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.
INFORMATION SOURCES:
For some years now, I’ve admired the German radio English language world service Deutsche Welle (DW = German World), as perhaps one of the most reliable sources of media-based information available, partly because of their stark honesty of UNIQUELY freely discussing the past crimes of their nation and also in exposing (To the world), various modern-day German shames. For example, just recently, they reported something to the effect:
Hey: if YOU; the rest of the world out there, think that Germans strictly follow “ze laws” without applying any common sense as to their intent or any sensible considerations to circumstance, try this recent whopper:
A (German) train conductor recently forced a 12 YO girl off a night-train, 5 miles short of her destination, because; a) she did not have a ticket, b) she did not have her purse, any cash, or ID. Reportedly, other concerned passengers offered to pay, but the conductor was insistent, that the child herself had committed a train-crime and must pay personally, or dismount. Fortunately, the child made it home OK, in the dark, apparently without escort from any of the passengers, that apparently offered easy sympathetic pennies, but no serious real support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SO, I have just had some disappointing surprise when I listened for the first time to a half-hour DW segment named “Living Planet”, hosted by Mark Maddock (Spelling?),
Please listen to the ~27 minute on-demand audio @
{{http}}://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_multi_mediaplayer/0,,1365107_type_audio_struct_4703_format_WMedia,00.html
I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN ANY COMMENTS that you may have.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If DW interests you as an information source, here is access to their many English pod-casts, in addition to that above @:
[[http]]://www.dw-world.de/dw/0,2142,4703,00.html
I hope you enjoy,
Bob_FJ
Pete,
You wrote:
May I take this to mean that you believe that the oceans are storing the sensible heat that would otherwise be evident in the atmosphere hence the current drop in temperature globally?
Hi Peter,
Your “equilibrium” story is nice but not very convincing.
With the room heater we turn up the heat (i.e. the rate at which energy is pumped into the room from the energy source) but we still have to continue putting new energy into the room as we move from a cold to a warm room. If we have a properly functioning thermostat, the heater will stop adding new energy as soon as the desired temperature is reached. If we stop putting new heat into the room, it stops warming fairly quickly. A hot air circulation system does this almost instantly; a hot water system with radiators is a bit slower.
But with your hypothesis, we have already “put the energy into the room” (with the warming from the sun, the retention of this heat by greenhouse gases plus the assumed positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapor, etc.) but this energy is hidden and lurking somewhere (the oceans?), to come out and fry us some day in the future.
Sorry, Peter, your analogy does not hold and your “equilibrium” hypothesis is weak and unfounded.
The assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C is an unsubstantiated myth, which has been refuted by the physical observations on both clouds and water vapor.
Your hypothesis has less merit than the “saturated greenhouse” hypothesis of Miskolczi, which, at least gives a plausible scientific explanation for why we have not had “tipping points” with “runaway warming” in the past (as Hansen conjures up for the future).
{http}://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/
Miskolczi writes, “If the model is correct, the real cause of recent warming is not related to the enhanced greenhouse effect, as the surface temperature can only change through changes in the energy input to the system. Perturbations of the system by gases, or volcanoes, should result in small, rapid temperature spikes, followed by a reversion to equilibrium conditions.”
Then there is an interesting study by Fong, which points to long-term physical observations on clouds and precipitation, demonstrating that these have provided a climate “equilibrium” to balance increased evaporation caused by added forcing both from increased incoming energy resulting from increased 20th century solar activity plus from greater energy absorption due to higher greenhouse gas concentrations.
{http}://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMGC31A0207F
These studies make more sense to me than your room heater analogy. Sorry.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just some food for thought.
Is the “ocean heat sink” (with all its surface water / deep water exchange mechanism) actually providing a giant “negative feedback” to global warming?
Think about it a bit.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
Enjoyed your DW link immensely.
The story of the 12 YO girl and the train conductor does not surprise me. The Germans have a saying that many still live by, “Ordnung muss sein”. Means “Order must be” or “We must have order”. Tossing a 12 YO girl off the train at night because she cannot pay the fare is a good example of “Ordnung”.
The eco link is actually so ludicrous that it is funny.
The 60 million (future) desert refugees fleeing (from their despotic, impoverished homelands to affluent, tolerant Europe, where they can immediately get on welfare or get a job selling narcotics, or both) as the virtual, model-projected, future desertification from AGW “drives them out”, brought a virtual tear to my eyes.
I got a bit less emotional about the Alaskan black gilamots (spelling?), who are being pushed out of their home north of Barrow by intruding horned puffins and the poor bird-watcher, who could no longer bury his cheese in the melting permafrost.
The fact that China is giving monetary incentives to industries that are not polluting the air (in order to have more “blue sky days”) brought back memories of burning eyes and a hacking cough from earlier days spent in industrial southern China and made me truly happy (of course this is all about real air pollution has nothing to do with CO2 or “greenhouse warming”).
The story about tigers attacking more people in the mangroves of some remote Indian province (as a result of global warming, of course) got me to thinking: have the numbers of (endangered) tigers increased due to global warming or have the numbers of their (anything but endangered) natural prey (humans) increased, so that the symbiosis or equilibrium has changed, or is the whole thing caused by the psychological/emotional stress of man-made warming on the poor beasts? I had a hard time figuring out the link and DW kept me guessing as well.
The sideline of “two islands have disappeared completely due to rising sea levels (from AGW)” caused me some concern until my wife reminded me that we live in Switzerland and should not worry too much.
The Arctic story gave me the greatest joy. An “Arctic expert” named Haddow (spelling?) and his merry men (and women?) are headed north across areas where the temperature is 50°C below zero to “wait for the summer ice to completely disappear (this year or next, maybe)”. They had better have provisions for a long time. If the ice keeps receding at the rate it has been for the past 30 years (when measurements started), it will take 60 more years for it to disappear completely by end summer (2068). If it continues the 2007/2008 reversal, they’ll be there even longer.
All in all a great program, Bob. I’d say it beats “Saturday Night Live” for entertainment value.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
The raw data sources are listed on the chart: Hadley Met Office for “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature”, Mauna Loa (after 1958) for annual atmospheric CO2 values and IPCC 2007 SPM chart for CO2 prior to 1958.
The CO2 figure plotted is the change of atmospheric CO2 in ppmv over the time period.
Over the 10-year time period (1998-2008) it increased by 20 ppmv (for an average of 2.0 ppmv/year) while over the previous 23-year time period (1976-1998) it increased by 33 ppmv (for an average of 1.4 ppmv/year). So the rate actually accelerated. I showed the total increase over the time period in order to compare this to the total temperature increase over the same time period.
Regards,
Max
Note to JZSmith
Attached is a chart (based on Hadley temperature data) of the various warming and cooling cycles that have been measured since the Hadley record started. It gives a better visual picture of the multi-decadal temperature oscillations than the other chart, plus it lists the linear equations of the various warming and cooling cycles.
{http}://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2656244893_e6c9d7fe01_b.jpg
Note: Remove {parentheses} from link.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To pre-Hadley temperature records in the 1600s and 1700s you opined (2225) to TonyB, “You need to look at global temperatures not those for the UK or any other single country.”
Where are these records, Peter?
There are some going back to medieval times from other parts of Europe, China and the Middle East, but (as far as I know) that is about all we have in the way of early temperature records.
We do have historical references to medieval crop records, human migrations, sea charts, advancing ice and snow covering Alpine mines at the end of the MWP, etc. We also find physical evidence of earlier warmer times in signs of vegetation and early civilization under receding glaciers.
And then we have the proxy climate studies from all over the world, which are probably the least reliable evidence.
“Global” temperatures are a very nebulous concept in any case and I doubt if anyone can find any really convincing data leading to a “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” before Hadley started calculating and recording this virtual number.
Regards,
Max
Max #2230
The name of the explorer is Pen Hadow and he is a near neighbour of mine. This from our local newspaper.
http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/features/Pen-s-Arctic-mission-measure-melting-ice-cap/article-417065-detail/article.html
This from an earlier story. He does have something of a reputation for being a bit accident prone but good luck to him.
http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2003/5/28/90690.html
TonyB
Message to TonyB
Thanks for link to Hadow survey.
DW had it a bit wrong, when they reported (as I understood it) that Hadow et al. were going to the Arctic to witness the ice-free end summer there.
In fact, your link tells us “The explorer’s Catlin Arctic Survey data will help to calculate how long the dwindling ice cap could last”.
How long it (theoretically, if our assumptions for the future are correct) could last is a bit different from observing an ice-free end summer, but I guess one cannot fault DW for making things sound a bit more urgent than they actually are.
Regards,
Max
Peter #2225
Thank you for the free (I assume) geography lesson. I am aware of Britain’s position relative to Hudson Bay and am expecting their excess of Polar bears to make their way here any time if this weeks forecast is correct.
I made no claim at all that CET was a global temperature. It is indicative of the Northern hemisphere and as such is much used by science institutions in the north as a reliable proxy. CET is however very important as it is the northern hemisphere that has demonstrated most of the warming, with the southern hemisphere exhibiting around half of these changes;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/213716/27
I made an observation that winters were becoming less cold on average overall, but summers were not showing any great overall change. I am pleased to see that no less an illustrious team than Jones et al agree with my observations and I am expecting them to share their tens of millions of research funds with me immediately.
“Globally, minimum temperatures appear to be warming at a faster rate than Maximum temperatures (Karl et al., 1993), particularly since the 1950s (IPCC,2001), possibly associated with a change in cloud cover. Jones et al. (1999)found no significant increase in very warm days in the Central England Temperature series in recent years, but there was a marked decrease in the frequency of very cold days. A decrease in the diurnal temperature range has also been found in Northern and Central Europe (Heino et al., 1999)”
Winter temperatures have constantly fluctuated throughout recorded history and our expectation of very cold snowy winters was popularised by Charles Dickens who drew on his experiences of the little ice age, although ironically, his life time also saw some of the warmest records in the entire CET series. Our top five warmest winters are; 1733 1868 1833 1988 1974
Going further back, the MWP also had some notably warm winters. This scientific study is entitled; “Winter air temperature variations in western Europe during the Early and High Middle Ages (AD 750–1300)” which demonstrates that MWP winters were similar to the 20th century
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/5/535
We also have many references to the Roman warm period that were previously cited here, which demonstrate the alpine passes were considerably more ice free than the present;
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/may16/hannibal-051607.html
and glaciers much higher in altitude. This is the original German version of the study –especially for Max;
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/html_d/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf
a much shorter English language version is here;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=772
As also previously cited here the 1000 year long records of the Byzantine Empire demonstrate warmth throughout the empire during these known periods and show many other climatic changes. As the climate warmed and became drier we also have their plans of the extensive irrigation systems they built.
There are numerous contemporary records of climate change from the Venerable Bede, The Anglo Saxon Chronicles, through to Pepys. This from the extensive weather records of Thomas Jefferson;
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/ch07.html
“A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of twenty-eight years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighbourhood of Monticello. An intense cold, produced by constant snows, kept the buds locked up till the sun could obtain, in the spring of the year, so fixed an ascendency as to dissolve those snows, and protect the buds, during their development, from every danger of returning cold. The accumulated snows of the winter remaining to be dissolved all together in the spring, produced those over flowings of our rivers, so frequent then, and so rare now. “
The following, condensed from the records of the Hudson Bay company, demonstrate that climate change is not a new phenomena.
“Over the fifteen years between 1720 and 1735, the first snowfall of the year moved from the first week of September to the last. Also, the late 1700s were turbulent years. They were extremely cold but annual snow cover would vary from ‘extreme depth to no cover’. For instance, November 10th 1767 only one snowfall that quickly thawed had been recorded. June 6, 1791 many feet of snow in the post’s gardens. The entry for July 14, 1798 reads ‘…53 degrees colder today than it was yesterday.”
As well as actual instrumental records we have available to us thousands of such records as the ones above, with first hand accounts that show the lives of real people. In my own town the fortunes of those involved in fishing were made and lost over hundreds of years as climate altered and warm water Pilchards were replaced by cold water Herring and vice versa. The warmth in the latter part of the 18th century caused social dislocation as the Cod moved north to cooler waters and men stayed away longer to reach Newfoundland. The reliability of fish as a temperature proxy is well known;
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PaEPcGJOxOQC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=pilchards+climate+change+devon&source=web&ots=S8Dq9v3O4f&sig=l4VMl6UBROkm4qAtPGWkGS2or5E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA39,M1
The Bronze Age inhabitants of nearby Dartmoor farmed the tops of the modest peaks and retreated as temperatures cooled-their dwellings are still there and have been subject to numerous studies over 150 years. The MWP inhabitants also farmed the tops in the MWP- we know their names, the crops they grew and their slow descent down into the valley as climate cooled is recorded.
Instead of respecting this vast volume of material demonstrating that climate constantly changes and historically this current episode is nothing out of the ordinary, some people choose to rely on highly theoretical computer models which even their originators admit are highly flawed and unreliable. I have previously posted links to dozens of comments by those involved- admitting to great uncertainties-why can’t we take them at their word and accept this is a very new science built on many unproven foundations?
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
Thanks for the link (2236) to the Schlüchter + Jörn (University of Bern) study on alpine glaciers. As I live in Switzerland and am interested in this subject, I have seen this study before, but it is very revealing as far as the current glacier retreat is concerned.
As with all things, this is not as simple as is assumed by today’s climate experts (in particular, IPCC).
The study shows that 1,900-2,300 years ago (during the Roman Optimum) the glacier tongues were at least 300 meters higher than they are today (helping to explain how Hannibal could cross the Alps with elephants), and that most alpine glaciers had actually disappeared almost entirely 6,800 to 7,300 years before present, during another extended warm period. During the Medieval Warm Period 1,200 to 800 years ago they were apparently also smaller than they are today.
Another little known fact is that toward the end of the Little Ice Age the alpine glaciers had reached their maximum extent in 10,000 years. This 10,000-year maximum extent is the “baseline benchmark” we are using to measure the extent of today’s receding glaciers.
Interesting is the S+J conclusion (my translation from German): “glacier extent and glacial movements are defined by a much more dynamic process than was previously assumed. It is still to be determined in detail which forms of climate change were responsible for which periodical glacial advances and retreats, as not only warmer periods but also drier colder winters could equally have caused glacial retreat.”
It’s obviously not as simple as IPCC would have us believe.
Regards,
Max
Just a quickie for TonyB
After reading your links on Pen Hadow, I must admit that, despite his apparent propensity for getting himself into tight situations where he needs outside help to get bailed out, he is, at least going where “the action” is, rather than just sitting behind a computer and making model projections.
Will he provide us good (and unbiased) information on projected Arctic sea ice developments?
I’d say that depends on whether or not he has “an axe to grind”.
Maybe you know him and can make this evaluation (certainly better than I).
Regards,
Max
Max
If you follow the link you will find his website and that of the sponsor. Pen is an environmentalist. He is very knowlegable and has unique experience of the area. However I think the expedition does have an agenda and the expected end results have been predetermined to an extent. However if he finds things are completely different to what he expected I think he is strong minded enough to speak out. Otherwise he will find the evidece needed to justify this-and the next expedition. Don’t get me wrong he is a fair enough man but if you go into something with certain expectations it takes a lot to change them.
http://www.penhadow.com/
TonyB
Max,
I’m not sure why waiting until systems reach equilibrium gives you such an intellectual problem , unless of course that you don’t want to understand what is happening to the climate. To drive home the point, may I suggest the following experiment for you to conduct? Place a saucepan of cold water on the stove. Light the gas or switch on the electricity to start heating up the water. Wait for half a minute. Place your finger into the water. It should feel just slightly warm. Wait for a few more minutes and repeat the exercise! I think you’ve used the word Ooch! in the past and you may well want to use it again.
“..a giant “negative feedback” to global warming?” No its thermal mass, feedback is something different.
I see that the early 20th century warming argument has cropped up again with your comment “1910-1944 rapid warming, minor increase in CO2”
What sort of warming due to rising CO2 levels could we have expected to see in the early 20th century? The record of CO2 levels from Mauna Loa started in the late 50’s when the level of CO2 was reported to be 315 ppmv. By extrapolating back to 1944, I would estimate a level of 310 ppmv. This would be an increase of approx 30ppmv over pre-industrial levels.
As we have both agreed there is logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increase. This means that the first 30ppmv would have had a disproportionate effect. According to my calculation, using the IPCC figure of 2XCO2 = 3degC, this would have had accounted for 0.4 deg C of the observed temperature increase. So it is not correct to say that CO2 emissions in the first part of the of the 20th century have been negligibly small.
Brute,
I think you already know the answer to the question you posed when you remarked “The graphs show an obvious increase in Arctic ice this year over last. To a true ‘environmentalist’ this would be positive, encouraging news”
Sure we’d all like to get positive news. I’m sure that you would agree that in tackling any problem it is important to act on accurate information rather than wishful thinking. Many of us have a tiny suspicion that those who are so keen to spread this so-called good news are engaged in a campaign of disinformation designed to undermine public support for effective measures to reduce GHG emissions.
The example you give is a good example. Those of very limited intelligence might think that a small measured change from one year to the next is meaningful but it is used by those who aren’t stupid by any means. Anthony Watts for example. Why else would he use this argument if not to confuse the public?
This may be a little premature, but it is quite funny. The film ‘Downfall’ must be the most parodied ever made.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxm20ZcONOk
You guys should lighten up a bit too. If this isn’t to your taste, you could make one of your own with Hitler as James Hansen, finding out that Steve Mcintyre has forced a few small corrections in the NASA temperature record!
Glacier Stuff:
Recently whilst in Italy under Monte Bianco, (More commonly known by the Froggie name; Mont Blonk), I observed with my own eyeballs one of its glacier terminations, as labelled in my record by photo per my Flickr link below.
I think it is of interest here because for instance Max has described that the evident advance AND retreat of various glaciers bears a few more considerations than just mere global or local temperatures. (whatever they are!) Max indicated very well that glacier dynamics are actually far more complicated, than as is commonly (selectively) clarioned by the fundamentalists.
I now add an example to support Max, that; in my evidential photo, you should be able to see that this glacier termination is precisely at a point where it is hard to conceive that any glacier could be further physically retained on such extremely steep terrain below/beyond that point. An engineering exception would plausibly be during the grips of an ice age (given sufficient precipitation), or far-less plausibly during the so-called mini-ice age. Otherwise, for a very long time, it is clearly apparent TODAY, that the unavoidable facts are; that this particular glacier has not yet retreated from its “normal maximum” termination.
There are some other geological questions that occur to me, (as a mechanical engineer), but let‘s keep it “simple“!
Sorry Peter, this may sound like bad news to you, but them’s be the physical evidence!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3158/2972958065_be50d6fb8a_o.jpg
Glacier Stuff:
Recently whilst in Italy under Monte Bianco, (More commonly known by the Froggie name; Mont Blonk), I observed with my own eyeballs one of its glacier terminations, as labelled in my record by photo per my Flickr link below.
I think it is of interest here because for instance Max has described that the evident advance AND retreat of various glaciers bears a few more considerations than just mere global or local temperatures. (whatever they are!) Max indicated very well that glacier dynamics are actually far more complicated, than as is commonly (selectively) clarioned by the fundamentalists.
I now add an example to support Max, that; in my evidential photo, you should be able to see that this glacier termination is precisely at a point where it is hard to conceive that any glacier could be further physically retained on such extremely steep terrain below/beyond that point. An engineering exception would plausibly be during the grips of an ice age (given sufficient precipitation), or far-less plausibly during the so-called mini-ice age. Otherwise, for a very long time, it is clearly apparent TODAY, that the unavoidable facts are; that this particular glacier has not yet retreated from its “normal maximum” termination.
There are some other geological questions that occur to me, (as a mechanical engineer), but let‘s keep it “simple“!
Sorry Peter, this may sound like bad news to you, but them’s be the physical evidence!
[[http]]://farm4.static.flickr.com/3158/2972958065_be50d6fb8a_o.jpg (paste in your browser after removing [[ ]]
Peter #2240
For myself I like to look at evidence that goes back as far as possible-hence my interest in the last 5000 years of climate information- observed, practical and instrumental. Putting things into a historic perspective also relates to arctic ice or anything else that operates over a long term trend.
As an example the current drop in temperatures- whilst interesting and unexpected- is not yet long enough to be statistically meaningful as a trend. Statistically as an unofficial period’ however it is very interesting. If you take 1998 to 2008 there has been a drop of nearly .30 of a degree C which is why the Met office (correctly)prefer to use their own (official) long term trend period which hides the drop within a more general increase.
I think that perspective is Anthony Watts’ position as well judging by his comments here and elsewhere, although we all make off the cuff remarks that are then regreted. Certainly as far as temperatures go this is his position;
“REPLY: lets not speculate on future datasets please. Let them be released first then we can all squabble over the numbers. Don’t rush Science.”
“The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.
UPDATE #2 see this post from Dr. John R. Christy on the issue.
UPDATE #3 see the post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics – 3 of four show a flat trendline.
The debate is in this link;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
With relation to Arctic sea ice which was your comment to Brute, we are again looking at the very recent history of satellite observations since 1979 rather than the longer term records of all sorts. It is putting things in their proper context that is often lacking from the general climate debate
TonyB
Peter M,
I see you still cannot let-go of your dogma that the regional variation that we are seeing in the Antarctic is the “canary” for the whole of the world.
OK, so let’s have a reality check:
According to Ref 1 below, Arctic sea-ice covers between roughly 14-7 million Square Kilometres, (SK), depending on season. This equates to roughly 2.7 to 1.4 % of the entire global surface area, (of 510 SK) per Ref 3. This also compares, as a matter of relative disaster perspective, with roughly 9 million SK of the Sahara Desert per Ref 2 although the latter of course has HUGELY more THERMAL INPUT from the Sun, because of the relative solar zenith, and much lesser effective atmospheric depth. (See also my later post on the Sahara)
1 [[http]]://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/reports/seaice3.html
2 [[http]]://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_area_of_the_Sahara_Desert
3 [[http]]://www.net-comber.com/worldarea.html
Paste in your browser less 123 [[ ]]
SO; perhaps you could also give us your wisdom concerning albedo’s (reflectivity) of various kinds of snow/ice and water depending on the zenith angle of the sun in the sky; very important above say ~70 degrees latitude?
Thus you might explain why a tiny-weenie percentage of the earth’s surface in the far north, (but not the opposite trend in the Antarctic), has such a huge effect in your Gotterdammerung of the world as we know it!
Re My 2226 (Information Sources)
1) Max, Thanks for your responses
2) Peter, I thought that some topics would be of considerable interest to you. May I strongly recommend that you listen to the ~27 minutes of MP3 audio.
PLEASE
Your opinions
Hi Peter,
You are struggling to show me with silly analogies how Hansen’s “equilibrium” hypothesis applies to our planet’s climate and then telling me, “I’m not sure why waiting until systems reach equilibrium gives you such an intellectual problem “.
The “intellectual problem” is not with the “equilibrium” concept, per se, Peter.
Your simple room heater or saucepan analogy is flawed for the following reason: in both cases you are continuing to put heat into the system and this added heat is warming up the air in the room or the water in the saucepan. When you stop adding heat, the room and the saucepan stop warming. Very simple. Instantaneous equilibrium.
Hansen’s idea of equilibrium as it applies to our planet’s climate is not so simple. In fact, it is based on a bit of circular “voodoo thinking”.
Here we have heat entering the system, warming the atmosphere a bit but then disappearing somewhere, from where it will some day (in decades or even centuries) miraculously come back to warm the atmosphere even more, thereby reaching a mystical new “equilibrium” state.
Not quite as simple as a room or saucepan, where heat stops coming in as soon as the gas flame or room heating system is shut off, and doesn’t disappear to reappear miraculously later.
Your analogy simply does not apply, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote (2240): “I see that the early 20th century warming argument has cropped up again with your comment “1910-1944 rapid warming, minor increase in CO2?
What sort of warming due to rising CO2 levels could we have expected to see in the early 20th century? The record of CO2 levels from Mauna Loa started in the late 50’s when the level of CO2 was reported to be 315 ppmv. By extrapolating back to 1944, I would estimate a level of 310 ppmv. This would be an increase of approx 30ppmv over pre-industrial levels.
As we have both agreed there is logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increase. This means that the first 30ppmv would have had a disproportionate effect. According to my calculation, using the IPCC figure of 2XCO2 = 3degC, this would have had accounted for 0.4 deg C of the observed temperature increase. So it is not correct to say that CO2 emissions in the first part of the of the 20th century have been negligibly small.”
I wrote: “1910-1944 rapid warming, minor increase in CO2?
Who said “negligibly small”? (Believe this is your wording, not mine.)
Believe you need to check your calculation:
The CO2 increase from the IPCC curve (and Mauna Loa after 1958) looks more like this:
1750 – 280 ppmv (pre-industrial)
Over the 150 years from 1750 to 1900, this increased by around 10 ppmv
1900 – 290 ppmv
1910 – 294
1920 – 298
1930 – 303
1940 – 307
1944 – 309
1950 – 312
1960 – 316
1970 – 325
1976 – 334
1980 – 340
1990 – 355
1998 – 367
2000 – 370
2007 – 384
So the 1910-1944 CO2 increase was around 15 ppmv (not 30, as you have assumed)
Warming over period = 0.53°C
294 ppmv = CO2 concentration (1910)
309 ppmv = CO2 concentration (1944)
C2/C1 = ratio = 1.051
ln(ratio) = 0.0498
using 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C, as assumed by IPCC
ln2 = 0.6931
dT = 3 * 0.0498 / 0.6931 = 0.22°C
Increased CO2 concentration accounts for 40% of the observed warming (0.22°C out of 0.53°C), even at the inflated 3°C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2, (which has since been shown, based on physical observations, to be too high).
A poor correlation, Peter (as IPCC concedes in AR4).
Regards,
Max
Pete,
The basic, (very basic) premise of the global warming theory is that as CO2 emissions continue to rise, (undisputed), that global temperatures will continue to rise. They claim that this will occur in some nebulous time period which continues to change as year by year the observations disprove their assertions. Alarmists somehow assume the Sun is constant, static, a “given” value…..that a continuous rise in CO2 levels coupled with a static solar output “should” result in ever increasing global temperatures. That isn’t what’s happening. Either the solar output is not static, the CO2 levels are dropping or the correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures is invalid…..which is it?
My only point in posting graphs and charts that depict dropping temperatures, arrested glacier retreat and increases in sea ice levels is that it contradicts the theory….. (and to antagonize). My personality includes a facet of sarcasm, (which sometimes results in evil glares from the likes of Mrs. Brute), but the point is that global warming has been found to be responsible for everything from acne to yellow fever…….wouldn’t a studious adherent to the global warming faith, (like yourself) denounce these reports as absurd? I’ve yet to hear anything but silence from the Alarmists stressing balance and objectivity in media coverage.
The media hysteria that results from a warmer than usual July day in the Northern Hemisphere or heat wave in autumn or spring, (or even February for that matter), higher or lower precipitation levels in specific areas or less snowfall this year than last is considered absolute rock solid “proof” that global warming is real and catastrophic to the disciples of Al Gore, James Hansen and the remainder of the hand wringing eco-chondriacs; but an increase in Arctic ice levels is dismissed by these very same prophets of doom as being inconsequential, a regional anomaly, “not really an increase/decrease” or worse, unreported. Turn about is fair play………
Of course I understand your argument as it applies to 30 year/long term trends….fine. But the lopsided news coverage is quite telling and clearly biased to those that follow the topic, (unless they choose not to be objective for political purposes).
As you have recently admitted, the “solutions” proposed to combat the “global warming menace” must be taken on “collectively” (Communally) by all. Global Warming is nothing more than a computer generated “potential” catastrophe, propagated with the aid of Hollywood movie special effects and clever marketing, rubber stamped by a handful of government subsidized scientists and trumpeted by a sympathetic media to promote a political ideology that they adhere to, (and profit from). Those predisposed to agree with the alleged “solutions” are more likely to rise to the bait.
No, I’m not a “climatologist”……. simply a lowly engineer; however, I’m not an idiot and realize when someone or some organization is trying to sell me something that isn’t all its cracked up to be. I’m not an automobile manufacturer or mechanic; but I can conduct some simple research, inform myself and realize that a car salesman is attempting to promote the product that he sells in an effort to enrich himself…….such is the case with the global warming Alarmist.
A particularly disturbing trend has been occurring here in the U.S. lately in that street signs that feature or promote the more conservative, (Republican) candidate for presidential office are vandalized or removed (stolen). Likewise, the media coverage of the candidates overwhelmingly favors the Leftist candidate and news reports pertaining to the conservative candidate frequently take quotes out of context or are simply falsified. I realize, (with my pea sized brain) that this is generally the nature of political coverage; but the media bias this season is particularly egregious. I point this out to illustrate that these are the very same tactics employed by the global warming Alarmists in an attempt to overwhelm the coverage with reports that promote their point of view, (and only their point of view) and suppress, denigrate and or dismiss opposing points of view. This is not the hallmark of a free and open society and, in my view; more closely resembles the tactics employed by Totalitarian, (centralized and dictatorial) governments of the past. In either case, I do not, and would not, support these methods as I realize historically how quickly these “movements” can result in disaster, (I think you understand what I’m getting at). Balance is very important and I would think that even you, being on the opposite end of the spectrum, would agree.
Here’s one for Brute and JZSmith on model predictions and hindcasting
IPCC models have apparently had difficulty in consistently “hindcasting” Arctic sea ice changes, although all model “hindcasts” did “show a negative trend in sea ice volume for the period 1950-2000”.
{http}://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/09293/EGU06-J-09293.pdf
I love model “hindcasts”. To paraphrase this using the wording preferred by IPCC:
We have “very high confidence” (>90%) that our model prediction for the 2008 U.S. presidential election is “virtually certain” (>99%) to be correct because our model can hindcast the winners of the past 10 races with 100% accuracy.
Regards,
Max
Brute writes to PeterM: “I’m not a “climatologist”……. simply a lowly engineer”, as if to diminish the value of his own opinion on global warming in comparison to that of the “experts”.
(Now I can see from earlier posts that Brute is indeed well informed on both the science and the politics of AGW, so that is not the issue.)
But my point is this: There are those that defer to the “experts” on all predictions for the future: be that on the stock market or other financial developments, on anticipated demographic, social or economic developments or even on climate forecasts.
Then there are those that regard the “expert predictions” with a degree of rational skepticism, despite the obvious fact that they have been made by acknowledged and respected “experts” in their fields, who certainly understand all the nitty-gritty details far better than non-experts.
In his book “The Black Swan”, author Nassim Taleb presents good reasons for regarding “expert predictions” with some degree of rational skepticism; he shows us how these can be (and often are) more wrong than random guesses by non-experts using nothing more than common sense.
One reason cited by Taleb is that while “experts” know very well “what they know”, they are often overly confident and therefore more arrogant in their assumption of their knowledge and, as a result, blinder than non-experts to “what they do not know”.
Physical scientists are no more immune to this problem than economists, sociologists, etc.
In a “previous life” I had a few “scientists” as well as “engineers” reporting to me. I had a lot of respect for (and relied on) the knowledge of these “experts” and saw that these individuals certainly knew much more about their special field of knowledge than I did. But I also learned very quickly not to just accept blindly their prognoses for the future (ex. cost and timing of R+D programs or new capital investment projects, etc.), but to dig into their forecasts to find out not so much “what they know”, but more importantly, “what they do not know”.
I believe that this is the way to approach the current “scientific debate on global warming, including its impact and humanity’s political response”.
And I believe (from reading his posts) that this is the way that Brute is approaching this.
How do you feel about this, Peter? Have you read Taleb? It’s truly worthwhile.
Regards,
Max