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,
You wrote: “There wasn’t a time in the 20th century which were “before CO2 levels rose” as you put it. As you can appreciate, because of the logarithmic nature we previously discussed, it is the first tonne of CO2 which has a larger effect than the last tonne.”
Let’s do a quick “sanity check” on this statement.
The major warming cycles of the 20th century occurred from 1910 to 1944 (0.53°C linear increase) and from 1976 to 1998 (0.37°C linear increase). In between (and before 1910) there were cooling periods.
Using the Hadley record, we see that there was a modest 5% CO2 increase over the 34-year period from 1910 to 1944 (from 294 to 309 ppmv) despite major warming, a much higher 8% increase over the 32-year period from 1944 to 1976 (from 309 to 334 ppmv) despite slight cooling, an even higher 10% increase over the 22-year period from 1976 to 1998 (from 334 to 367 ppmv) along with strong warming and an ever stronger rate of increase over the 10-year period from 1998 to 2008 (from 367 to 384 ppmv) despite slight cooling.
Your story of “the logarithmic nature” in no way explains this, and does not pass the “sanity test”. The actual record in no way “shows that the current warming is consistent with IPCC figures” (as you claim).
Just for your info, the logarithm of the CO2 ratio is around 0.05 (1910-1944), 0.08 (1944-1976), 0.09 (1976-1998) and 0.05 (1998-2008), so you can see there is no “logarithmic correlation” at all (as you claim).
Face it, Peter, there is no observed correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature, with the notable exception of the 22-year period from 1976 to 1998 (the IPCC “poster period”). That’s it, Peter. The rest is hype.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Thanks; I didn’t write the review if that’s what you’re implying…..I just felt the author of the review made some salient points.
My question to you, (I respect your judgment/opinion), is why would anyone, aside from a politician), advocate such a system given the history of this form of governmental society, (Socialism)?
I suppose history repeats itself and mankind truly will continue to commit the same mistakes through history, (how soon we forget). A very wise man once said that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is……such are the promises made by Socialist politicians, (or any politician for that matter).
I believe the difference between a Representative Democracy and Socialism is that if too much power is bestowed upon too few, (such as the case with Socialism), repression will eventually follow. Maybe not immediately as was the case with the Bolshevik Revolution, but incrementally and subtly……such that the populous will not realize that they have become slaves of the State until it is too late. Our liberties and freedoms are being eroded voluntarily, by a government that is increasingly promising cradle to grave oversight and control……Truly horrifying.
I generally don’t vote for the man…..I vote for the candidate that I feel most closely conveys and will implement the view of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Looking at the American form of governance, I’ve realized that the men that assembled the original principles and idea of checks and balances contain within were true geniuses……We’ve moved far a field from these principles and I genuinely fear for the existence of this country. I pray that I’m mistaken.
Evil is real……mankind by his very nature is devious. Very few people on Earth have the right to vote for the leadership of their country. Sadly, many Americans do not take this responsibility and civic duty seriously. The next election will prove pivotal in the annals of world history……Again; I pray that enough people will choose wisely to prevent subverting the greatest society mankind has ever witnessed.
Hi Peter,
You asked for the link to the Spencer study on cloud feedbacks.
Here is one (which I posted earlier on this site).
{http}://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
Regards,
Max
Max,
One other thing. I mentioned a few months ago a book that was passed along to me; however, I didn’t print the title.
After The Wall
Germany, The Germans and the Burdens of History
Marc Fisher
Very interesting comparison of the East and West Germany after unification…..Stark contrasts of Socialisn vs. Capitalism……Something Comrade Martin should read………..
Hi Brute,
To your question why anyone would want to advocate socialism as a form of government, I really can’t find a logical answer.
There are probably those (like maybe Peter) who truly believe that this system can work despite all the historical examples out there showing that it cannot.
Not only do you in the USA have socialists (by another name), but we have them here in Switzerland as well (under the names “green party” and “social democrats”). They are all pretty much the same, as far as I can judge.
One of the biggest myths we often hear in Europe about socialism is “the theory is good, but it just wasn’t carried out properly and therefore failed”.
The socialist theory of “taking from each person according to his ability and giving to each person according to his needs” is not a “good” theory, for several reasons.
First, it goes basically against human nature, so it must be “forced” upon humanity (just like some politicians now want to “force” a reduction of CO2 emissions and prosperity). This is done for “the general welfare of the state or society” rather than the welfare of the individual and requires an authoritarian (or, in the worst case a totalitarian) government
Second, it totally demotivates anyone from wanting to succeed if he knows that the fruits of his success will be taken away and given to someone else that really does not care about succeeding. It therefore rewards mediocrity and non-performance, a certain formula for eventual self-destruction of a society.
In the case of your Senator Obama, I believe the record clearly shows that he has embraced the socialist philosophy in order to succeed as a politician. There may truly have been some altruistic “do-gooder” feelings at first, but once he entered the Chicago machine-style political arena it became hardball politics all the way. In my opinion, he has now become the darling of the left-leaning media and the puppet of the left wing of the Democratic Party (who could never stand the Clintons for being too “centrist”), and he is playing this all the way. Will the US voters in rural Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, etc. fall for this? Guess we’ll have to wait a few more weeks to see.
Like you Americans, the Swiss fought long and hard for their freedom, but sometimes it seems that they are all too eager to give it all away.
Regards,
Max
New Paper from Roy Spencer: PDO and Clouds
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/#more-3721
Max,
Well I must say that I’m a little underwhelmed by the Spencer letter. Far from claiming that the IPCC has it all wrong Spencer meekly asks that his observations “should be considered” in climate models. No mention of how those models are garbage, as I think you have described them, and that they should be discarded in favour of real observations.
Confirmation of Lindzen’s hypothesis? This how Spencer describes it “This decrease in ice cloud coverage is nominally supportive of Lindzen’s ‘infrarediris’ hypothesis.”
He might well have used the time honoured phrase, ‘more studies are needed …..”
It is my turn to give you a little tip. When you are writing quotes , it is a good idea to use copy and paste which is a feature on all Windows programs, especially if your memory isn’t as reliable as you would like it to be in your old age. That way you can’t go too far wrong. The most I ever change is , maybe single quotes for double quotes. I’d even leave spellings as they are. It isn’t really the done thing to make up your own wordings and put them in quotation marks.
Brute and JZ,
It is I who should be calling you Comrades Brute and JZ. After all you are the ones who, I would guess, would have voted for the current US Administration who have just implemented item 5 of Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto. I did vote for the current Australian government and so far all our banks are still in fully private ownership!
Brute,
No I don’t support any of the regimes you mention. The leaders of the regimes may well have claimed they were socialist but claiming and being are two different things.
I would say that the most lastingly successful socialist systems that we have seen have been the European mixed economies of the post war years. We may well all go back to that idea. There is a lot to be said for the idea of harnessing capitalism for the common good. Most peple don’t have a problem with Capitalism as such as long as the capitalists are not allowed to be the ruling class. Most would go for democracy over the idea of a ruling class every time.
For instance, if a budding entrepenerial capitalist came up with an electrical battery which was robust enough and cheap enough to power an electrical car then I’d be the first to say good luck to him. Unfortumately most peoples idea of a capitalist these days would be someone like Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch and it is hard to say anything good about them.
Pete,
Why have the French and Germans elected Conservative, (Pro-Capitalist, Pro-Free Market), Prime Ministers over the Socialist candidates?
Brute,
The voters should always have a choice. In a democracy, there are always going to be parties of both the left and the right. We can all sneer at politicians from time to time but democracy is the best way to ‘keep the bastards’ honest.
All parties have to be careful of what they do. For instance, in countries where there is overwheming public support of the idea of free medical care for all, it would be electoral suicide for any pro-capitalist party to campaign on ending it and copying what you guys do in the USA. If you look at the political debates in the UK and Australia you’ll find that the opposition parties do criticise how the governments run their health care but the main thrust of their argument is that they could run them better. Which is of course fair enough.
Their are some ideological arguments, but they tend to be at the edges, such as whether health costs should be allowed against tax and whether there should be an extra tax for those who could afford private health care but choose not to.
It is a similar story with education, and the nationalised industries. After the debacle of the recent weeks it will be some time before privatisation is back on the agenda.
It works both ways of course. I doubt if the Australian Labor party would win many elections if they proposed all the ten points that Marx had in his manifesto.
Hi Peter
To Spencer’s study you stated (2132), “Far from claiming that the IPCC has it all wrong Spencer meekly asks that his observations “should be considered” in climate models. No mention of how those models are garbage, as I think you have described them, and that they should be discarded in favour of real observations.”
Peter, I guess you are not aware that scientific papers (as opposed to PR blurbs or blog sites, such as RealClimate) rarely claim that anyone “has it all wrong” or that “models are garbage”. These conclusions are left up to the reader to draw.
But if you check Spencer’s new paper (cited by Brute 2132), you will see a graph that shows exactly that (without putting in into so many words).
IPCC model assumptions show a 2xCO2 warming (with 90% confidence) of 1.5 to 6°C with a “best estimate” of 3°C, whereas actual physical observations show this warming to be between 0.5 and 1.1°C (“mean value” of 0.8°C).
As Yogi Berra would say, “it’s déjà vu, all over again”: IPCC “believes” in the word of computer models rather than in actual physical observations.
Believe me, Peter, this is one of the key weaknesses of many claims made in the IPCC report, i.e. they are not fact-based but rather based on outputs from models that have been fed questionable assumptions.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
“It is my turn to give you a little tip. When you are writing quotes , it is a good idea to use copy and paste which is a feature on all Windows programs…”
Thanks for unsolicited tip, Peter, but just exactly what are you talking about?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To expand on our cloud and water vapor feedback discussion:
One of the much-quoted (pre-Spencer 2007) references on the “radiative forcing from clouds and water vapor” is Ramanathan + Inamdar: “Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor” (2006):
{http}://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf
This paper raises the question (p.130), “do clouds heat or cool the planet?”, concluding, “Clouds reduce the absorbed solar radiation by 48 W/m^2 while enhancing the greenhouse effect by 30 W/m^2 and therefore clouds cool the global surface-atmosphere system by 18 W/m^2 on average. The mean average of C is several times the 4 W/m^2 heating expected from doubling of CO2 and thus Earth would probably be substantially warmer without clouds.”
On p.147 the paper concludes: “Cloud feedback. This is still an unresolved issue (see Chapter 8). The few results we have on the role of cloud feedback in climate change is mostly from GCMs. Their treatment of clouds is so rudimentary that we need an observational basis to check the model conclusions. We do not know how the net forcing of –18 W/m^2 will change in response to global warming. Thus, the magnitude as well as the sign of the cloud feedback is uncertain.”
For water vapor feedback, this paper concludes, “Radiative-convective models with fixed relative humidity assumption yield (e.g. see Ramanathan et al., 1981) dFc/dTs ~2W/m^2K.
Note that studies based on physical observations from satellites (Minschwaner + Dessler) show that relative humidity does not remain constant, and that water vapor feedback is actually significantly lower than estimated by the models with fixed relative humidity assumption.
{http}://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/03/18/the-vapor-rub/
The M+D model refers to actual NASA satellite measurements of water vapor, which show an increase in tropospheric water vapor content with 1°C higher sea surface temperatures.
The results cited are:
· 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)
· 20 to 25 ppm/C (climate models used by IPCC)
In other words, the constant relative-humidity models used by IPCC greatly exaggerate the physically observed increase in water vapor content with warming.
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 8 (p.630) states: “ In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD at PCMDI of 1.8 ± 0.18 W/m^2°C., followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback (-0.84 ± 0.26 W/m^2°C) and the surface albedo feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W/m^2°C). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W/m^2°C with a very large intermodel spread of ± 0.38 W/m^2°C.”
{http}://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
Later (pp.631,633) IPCC states, “In the idealized situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al, 2006). The water vapour feedback, operating alone on top of this [a doubling of CO2], would at least double the response. The water vapour feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback (see above), and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W/m^2°C, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%. The surface albedo feedback amplifies the basic response by about 10%, and the cloud feedback does so by 10 to 50% depending on the GCM.”
Later on p.633: “Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14 [climate feedback from various models], 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.”
Note that the 1.8 ± 0.18 W/m^2°C feedback from water vapor based on fixed relative-humidity models checks closely with Ramanathan estimate of ~2W/m^2°C, and that the negative feedback from lapse rate plus the positive feedback from surface albedo results in a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks excluding clouds of 1.9°C ± 0.15°C.
Including the positive feedback for clouds predicted by all GCMs, the total 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is estimated by IPCC to be 3.2°C ± 0.7°C.
IPCC goes on to state, “The large spread in cloud radiative feedbacks leads to the conclusion that differences in cloud response are the primary source of inter-model differences in climate sensitivity… However, the contributions of water vapour/lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks to sensitivity spread are non-negligible, particularly since their impact is reinforced by the mean model cloud feedback being positive and quite strong.”
SPM 2007 concedes (p.12): “Cloud feedbacks remain the greatest source of uncertainty.”
{http}://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
To summarize the IPCC position on feedback from water vapor and clouds:
In SPM 2007 (p.4) IPCC cites a radiative forcing for CO2 (Myhre et al.), which results in a temperature increase at a doubling of CO2 concentration of around 0.8°C (excluding any feedbacks). The forcing from other minor greenhouse gases is essentially cancelled out by cooling from anthropogenic aerosols. Natural factors are considered to be essentially negligible.
IPCC then cites model study estimates for the positive feedback impact from water vapor plus surface albedo, minus the negative feedback from lapse rate), showing a combined climate sensitivity of 1.9°C for 2xCO2 including these feedbacks, but excluding a feedback from clouds. [Note that this is substantially higher than the 1.2°C reported by Minschwaner and Dessler based on satellite observations on water vapor change with temperature.]
IPCC then states that all models assume a positive feedback from clouds (but they “strongly disagree on its magnitude” and even state separately that “Cloud feedbacks remain the greatest source of uncertainty”). Including this positive feedback (plus the feedbacks cited above), the climate sensitivity derived from current GCMs is 3.2°C ± 0.7°C.
IPCC tells us that this major increase from clouds (from 1.9°C including other feedbacks but without cloud feedback to 3.2°C including cloud feedback) is that the “impact” [of the other feedbacks] “is reinforced by the mean model cloud feedback being positive and quite strong.”
This is what the various GCM estimates show, i.e. a “positive and quite strong cloud feedback”.
After IPCC AR4 was published, Spencer et al. (2007) published a report based on physical observations from satellites on cloud radiative forcings with higher surface temperatures.
{http}://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
These observations showed that low altitude (cooling) clouds increased with higher surface temperature but that high altitude (warming) clouds decreased, in direct contradiction of the assumptions programmed into the climate models. The observations showed a strongly negative total (SW + LW) cloud radiative forcing of –6.1 W/m^2°C, rather than a positive forcing of +0.69 ± 0.38 W/m^2°C, as assumed by the climate models, thereby validating the “infrared iris” hypothesis of negative feedback from clouds proposed earlier by Richard Lindzen and contradicting the IPCC model assumptions.
This study provided the “observational basis to check the model conclusions”, which Ramanathan et al. stated were still missing when their report was written.
Another study on cloud feedbacks by Joel Norris was also published after IPCC AR4:
{http}://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf
This was a long term study of the net effect of clouds based on annual mean cloud cover surface observations since 1952 of different types of clouds at low, middle and high altitude, compared with ERBE satellite measurements of the radiation anomaly. The study confirmed that the net feedback from clouds was negative, rather than positive as assumed in all the climate models cited by IPCC.
Feedback = -0.8 W/m^2°K (strong negative feedback)
Potential impact on temperature
DT = -1.5K
Summary
· Low-level stratiform cloud cover and reflected SW radiation have increased over midlatitude oceans
· Low-level stratiform cloud cover and reflected SW radiation have increased over eastern subtropical oceans
· Cloud changes since 1952 have had a net cooling effect on the Earth.
The overall net impact of this observed net negative feedback from clouds is that the total 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, as assumed by the IPCC climate models, of 3.2°C, is actually closer to 0.8°C.
Putting this into proper perspective, this means that the total warming we have experienced to date (since 1750) from increased CO2 concentration including all “feedbacks” is around 0.35°C, and we can theoretically expect a further 0.45°C from now until 2100 when atmospheric CO2 reaches a level of twice that from the year 1750 (rather than 4+ times this amount of warming as assumed by the models cited by IPCC).
As a long-term maximum (by the year 2150+?), assuming all the world’s fossil fuels have been consumed by then and atmospheric CO2 reaches its absolute theoretical maximum of a bit more than 1000 ppmv, we can expect the theoretical warming from all this CO2 to add another 0.6 to 0.7°C (the absolute upper limit of AGW).
Sorry for being so long-winded, but I hope this helps to fill in the picture a bit for you, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Your comment “.. what are you talking about?” in 2137 indicates that your dementia is much worse than I had thought. You surely can’t have already forgotten that in 2125 I took you to task for making up a quote in your 2119 ! If you think I was being a bit harsh, just check back and you’ll see that the complained about quote was entirely fictitious.
I’m sure the same rules must apply in Switzerland too. If you enclose anything in quotation marks, it should be exactly as it was originally written. Not even a comma should be added or omitted!
Hi Peter,
You chastised me with, “Your comment “.. what are you talking about?” in 2137 indicates that your dementia is much worse than I had thought. You surely can’t have already forgotten that in 2125 I took you to task for making up a quote in your 2119 ! If you think I was being a bit harsh, just check back and you’ll see that the complained about quote was entirely fictitious.
I’m sure the same rules must apply in Switzerland too. If you enclose anything in quotation marks, it should be exactly as it was originally written. Not even a comma should be added or omitted!”
Well, now, it appears that you are the one suffering from memory loss, not I.
My quotation in 2119 was, “The fact is, Peter, Spencer’s physical observations have shed new light on the subject of feedbacks from clouds, which IPCC conceded were “the largest source of uncertainty” at the time of the publication of their latest report.
If you check IPCC 2007 SPM (p.12) you will see the statement, “Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” (exactly as I quoted it).
Sorry, Peter, you were mistaken on that one. I have not misquoted IPCC.
To your statement, “Your point on the overall negative feedback effect of clouds is highly speculative. Maybe 1-2% of climate scientists would agree with your statements. Why put all your faith in such a small minority?”
You have implied that only “1-2% of climate scientists would agree with my statements”, i.e. that net cloud feedbacks are not positive, as assumed by IPCC models and strong enough to result in a net 2xCO2 increase from clouds of 1.3°C as claimed by IPCC.
So let’s apply a bit of basic logic: If 1-2% do not agree with my statement that IPCC is wrong in this assumption and claim, it follows, by definition, that 98-99% of climate scientists support the IPCC model assumption that cloud feedbacks are positive, as assumed by IPCC models and strong enough to result in a net 2xCO2 increase from clouds of 1.3°C as claimed by IPCC.
You made an unsubstantiated statement and I asked you to back it up with some facts, which you were apparently unable to do.
But, by all means, if you can show me that 98-99% of climate scientists would not agree with my statements, please do so. Otherwise I will have to assume that this was unsubstantiated hyperbole.
Regards,
Max
Peter,
I had intended to reply to your comments about clouds, the ice card, temperatures and sea levels but as I attended a conference today on sea levels (my fifth this year as it is part of my job) I will confine my comments to that at present.
Firstly it is important to recognise how information gets into the public domain (in the UK, but other countries are likely to have a similar process) Todays conference on ‘managing the shoreline in view of climate change’ was a classic example of the process.
On climate change related topics the pecking order is that the IPCC will write a report which the national govts will endorse and request some type of action. This then passes to govt dept (such as Defra) who in turn will pass it to govt agencies they are responsible for (such as Natural England and the Environment agency) and then ‘stakeholders’ such as county and local councils. They in turn will disseminate it down to societies and schools. So the message that started off in Geneva will eventually be heard in the small school in my village.
The particular report we were being asked to consider was compiled by a major group of intertnational consultants.
At the break I quietly said to the presenter (who was only doing his job) ‘those sea level figures are complete nonsense they don’t relate to reality.’ He replied, ‘I know they are hugely exaggerated but they’re the ones we have been paid to use by those commissioning the report. Its our brief to use them so we can’t use any others.’
Separately I spoke to the agency that commissioned the report. They agreed the original figures were nonsense but they had to be used as they were the ‘official’ ones. An added problem which I know is true in some European countries, but I can’t claim to be universal, is that many reports pre 2005 (the date this agency was established) have not been digitised so ‘don’t exist’ for current researchers. in addition, back up paper information (Maps, charts, diaries etc) is prohibited due to lack of storage space. Consequently the very narrow terms of reference of most briefs wouldn’t allow examining broadly related information in the first place- but even if they were permitted to they would probably not be availale in a useable format (digitised)
Consequently the documents we were therefore looking at were in effect worthless (other than the £100,000 to the consultants) other than in very general terms. More importantly the report we were examining will be put on line so will become ‘official’ which no doubt you will one day cite as proof of your beliefs.
We have a close analogy with the IPCC who utilise highly debatable information so will come up with highly debatable answers. It’s not their fault, they are told to make predictions based on unrealistic assumptions on coal use (without emission mitigation) increases in population and consumption levels far above reality, and a projected increase in annual co2 levels double the actual amount. If you feed in parameters that are unrealistic by a factor of anything from 2 to 12 you will end up with grossly exaggerated models. Some of these issues are dealt with here
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
The 40 different storylines being developed by the IPCC are shown here
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
In order to arrive at the gloomiest possible predictions, worst case scenarios are used (by the media, activists and a very few IPCC scientists.) To arrive at these alarmist scenarios in the first place sea level rises (for example) are exaggerated, past US temperature records of the 30’s are ‘adjusted’ downwards by Dr Hansen http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ so the 90’s artificially become the hottest decade ‘ever’ and the MWP becomes a ‘really outdated’ concept according to Dr Mann. However, factor in realstic scenarios, realistic models and actual past temperature realities (ancient and modern) and the picture radically changes.
With regards to sea levels, your comment in 2100 bemused me a little with your statement;
“Up until now you may have had a valid point about sea levels not increasing at quite the predicted rate. However, that looks like it may be changing with the latest measurements being of an “unprecedented” rate of sea level rise of nearly 0.1 inch (2.54mm) per year.”
Presumably you mean one tenth of an inch and the 2.54 are mm not cm? If so what is your point? Again I had already posted links to the source of the original information on this subject, which are the world renowned Proudman Observatory and their Dutch equivalent . The ‘unprecedented’ bit refers to record low estimates for IPCC related data, not record high ones. That figure you quoted is 10 inches per century. The official reduction in previously predicted sea level rises to these much more modest levels was again linked by me earlier, citing the Exeter climate change conference. Tony N also posted the link from the Met office some days later. I also cited some abstracts confirming the science behind it. These ‘rises ’-if existing at all-are decreasing not increasing (much to Real climates consternation) According to the UK agencies MSL is rising at 1mm per year but some levels are rising faster, others slower.
Here is a report by the worlds greatest expert on sea level made to the British Parliament regarding claimed rising sea levels at the Maldives and Tuvalu. He dismisses this suggestion as nonsense and has described the sea level rises cited by the IPCC as ‘a lie’
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
The rate of sea level increase -where it existed at all- is now reversing as Max clearly posted earlier. Sea levels today are still below those of the 10th Century.
The problem lies not only with the initial data the scientists are being asked to work with but the great uncertainties of computer models. I previously cited abstracts from Exeter and the IPCC authors concerning great uncertainties about the data they were providing. I have also provided links to comments made by IPCC scientists themselves confirming the unreliability of their models.
I will be away the next few days as I am at a conference on AGW given by leading British warmist Dr Iain Stewart (amazing how open mninded these sceptics are) so hope to be able to post re clouds etc at end of week
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Re my 2138 here is another link to the cited 2004 Journal of Climate report by Minschwaner + Dessler.
{http}://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/minschwaner_march04.pdf
This report shows that the IPCC model assumption of constant relative humidity with warming is not supported by the physical observations.
Page 1279 has a chart, which shows this graphically.
The shaded area shows actual satellite observations (linear least square fit).
The somewhat steeper dashed line shows the relationship calculated using the M+D radiative-convective model.
The dotted line with the steepest slope represents the constant relative humidity line, as assumed in the IPCC models.
The discrepancy is easy to see.
Regards,
Max
Someone sent me this. Unfortunately the story itself is a joke (you dont have to be a sceptic to enjoy it) but the studies about the arctic are true.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009807.html
Where on earth do these silly web sites spring from?
TonyB
Interesting article.
Max,
Your dementia is showing no sign of improving. The quote in question, as I wrote in 2125, is:
So it’s no longer “98-99% of climate scientists who believe in a positive cloud feedback resulting in a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3°C”, as you said earlier.
Like I said any quote has to be letter perfect. It’s no defence to say you were just appying your own logic.
Look, let’s agree a truce. If you stop making up fictitious quotes I’ll lay off the dementia taunts.
Hi Peter,
Your latest on “fictitious quotes” having to be “letter perfect” is a supreme waffle to get away from discussing the facts.
You say 1-2% would support my position; I say you said 98-99% would not support my position. Like it or not, these two statements are identical in meaning if not “letter perfect” in wording.
But let’s get back on topic, rather than digressing.
The constant relative humidity model is a cornerstone of the IPCC water vapor feedback assumption, which leads to a significant increase in the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
As physical observations have shown, this assumption is false. Relative humidity does not, in actual fact, remain constant, as assumed by the IPCC models, but decreases with higher temperature.
To make matters worse, IPCC 2007 SPM proclaims, “The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold” [i.e. constant relative humidity].
This statement is blatantly false.
The statement lists a reference {3.4}.
A closer look at section 3.4 of the AR4 WG1 report does not provide any references to physical evidence in support of the “constant relative humidity” assumption.
The inaccuracies and limitations of early radiosonde humidity measurements are pointed out (pp.271), “early radiosonde sensors suffered from significant measurement biases, particularly for the upper troposphere, and changes in instrumentation with time ofeten lead to artificial discontinuities in the data” and (p.272) “Additional information on water vapour can be obtained from satellite observations and reanalysis products.”
On the other hand, later satellite observations are stated to be much more meaningful (p.272). “Satellite observations provide near-global coverage and thus provide an important source of information over the oceans, where radiosonde observations are scarce, and in the upper troposphere, where radiosonde sensors are often unreliable”.
Yet the satellite-based report of Minschwaner and Dessler is only mentioned in passing (p.273) with the sentence “HALOE measurements at 215 hPa suggested increases in water vapour with increasing temperature (Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004) on interannual time scales, but at a rate smaller than expected from constant relative humidity”. No mention is made of the fact that the M+D satellite observations showed water vapor increase around one-fifth of those “expected from constant relative humidity” (as assumed by all the IPCC computer models).
Other statements tell us, “Due to instrumental limitations, long-term changes in water vapour in the upper atmosphere are difficult to assess” (p.273), “the HIRS channel 12 (T12) data have been most extensively analyzes for variability and show trends in relative humidity of order ±1% per decade at various latitudes (Bates and Jackson, 2001), but these trends are difficult to separate from larger interannual fluctuations due to ENSO (McCarthy and Tuomi, 2004) and are negligible when averaging over the tropical oceans (Allen et al., 2003)” (p.273). Finally, we read “To summarize, the available data due not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity” (p.274).
So the only report that gives a clear indication of relative humidity development with increased temperature (Minschwaner + Dessler) is glossed over with one sentence and the “constant relative humidity” assumption is maintained, despite the fact that this assumption is not supported by any physical evidence and even refuted directly by the satellite observations of Minschwaner and Dessler.
Is this supposed to be “science”?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just to make it easier for you to visualize the major discrepancy between the IPCC “constant relative humidity” model assumption and the observed facts from satellites (Minschwaner + Dessler, 2004), I have attached the graph from their report.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2958955575_2c69450bd9_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Tony B,
Where, or from whom, did your obtain your attribution of “worlds greatest expert on sea level” ? Would the same person say that Lindzen, or maybe Spencer, was the world’s greatest expert on climate change?
You might want to read the situation as is understood by the scientific community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
I would agree that if and when flooding occurs , maybe in Venice or New Orleans, it is not correct to assume that sea level change is the major factor. Subsidence, often due to ground water extraction can be a more likely cause.
Yes I did say 2.54 mm or 0.1 inches. Wiki reports a figure of 3.1mm per year for the latest measurements. The increase in sea level in the 21st century is hard to predict. If it stays the same then it will be 25 -30 cm. However if AGW gets worse it will increase as is shown on the IPCC graphs.
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner is obviously a sceptic on the scientific position and probably doesn’t agree with all this , but I couldn’t find his use of the word ‘lie’ that you claim. Maybe you could show me?
Hi Peter,
Not to interrupt your discussion with TonyB, but I have shown you previously (a) that a projected sea level rise of 2.54 mm/year is not at all unusual (and certainly not “unprecedented”, as you claimed), (b) that sea level rise was higher in the first half of the 20th century than in the second half and (c) that the 3.1 mm/year rise reported by IPCC for 1993-2003 (and parroted by Wiki) is a bogus figure (a better figure would have been 1.6 mm/year).
I have to admit, Peter, that you have an uncanny knack for getting it wrong every time.
Don’t fall into the trap of quoting “Wiki”; check the raw data (in this case Holgate, who use tide gauges or Carl Wunsch, who uses both tide gauges and satellite altimetry).
Keeps you from shooting yourself in the foot.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just to clear it up: Nils-Morner used the expression “nonsense”, rather than “lie”.
Pick the term you like best; they seem pretty close to me.
Regards,
Max