (no feedbacks). This translates to a 2xCO2 warming of <1°C. (If you use the forcing estimates cited by IPCC, you arrive at 0.76°C, so let’s round this up to 0.8°C and stick with this value.) Note that IPCC cites a value of 1°C (and Hansen even inflates this to 1.2°C).
In Chapter 3 (p.272) IPCC states, “Trends in specific humidity tend to follow surface temperature trends with a global average increase of 0.06g/kg per decade (1976-2004). The rise in specific humidity corresponds to about 4.9% per 1°C warming over the globe.”
(See Reference 1 – posted separately to pass spam filter)
As there was a linear warming of around 0.17°C per decade over the 28-year period cited, we can calculate that the rise in specific humidity was around 0.17*4.9% or 0.83% over the entire period. Note that the atmospheric CO2 rose by around 14% from 331 ppmv in 1976 to 377 ppmv in 2004, which translates into an 11.9% increase of water vapor for 2xCO2.
On p.759 (Chapter 10) IPCC states, “in response to a doubling in atmospheric CO2, the specific humidity increases by approximately 20% through much of the troposphere”. Note that this is almost twice the amount calculated above, i.e. this assumption appears to be in contradiction with the 4.9% rise in specific humidity per 1°C warming as stated in Chapter 3 based on 1976-2004 estimates.
(See Reference 2)
These model assumptions form the basis for the statement (p.749), “An expert assessment based on the combination of available constraints from observations (assessed in Chapter 9) and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in the models used to produce the climate change projections in this chapter indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, is likely to lie in the range of 2°C to 4.5°C range, with a most likely value of about 3°C.”
This estimate includes net positive feedbacks from both water vapor and clouds, as well as a negative feedback from lapse rate and a positive feedback from surface albedo.
In Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38
(See Reference 3)
On p.631 IPCC states:
“The water vapor feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback, and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W/m^2, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%.”
This would translate into a temperature response of 1.5°C, excluding the feedbacks from clouds or surface albedo.
On p.632 IPCC states:
“Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an apparently constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity [RH]) under global scale warming.”
On p. 633 IPCC states:
“Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14, it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapour, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude.”
Using these feedback parameters, the 2xCO2 feedback temperature response would be:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+1.5°C [Water Vapor]
-0.8°C [Lapse Rate]
+1.5°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.9°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
+1.3°C [Clouds]
+3.2°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633)
A 2004 study by Minschwaner and Dessler refers to actual NASA satellite measurements of water vapor, showing a “lower than expected” increase in tropospheric water vapor content with higher sea surface temperatures.
(See Reference 4)
The results cited for specific humidity variations are (p.1279):
1.8 to 4.2 ppm/C with an average of 3 ppm/C (Minschwaner, observed data)
8.5 to 9.5 ppm/C (Minschwaner model)
This compares with:
20 ppm/C (climate models used by IPCC = constant relative humidity)
In other words, the M+D model predicts two to three times the amount of water vapor increase as actually observed by the satellites and the IPCC models assume a value two times higher than the M+D model.
Rather than finding either a “constant relative humidity” or a “20% increase in specific humidity” as assumed by the IPCC GCMs, the M-D report concludes, “The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity”. “We find that relative humidity in the UT decreases with increasing surface temperature, on the order of 3%-5% per degree of surface warming.”
The M-D model results conclude that the increase in water vapor will be around 40% to 50% of the values assumed in the IPCC GCMs. It estimates a climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 including water vapor feedback (but excluding clouds and the other feedbacks) of 1.2°C.
A 2007 report by Wentz et al. states that satellite observations indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere increases at a rate of 7% per Kelvin of surface warming (a slightly lower figure that that reported from the M-D models, but still a bit higher than the actual M-D satellite observations).
(See Reference 5)
In other words, to summarize: satellite data from physical observations show that IPCC model assumptions for water vapor feedback are overstated by a factor of around five times.
This is a major discrepancy, raising serious doubts regarding the IPCC assumption of an overall 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks (excl. clouds) of 1.9°C.
If we correct the IPCC model assumptions on the magnitude of the water vapor feedback based on the cited physical observations on water vapor increase with temperature and assume that clouds have neither a net positive nor a net negative feedback, we are left with a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 1.0°C to 1.3°C (or around one-third of the value currently calculated by the climate models).
If we use Spencer’s observations to correct for clouds, we are back to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.7°C to 0.8°C, as estimated by Lindzen or Shaviv + Veizer.
In summary, it appears that IPCC is using model assumptions that lead to a calculated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (with all feedbacks) that is three to four times as high as that which would be supported by physical observations.
Since this is the basis for all IPCC global warming projections, it appears that these should be taken “with a grain of salt”.
What do you think of all this, Peter? Do you still “defend” the 3°C climate sensitivity despite the contradicting physical evidence? Please be specific, if you can.
Regards,
Max
Reference 1
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
Reference 2
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf
Reference 3
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
Reference 4.
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
Reference 5
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/short/317/5835/233
Robin, 1290, you wrote in part
Yes, the sea-ice balance is a relatively trivial issue, and it cannot be well determined until the coming new ESA satellite can better measure it not only in surface area, but in thickness.
The bigger issue I find is not so much about how much sea ice there IS, but Pete’s relentless claim that all regional variations and natural cycles and repetitive phenomena are the consequence of AGW, regardless of whether they are positive, negative or neutral to the church case. (Or can be demonstrated to have also occurred long before AGW {The ‘A’ bit} could have existed).
Concerning NH sea-ice, I would be pleased to hear that commercial shipping across the top were to become once again a reality, and cannot think of any negative impact.
But; to contain the petri-Pete-dogma discussion to a narrow icy spectra:
Max 1292, also wrote in part, concerning the dreadful break-up of the Wilkins ice-shelf, when Pete naively attempted to associate it with AGW and sea-ice melt:
Yet Pete persists with this naive alleged association with sea-ice melt, despite adequate clarification that there is NO ASSOCIATION between ice-shelves and sea-ice. For example, in my 1284, I concluded with;
[Were] those icebergs (the top 10%) visible from the New Zealand coast about a century ago the consequence of global warming?
The screamingly obvious answer is NO!
Furthermore, it is blindingly obvious to an engineer or geologist, that the sheer-vertical termination (non-tapering) of ice-shelves is a mechanical process of structural failure resulting from tidal, wave action, and creep etc, and NOT MELTING. The rate of advance of ice-shelves is such that if this phenomena of ice-berg calving (or even grander major shelf hinging failures) had not occurred over the millennia, then New Zealand and far-South America, etc, would be buried in ice originating as snow in the Antarctic.
May I also refer to my 867, (via the magic of word-searching on ‘failure’), giving:
Here are links for some views of the progressive calving of three huge icebergs from the filchner ice-shelf. The aerial oblique photos in 1957 where the failure is well advanced (thought to have started in the 1940’s) are particularly interesting. Quote USGS:
Crevasses often form in ice shelves, due to hinging, forward “creeping”, and other forces. The annotated 1973 image shows such a crevasse, called the Grand Chasms. In 1957 the Grand Chasms were 53 m deep, with water and ice at the bottom. They were 5 km wide in 1957, 11 km wide in 1973, and 19 km wide in 1985.10 (As a comparison, the Grand Canyon is up to 29 km wide.) As expected, it was at the Grand Chasms that the shelf finally broke off into icebergs, in 1986.
Go back to 867 for those links if you are interested. To include them here would involve spam delay. (Probably)
DOES ANYONE HAVE AN OPINION WHY PETE QUOTES CHAPTER AND VERSE FROM NSIDC, BUT IGNORES USGS and various divisions of NASA, that show conflicting data that his church does not want to see?
Are career fund-minded glaciologists of the “National Snow & Ice Data Center, [Centre], maybe based on a physics degree, any better than applied scientists? (whom may feel less captured by that so-called “consensus” culture/paradigm)