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.
Max,
If the financial sector were being ‘pressured’, against their will, I think Brute used the word ‘forced’,why would they have been such generous financial supporters of those doing the pressuring and forcing? Why did they go along with it all so enthusiastically. Reluctant sellers? I don’t think so. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Your theory is all nonsense, of course, and it’s just a way of blaming the victim for the crime.
‘sauve qui peut’. Literally means ‘save who can.’ If you like, it could be ‘He who can save himself’. Your translations are a little on the creative side I would suggest.
That sort of approach won’t work with the AGW problem of course. Like it or not it is a Global issue. We do have to act collectively.
Anyway, Brute should be cheered up a little by the much reduced price of oil in recent months. Every recession has a silver lining. It looks like he’ll be able to continue his contribution to excessive US CO2 emissions for a little while longer yet.
Robin,
Yes, you should be puzzled. You guys need to get your story straight. You may disagree with it, but established scientific line that AGW is a problem to be taken seriously is just about as straight as it can be at present.
Whereas you guys flit from one position to another. First, it is that the warming is natural and caused by the sun, or cosmic rays or some mysterious factor which caused the LIA and is now receeding. Then, it’s that there isn’t any warming at all. Maybe it’s just a UHI effect. Or its just those climate scientists who are making it all up to boost their research budgets. Then at other times we hear the argument “so what if the earth is warming? Its only a degree or so. Most people would like the weather to be warmer anyway”
If real scientists didn’t have the process, which you don’t seem to agree with, of peer reviewed papers and moving along as a whole, the much criticised term of consensus, they’d have the same problem as you guys too.
TonyN
I produced a very long post full of references as a reply to Peter Martin. This seems to have disappeared, as did my second attempt. Does your systemn block posts greater than a certain length? Are you able to retrieve it?
Robin #1898
I think the answer to your query lies somewhere in the ether-see my comment to TonyN
The world has indeed warmed over the last 150 years or so, which coincidentally I commented on in that post. It is however a bit of a trick, as I hope will be demonstrated when the graph I posted resurfaces! Basically the period from 1850 to 1880 was the lowest point of the last phase of the little ice age. Extrapolating temperatures from then greatly exaggerate the degree of modern warming we have experienced, which undoubtedly is around 0.7C since that date. Extrapolating a figure from say 1900 or 1930 would yield a very different result. If you were to take the comparison back to the early 1700’s it would be shown there has been no warming whatsoever. If you were able to go back to the 1200’s it would be seen the world is actually cooling. The reference point is everything.
As for your question, it must be said that John L Daly was considered a bit of a maverick and it may well be that ‘serious’ anti agw scientists did not want to be too closely associated with him. He died in 2004 and I can not comment on the quality of updates since then. Generally though the information is pretty good, although some would say it is simplistic. Many involved in climate science seem to have an aversion to simplistic raw data and prefer to continually adjust it-some might say to arrive at the answer they are looking for.
They are also addicted to computer mnodelling which gives greater scope for their creative streaks and provides the opportunity to produce very pretty looking graphs with which to attract funding.
Going back to the raw data is however very informative, for example in my missing post it can be demonstrated that rapidly rising sea levels are largely a myth (they are currently lower than during the MWP), All European ocean temperatures (except the arctic) are actually dropping, and if you look at things in a broader historic context nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever is currently happening.
The arguement that man made co2 will be responsible for a rise of 3-5 degres C does not bear scrutiny until the warmists can come up with a coherent theory that explains how the law of thermodynamics has suddenly changed.
There is a great deal on this site about politics and I think this is a large part of the hysteria surrounding AGW. There is a combination of perfectly respectable and competent scientists knowing they will only get funds if they put the tag ‘research into man made climate change’ into their funding application together with politicians anxious to exert control and extract taxes by an apocalyptic message. Hence my reference to HL Mencken;
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed- and hence clamorous to be led to safety- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins all of them imaginary.”
Hopefully my post will turn up, if not I will resubmit it in two exciting instalments to circumvent any length problems!
Tony Brown
Yep, I sold the oil stock when the price was about $126.00 per barrel…..good thing too. Dumped some international stock today…..should have sold that a bit sooner, but still made money.
The recession has helped get rid of the illegal parasites sponging off of the US taxpayers; so yes, a silver lining….. Self deported so we didn’t have to spend the money to round them up and send them back.
Bought a wood stove! I made a deal with the guy that lives behind me. He owns 700 acres of woods/farmland that we can cut from. Oil is cheap, but electricity is going up and half of my house is electric heat…..should save a bundle on electricity and I think this winter is going to be a mother. You’d be proud of me Pete, I won’t be burning as much fossil fuel this year, just lots of wood.
Watching the deer this autumn from the back porch; beautiful creatures. I’ll probably get a buck or two this season to save on groceries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
Via Greenie Watch:
SUN WARMS AND COOLS THE EARTH
An email from Dr Muriel Newman, of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research [muriel@newman.co.nz]
You might be interested in a research paper by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski “Sun Warms and Cools the Earth” that has been published by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research. You can read a summary of the points made in the paper here. A link to the comprehensive research paper can be found there as well.
Essentially Professor Jaworowski claims that some of the key scientific evidence on ice core data, that has been used by the IPCC to justify human causation of global warming, is wrong: “During the past 16 years I presented data demonstrating that polar ice does not fulfil the close-system criteria, essential for reconstruction of chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere. This had practically no effect on a worldwide acceptance of the false, ice core based, dogma on the human causation of the Modern Warm Period”.
Furthermore, he has been outspoken on the political agenda that is driving global warming scaremongering, quoting a leading United Nations proponent:
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.”
Professor Jaworowski also points out, that contrary to what the global warming alarmists keep telling us, the climate is getting cooler. He explains that the sun, not humans, is the major driver of climate change and that the absence of normal sunspot activity could be signalling the start of a cycle of serious global cooling not warming: “Sun activity is reflected in the number of sunspots, which normally shows an 11-year periodicity. The unusually long low activity of Sun suggests that we may be entering a next Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to 1715, when almost no sunspots were visible. This was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age (1250-1900), when rivers in Europe and America were often frozen, and the Baltic Sea was crossed on ice by armies and travellers”.
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm
Brute, you beat me to it on your post 1904 above! I was trying to post it all day but had too much on my plate. Great article. I’m looking forward to Max and Peter’s comments.
Tony Brown,
My hackles always rise when someone claims that this , that or the other principle, with which they of course disgaree, violates the laws of thermodynamics. Not to put too fine a point on it, it usually means they are talking crap.
Max himself has good a good job of showing that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature by 0.8 deg C. He’s a little reluctant to add the effects of feedbacks. If he did he would find that he’s in agreement with the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for 2xCO2.
So please enlighten us. Which law of thermodynamics has Max violated? And how?
Brute and JZ,
Who are the “NZ centre for political research”?
Looking at their blurb: Plugs for Milton Friedman, individual liberty, motherhood and apple pie I’d say another one of these right wing ‘think tanks’ (for want of better word) who are pushing an anti-AGW agenda.
Like I said, it’s not the mainstream left, centre left or the sensible right of the political spectrum who have brought politics into the AGW argument. Its the pro laisser- faire, free market rules-at-all-cost crowd, who have the biggest problem accepting sound scientific advice.
Looking at their website:
http://www.nzcpr.com
I do agree with them that Capitalism isn’t finished. However, the sort of unmoderated capitalism that we have seen in the last twenty five years or so, during which time it seems to been forgotten that humanity should be in control of the system, rather than the other way around, has finally been discredited.
Max,
Yes I enjoyed the comedy clip. I think the guys were John Bird and John Fortune. We have our own brand of humour in Australia too. These two very funny guys John Clarke and Bryan Dawes are on a similar theme
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=f8rDLQj9zgI
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=OQsBGxhbYl4
Climate change is included too:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXNQNo5hQY&feature=related
Peter 1906
If and when my longer post turns up (any news TonyN?) I think you will see that comment in its proper context-the proven calculation is around a 0.5 degrees C increase using current known formulas and calculations, as is illustrated in the examples I give. Feedback is a somewhat unproven addition to the basic calculation, and others argue that all sorts of other factors come into affect-is it a forcing or a feedback? There is no proven theory that gets us to 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C increase through a doubling. It is the classic 2 plus 2 equals 5. If you have access to such a formula (I don’t) please post it.
Incidentally, how scientific do you really think it is for top people to post such a wide range of calculations of 1.5 to 4.5C? Surely this merely shows the disagreement over what calculations and formula should be used? The answer is either 1.5 or its 4.5 or a fraction eithere side, it can’t be anything they want to suggest within such a huge range can it, if the same basic sums are being done by everyone?
TonyB
Tony B,
“I produced a very long post full of references as a reply to Peter Martin. This seems to have disappeared”
Well maybe Tony’s spam filter isn’t so dumb after all!
I must say I do prefer it if people express themselves in their own words. References are all very well, but let’s not get into the battle of the references. I can probably find long lists of references too if that is what you guys want.
Tony B,
What proven calculations? Science is evidence based. If you want proofs then you should stick to mathematics. The range of temperatures is relatively wide to accommodate the range of views that do exist on the AGW issue. Despite what you may have heard about the consensus, it doesn’t mean there is a monoculture of opinion.
There are no simple formulae to calculate the feed-backs. The theory is that as CO2 levels increase the atmosphere becomes warmer and so holds more water vapour. It is conceivable, but not thought likely, that there could even be a thermal runaway effect. More CO2 > more warming > more water vapour > more warming more water vapour etc etc but it is thought to be unlikely. It isn’t easy to calculate it though.
We can see the other main positive feedback effect at the Arctic now. More warming > less ice cover > more heat absorbed by the ocean > less ice cover etc.
There are other possible feed-backs too. More CO2 may mean that the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 is impaired. If Arctic Tundra melts , methane may be emitted in large quantities. That one could really upset all calculations.
Everyone doing the same ‘basic sums’? That would be too easy.
Peter
I know all the theories- there are more theories than you can shake a stick at, many of which quietly disappear only to be replaced by another. If my long post doesn’t appear by this evening I will repost it in two parts as it will provide quantifiable evidence (in my words and others)I will then post tomorrow something that is completely my own theory of how we have got to todays AGW position.
TonyB
TonyN: If a comment does not appear immediately, then it will almost certainly be because the spam filter has caught it. I usually clear this – and fish out any genuine comments – first thing in the morning, and then two or three more times during the day. It’s wise to keep backups of comments until you see that they have been posted. The occasional false positive is something that we just have to live with and I’m afraid that from time to time, one may go out with the trash.
Re: 1895, Peter
The BBC Trustees published a report in which the seminar which I have asked for information about was presented as a glowing example of the diligence with which the corporation pursues a policy of impartiality.
The BBC are not prepared to reveal who attended the seminar, even though the report describes participants as ‘the best scientific experts’ in an overt attempt to justify their editorial policy on climate change.
The question that I asked you was whether the BBC should provide this information?
Your answer seems to have been that they should not have to provide information about every meeting that they hold.
I am not asking for information about every meeting that they hold but for further information about a seminar that they have referred to in a report that they have chosen to make available to the public by publishing it on their web site. The report lays great stress on the necessity for the BBC to deal with issues concerning impartiality transparently, and making the report publicly available seems to accordance with that aspiration. Refusing to substantiate a claim made in the report des not.
My ‘Nope’ was a response to your (not unusual) attempt to try and avoid a strait answer to a question by misinterpreting what the question was about.
We therefor have a rather strange situation where the BBC is prepared to cite this seminar as a justification for their editorial policy on climate change, but they are not prepared to back this up even to the extent of revealing who attended the seminar.
The BBC is, under the FOI Act, classified as a government agency. As it is publicly owned, it is pointless to ask what I might think about the situation if it was not publicly owned.
A publicly owned corporation is answerable to the public in the same way that a private corporation is answerable to their shareholders. This is a matter of ownership. The introduction of the FOI Act was intended to make sure that government agencies discharge their responsibilities in this respect.
As I have said before, your mode of argument makes it very easy to be a sceptic. In an earlier comment, I think you suggested that I had a ‘grievance’ against the BBC; a fascinating piece of distortion in which the BBC is transformed, by implication, into a victim. Unless advocates of AGW can come up with very much better polemics than this, they are unlikely to win over any sceptics. At times, I wonder how they even manage do convince themselves.
A good first step might be to stop avoiding the difficult questions.
Tony N Thanks for your comment. This is my final try to post my original comment in its entirety-if it does not appear by tonight I will repost it in two parts.
Peter Martin post 1885
Firstly thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response.
A lot of smoke and mirrors are being used to support the co2 theory. I suggest we really need to look at the broader historic context rather than relying on records which sometimes date back only to the first satellites in 1979.
1) Firstly rising temperatures should mean rising sea temperatures, they don’t, except in the arctic. As this govt study illustrates 6 out of 7 European ocean temp are falling.
http://www.sesame-ip.eu/doc/MB_Climate_Change_VLIZ_05031.pdf
(Look at the first graphs immediately after ‘executive summary’)
2) Sea level rises are being hugely exaggerated. In many places they are actually falling as per Newlyn http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
Others are rising modestly.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation-the Dutch certainly know a thing or two about the subject and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’
This overwhelming evidence of static sea levels is no doubt is one of the reasons why scientists are now back-pedalling, as per the link I gave you to the recent climate Conference at Exeter.
I believe the world historic temperature profile for the past 5000 years closely follows the graph Bob Carter produced that I previously linked to. This is backed up by numerous weather records dating back to the Byzantine Empire that I also linked to previously.
An analysis of the 30 year trends using CET temperature records back to 1650 demonstrate the period round 1730 is remarkably similar to today and various other periods since are also very close http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png (the 30 year trend continues down wards from 1998) These temperature spikes occurred, remarkably, during the LIA!
The effects of water vapour-as an important greenhouse gas is a more widely accepted theory than you seem to believe. The first link leads to the foremost proponent of this theory, and the second a review of it. Please note that you may be asked for a password but pressing ok will get you in.
http://landshape.org/stats/the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/
the-new-greenhouse-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi-24-06
All the above uses real world measurements rather than unproven theories and modelling- which the IPCC themselves admit are seriously flawed
Turning now to the role of Co2. It obviously wasn’t to blame in those historic warmer temperature episodes so it is difficult to see why it should be the culprit now. The best co2 explanation I have seen blames humans for the majority of co2 increases since the industrial age (probably true) but is unable to link co2 to temperature increase. This author, and miskolczi referenced above calculates up to 0.50C as the sum total due to doubling of co2- not the up to nearly 5 degrees C calculated by the IPCC. This is so close to my previous calculation of 0.60C I am happy to accept this as probably factual. However the log co2 effect confirms this small rise is about as much we will get, no matter what we now do with co2 emissions. This rise seems trivial and well within natural variability and ‘noise.’
That temperatures have gently risen since the end of the little ice age (conveniently said to be 1880 as this exaggerates the subsequent rise) is demonstrably true. That co2 is the trigger for all this is an unproven hypothesis. The clarity of the science behind it can be likened to someone travelling from A to Z using various transport methods and numerous routes. When others check and say that the route is impossible so please show us the itinerary, the traveller then refuses to divulge it. I invite you to show me a clear A to Z itinerary demonstrating the 2=2+5 hypotheses (a doubling of Co2 from pre industrial levels will lead to a rise approaching 5 degrees C.)
So in summary;
a) Temperatures have demonstrably been warmer than the present
b) Models are unreliable according to the IPCC
c) There is a skew to urban stations and many cold climate ones were removed during the cold war according to the Met office, John Daley, Wattsup
d) Sea levels are not rising dramatically
e) Sea temperatures are not rising dramatically
f) Scientists are back pedalling on their forecasts (Exeter climate conference)
g) the 2=2+5 hypotheses remains unproven
There are therefore three possible debating positions;
1) Despite all the evidence to the contrary, past episodes of natural warming are ignored whilst warmists propose a new unsupported theory ‘that doubling Co2 increases temperature by up to 5C. ’
2) That warming is entirely natural and man made co2 has no effect at all
3) That warming is mostly natural with some small residual temperature rises caused by increased co2 that lies within natural variability. Due to log co2 it will not increase temperatures further and therefore reducing current co2 emissions will have no practical effect whatsoever
The IPCC position based on the unsupported hypothesis in 1) will require huge lifestyle changes, personal restrictions and will deliver negligible reductions in many years time. It also requires trillions of dollars expenditure for an unknown result when money is surely better directed to problems we know we already have and that are solvable
If you believe Options 2 or 3 it gives us leeway to use fossil fuel as an interim measure whilst other options are sought. In addition it allows our true problem-overpopulation- to be addressed as it allows third world industrialisation to continue. Industrialised societies tend to have much smaller families than poor rural ones but they need to go down the carbon route first.
None of these three options prevents us taking steps to increase natural energy generation, whilst reducing profligacy and pollution and other undesirable aspects of modern life
I personally believe in debating point 3)
Tony Brown
No luck reposting this morning so have split yesterdays post in two. Part 1 follows (I hope!)
Peter Martin post 1885
Firstly thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response.
A lot of smoke and mirrors are being used to support the co2 theory. I suggest we really need to look at the broader historic context and actual facts, rather than relying on records which sometimes date back only to the first satellites in 1979, and unproven theories.
1) Firstly rising temperatures should mean rising sea temperatures, they don’t, except in the arctic. As this govt study illustrates 6 our of 7 European ocean temp are falling.
http://www.sesame-ip.eu/doc/MB_Climate_Change_VLIZ_05031.pdf
(Look at the first graphs immediately after ‘executive summary’)
2) Sea level rises are being hugely exaggerated. In many places they are actually falling as per Newlyn http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
Others are rising modestly.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation-the Dutch certainly know a thing or two about the subject and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’
This overwhelming evidence of static sea levels is no doubt is one of the reasons why scientists are now back-pedalling, as per the link I gave you to the recent climate Conference at Exeter.
I believe the world historic temperature profile for the past 5000 years closely follows the graph Bob Carter produced that I previously linked to. This is backed up by numerous weather records dating back to the Byzantine Empire that I also linked to previously.
An analysis of the 30 year trends using CET temperature records back to 1650 demonstrate the period round 1730 is remarkably similar to today and also various other periods since are very close http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png (the 30 year trend continues down wards from 1998) These temperature spikes occurred, remarkably, during the LIA!
The effects of water vapour-as an important greenhouse gas is a more widely accepted theory than you seem to believe. The first link leads to the foremost proponent of this theory, and the second a review of it. Please note that you may be asked for a password but pressing ok will get you in.
http://landshape.org/stats/the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/
the-new-greenhouse-theory-of-ferenc-miskolczi-24-06
All the above uses real world measurements rather than unproven theories and modelling- which the IPCC themselves admit are seriously flawed
Turning now to the role of Co2. It obviously wasn’t to blame in those historic warmer temperature episodes so it is difficult to see why it should be the culprit now. The best co2 explanation I have seen blames humans for the majority of co2 increases since the industrial age (probably true) but is unable to link co2 to temperature increase. This author, and miskolczi referenced above calculates up to 0.50C as the sum total due to doubling of co2- not the up to 5 degrees C calculated by the IPCC. This is so close to my previous calculation of 0.60C I am happy to accept this as probably factual. However the log co2 effect confirms this small rise is about as much we will get, no matter what we now do with co2 emissions. This rise seems trivial and well within natural variability and ‘noise.’
That temperatures have gently risen since the end of the little ice age (conveniently said to be 1880 as this exaggerates the subsequent rise) is demonstrably true. That co2 is the trigger for all this is an unproven hypothesis. The clarity of the science behind it can be likened to someone travelling from A toZ using various transport methods and numerous routes. When others check and say that the route is impossible so please show us the itinerary, the traveller then refuses to divulge it. I invite you to show me a clear A to Z itinerary demonstrating the 2=2+5 hypotheses (a doubling of Co2 from pre industrial levels will lead to a rise approaching 5 degrees C.)
End of Part 1
Tony Brown
This is part 2 of the post I have been trying to make since yesterday
So in summary;
a) Temperatures have demonstrably been warmer than the present
b) Models are unreliable according to the IPCC
c) There is a skew to urban stations and many cold climate ones were removed during the cold war according to the Met office, John Daley, Wattsup
d) Sea levels are not rising dramatically
e) Sea temperatures are not rising dramatically
f) Scientists are back pedalling on their forecasts (Exeter climate conference)
g) the 2=2+5 hypotheses remains unproven
There are therefore three possible debating points;
1) Despite all the evidence to the contrary, past episodes of natural warming are ignored and warmists propose a new unsupported theory ‘that doubling Co2 increases temperature by up to 5C. ’
2) That warming is entirely natural and man made co2 has no effect at all
3) That warming is mostly natural with some small residual temperature rises caused by increased co2 that lies within natural variability. Due to log co2 it will not increase temperatures further and therefore reducing current co2 emissions will have no practical effect whatsoever
The IPCC position based on the unsupported hypothesis in 1) will require huge lifestyle changes, personal restrictions and will deliver negligible reductions in many years time. It also requires trillions of dollars expenditure for an unknown result when money is surely better directed to problems we know we already have and that are solvable
If you believe Options 2 or 3 it gives us leeway to use fossil fuel as an interim measure whilst other options are sought. In addition it allows our true problem-overpopulation- to be addressed as it allows third world industrialisation to continue. Industrialised societies tend to have much smaller families than poor rural ones but they need to go down the carbon route first.
None of these three options prevents us taking steps to increase natural energy generation, whilst reducing profligacy and pollution and other undesirable aspects of modern life
I personally believe in debating point 3)
Tony Brown
Another victim of AGW.
Is it the sun? Many seem to think so, but then, our old friend Joe Romm doesn’t think so.
My apologies to members for two doses of my email which turned up piecemeal. Please either read 1916 by itself or 1917 and 1918 together.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You wrote (1908), “Max himself has good a good job of showing that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature by 0.8 deg C. He’s a little reluctant to add the effects of feedbacks. If he did he would find that he’s in agreement with the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for 2xCO2.”
Let’s analyze what you wrote. In arriving at a 2xCO2 warming of 0.8 deg C, I have simply taken the Arrhenius Law, Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the IPCC estimate for CO2 radiative forcing factor to arrive at this figure. 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 0.76°C, so let’s round this up to 0.8°C and stick with this value.
This is the theoretical warming that could be expected from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, according to IPCC.
Now to your parallel discussion with TonyB. Is the greenhouse hypothesis correct in actual fact as one of many factors driving our planet’s climate, and if so is the impact of man-made CO2 significant or not? This is another question. It has certainly not been verified by any meaningful physical observations, so I would say that your discussion woth TonyB is still very much an open issue in itself.
Now to the second part of your statement. I am very “reluctant to add in the effects of feedbacks” as based on the climate model assumptions cited by IPCC, since these have been shown by actual physical observations to be incorrect.
Boiling it down to essentials, IPCC climate models assume a strong net positive feedback from clouds with warming; actual physical observations show a strong net negative feedback. IPCC models are programmed to include water vapor increase with warming corresponding to a constant relative humidity; actual physical observations show a much lower increase in water vapor.
In effect, these two basic errors in the IPCC model assumptions result in an overall exaggeration of around 2.5 to 3.5°C in the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity; correcting for these errors puts the 2xCO2 warming back at around 0.5 to 0.8°C.
It’s really quite simple, Peter. The physically observed facts show that the IPCC model assumptions are basically incorrect, and that the resulting 3.2°C climate sensitivity is inflated by a factor of at least four.
So this is the reason that I am more than “a little reluctant to add the effects of feedbacks” as assumed by IPCC. They are bogus numbers based on GIGO model outputs.
Just to clear up the facts.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Re ur 1920 citing Joe Romm on the sun.
Romm does his usual job of cherry-picking statements from various reports to cobble together the impression that it’s not the sun that warms our planet, after all. Duh!
This is AGW pseudoscience at its best.
Regards,
Max
JZ,
I say this is a positive. I don’t know who the first guy was that thought, I know, I’ll stuff a sheep’s lung with oatmeal and eat it, but he must have been a real weirdo or very hungry.
Same with Rocky Mountain Oysters…..makes a person scratch their head and think…..ya know?
Hi TonyB,
You took the position, “That warming is mostly natural with some small residual temperature rises caused by increased co2 that lies within natural variability. Due to log co2 it will not increase temperatures further and therefore reducing current co2 emissions will have no practical effect whatsoever.”
This is exactly what I believe to be the case.
Recent physical observations have shown that the model assumptions on positive feedbacks made by IPCC exaggerate the minor influence of a doubling of CO2 by a factor of at least four (see my previous post).
From “pre-industrial 1750” to 2005 IPCC tells us that atmospheric CO2 has increased from around 280 to around 380ppmv (values before 1957 are based on proxy studies, so should be taken with a grain of salt).
According to IPCC a doubling of CO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv, as expected by 2100) will result in a temperature increase of around 0.8°C. As the relationship is logarithmic, we have experienced around 45% of the total increase to date (0.36°C), leaving us a further 0.44°C from 2005 to 2100, all other things being equal.
As we see from solar cycle 24, from changes in the ENSO oscillation and many other factors, “all other things” are not equal.
However one looks at it, it is clear that “mitigation” is an extremely expensive exercise in futility.
First, there is no clear evidence that carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes will “force” a significant reduction in the use of fossil fuels, particularly in the fastest-growing economies of China, India and Brazil. Second, it is clear that even a drastic reduction in emissions back to the world-wide level of 1991 will have a theoretical impact of less than 0.5°C on “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” by the year 2100.
The whole exercise is really “Much Ado about Nothing”.
It will be interesting to see whether PeterM will take up your challenge to debate your position without sidetracking to Arctic Sea Ice, recent Hadley proclamations or some other irrelevant side issue.
Regards,
Max
Starting with clouds, IPCC concedes that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
Other studies (Ramanathan et al.) have also expressed this “uncertainty”, stating, “ the magnitude as well as the sign of the cloud feedback is uncertain”.
Recent physical observations of Spencer et al. raise serious doubt on the IPCC assumptions of strong positive feedback from clouds, indicating a strong negative feedback instead, as was previously hypothesized by Lindzen.
IPCC assumes a 2xCO2 sensitivity (including all feedbacks but excluding clouds) of 1.9°C. Including an assumed positive feedback from clouds, IPCC estimated a 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3.2°C. If this assumption is corrected based on the actually observed strong negative feedback from clouds, the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity would be below 1.0°C.
But let’s move on to water vapor feedback, where I also see some major inconsistencies, resulting in inflated 2xCO2 warming. These are (just like with the clouds) based on the observation that IPCC model assumptions do not check with actual physical data.
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”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf
The assumed 20% increase in specific humidity forms the basis for modeled water vapor feedback and, along with the other feedback assumptions, 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:
+1.80 ±0.18 [Water vapor]
-0.84 ±0.26 [Lapse rate]
+0.26 ± 0.08 [Surface albedo]
+0.69 ± 0.38 [Clouds]
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
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.
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
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). http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/short/317/5835/233
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”.
Regards,
Max