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.
Clean Energy Meltdown: Now GE’s Bailing
Wall Street Journal
Meltdown watch, continued. Capital is quickly drying up for new clean-energy projects, and what is available costs more, throwing a wrench into companies’ plans to expand renewable energy.
General Electric is the latest to throw in the towel, after the abrupt departure of Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley. The conglomerate, which makes energy gear like wind and gas turbines as well as underwriting renewable-energy projects, says it is bailing out of the clean-tech investment game for now, once it finishes with existing projects. From Dow Jones Clean Tech Insight:
“Right now we can’t price a deal,” said [GE Financial Services managing director Timothy] Howell in an interview with Clean Technology Insight on the sidelines of the Solar Power International conference in San Diego, Calif. “We can’t go out and borrow. So we can’t commit to a deal today.”
GE Financial Services, like GE’s energy-infrastructure unit, was very bullish on the sector’s prospects just a few months ago. Most clean-energy projects like wind and solar power depend on investments by companies like GE or big banks, which put up development capital to get their mitts on years of tax breaks. That’s the main way that tax credits help fuel the growth of alternative energy.
But while the financial bailout bill extended tax credits for clean energy, the bill hasn’t yet goosed the credit markets into lending freely. That—not uncertainty over federal subsidies—has now become clean-energy’s bogeyman.
Brute,
I think you’ll find that the possibility of an ice free arctic summer was mentioned. If you look at the graphs, already posted, you can see not only that 2008 wasn’t much of a recovery at all but, if the trend continues down on a linear trend then there are still at least ten years to go before there is an ice free summer.
If the graph continues the way it is, showing evidence of a non-linear trend, that it could of course happen sooner. By next year? I’d say no.
Max,
To address your point on the uncertainties of cloud feed backs, I should say that there are uncertainties on both the low and the high side. If you were prepared to take a more intelligent view, you would look at all the credible scientific studies rather than discounting all those that you feel gives ‘the wrong’ answer.
There is an interesting paper by Roe and Baker which unfortunately is not freely available:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/629
which attempts to address the question of the unpredictability of climate sensitivity. I have found this graph which is a good way to express the confidence limits ( essential error bars) of all models:
http://faculty.washington.edu/steig/roebaker_rc/roebakerfigure.gif
We recently agreed that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere should take us to 47% of the 2 xCO2 figure. And that it will take us a few years , or decades, because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Maybe you can tell me why Richard Lindzen, who I think you can usually rely upon to give the ‘right’ answer can’t get it right in a submission he gave in Sweden recently?
http://www.timbro.se/pdf/060505_r_lindzen.pdf
He claims that the true figure is more like 75% or “three-quarters of the radiative forcing that we expect from a doubling of CO2”. (page 30) He uses this higher figure to suggest that there is little point going in for mitigation now. Has he made a mistake or is, he trying to pass off a disingenuous argument do you think?
Maybe his other stuff isn’t right either?
Brute:
This Financial Times story about the problems of ethanol investors may interest you too:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9c5698e-9fd3-11dd-a3fa-000077b07658.html
Keep your hopes up Pete! Better luck next year.
By the way; are oil tankers loading up and using the Northwest Passage now?
Hi Peter,
Your last post shows that you apparently misread my earlier posts on cloud and water vapor feedbacks, which point out (to summarize) that recent physical observations on both do not support the IPCC model assumptions leading to a calculated 3.2°C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2. In fact, they point to a figure of around 0.5 to 0.8°C.
Your Roe and Baker paper does not in any way refute the observed strongly negative feedback from clouds.
The second link is a climate model forecast for the future; this is just more pseudoscientific prediction with “different AOGCM and Intermediate Complexity earth system models” (in other words, model-based “voodoo”), which proves nothing about the feedback from water vapor or clouds.
Lindzens 2006 paper (your third link) appears to make sense, although it has nothing to do with our main topic here (the overblown model-assumed climate sensitivity, which is not supported by physical observations). You apparently fault Lindzen for one statement, but he does not go into detail how he calculated that “three-quarters of the radiative forcing that we expect from a doubling of CO2? have already occurred. (From his graph it appears that this is somewhat over 50%, but does not look like 75%.) But that is not the only point of his paper. He also points out
· The logarithmic nature of the greenhouse effect means it takes increasingly large CO2 concentrations to theoretically result in increasingly small temperature changes (an indisputable basis of the greenhouse hypothesis)
· Coincidence of CO2 increase and 20th century warming does not establish causality (a basic tenet of the scientific method)
· Many other factors beside GHGs are at play in determining our climate, many of which we do not yet fully understand (an indisputable fact)
· Profound climate change has occurred in the past before and after the appearance of man on our planet (a well-documented fact)
· Over the past century global mean surface temperature has both increased and decreased, with a net increase of 0.6°C (based on the surface record)
· Even if we attribute all of this observed warming to man-made GHGs, it only represents 1/6 to 1/3 of what models project (Lindzen’s observation)
· The impact of man on climate remains indiscernible simply because the signal is too small compared to the natural noise (Lindzen’s conclusion)
He states: “Claims that the current temperatures are ‘record breaking’ or ‘unprecedented’, however questionable or misleading, simply serve to obscure the fact that the observed warming is too small compared to what models suggest. Even the fact that the oceans’ heat capacity leads to a delay in the response of the surface does not alter this conclusion.”
I see no “disingenuous arguments” in this paper as you apparently do.
Now, I have not checked in detail (and am not going to) all his charts, etc., because this whole paper, as “politically incorrect” as it may be, has nothing to do with our topic of discussion.
Peter, you have still not been able to bring any specific arguments that would refute my statement, which I have summarized above.
I’m still waiting.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
On Arctic sea ice (one of your favorite topics) you opined to Brute (2177): “if the trend continues down on a linear trend then there are still at least ten years to go before there is an ice free summer. If the graph continues the way it is, showing evidence of a non-linear trend, that it could of course happen sooner. By next year? I’d say no.”
If you download and plot the NSIDC raw data for Arctic sea ice extent for end-September for all the years from 1979 to 2008, you will see that the decline can be represented by the equation:
Y = -0.0783x + 7.8854, with an R^2 of 0.6294 (a pretty good indication of a fair linear trend)
This represents a decline of 0.783 million square kilometers sea ice extent per decade.
End September 2008, the sea ice stood at 4.67 million square km.
Assuming it continues to decline at this rate, it will take 6 decades (60 years) to disappear completely and give us an ice-free summer, end-September 2068.
You are certainly right in saying if the trend accelerates, it will take less time (your 10 years is probably very unlikely, since this would require a major acceleration of six times the linear rate experienced to date). If it slows down, it will take longer. If it stops entirely (or even reverses), it will never happen. Who knows?
At any rate, I’m not going to hold my breath.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I don’t think that Roy Spencer’s paper (note paper not letter) has actually been published yet but you’ve obviously decided that it blows apart the the whole of the AGW case.
What does Roy Spencer himself say?
USA Today report that “Spencer and his co-author William Braswell point out that the paper doesn’t disprove the theory that humans are causing global warming.”
and also quote their use of the time honoured phrase “But we really won’t know until much more work is done”
But you know, don’t you, before any work at all is done, in fact you’ve ‘known’ for years, before you’d even heard of Spencer’s efforts, that the whole of the AGW case is just BS!
Hi Peter,
You miss the point again. Is this by accident? Or are you waffling?
Of course, Spencer and Braswell point out that their “paper doesn’t disprove the theory that humans are causing global warming.”
It just disproves the IPCC model assumption on strongly positive feedback from clouds, that’s all.
And this, in turn, disproves the IPCC model assumption of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of +3.2C.
Still waiting for you to come with some physical observations that refure those of Spencer et al. (or, for that matter, those of Norris), both of which observed a strong negative feedback from clouds.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Yes, 60 years is probably about right for an ice free Arctic summer if the decline is linear, and at the same rate as the last thirty years.
http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png
It’s good that you can look at a graph and work out what it means. If you were like Brute you’d just look at this year’s figures, compare them with last year’s and think the problem was all over!
The graph shows that the small increase in 2008, over 2007, is hardly any recovery at all. Another couple of years of continued deviation from the simple linear regression line will give the term ‘tipping point’ some real meaning.
Even if there isn’t a tipping point, and there is indeed another 60 years to go before we have an ice free Arctic summer, that is still very significant. On a geological time scale, 60 years may be regarded as just about instantaneous.
Peter
I got back from the conference at 3.45 am so have not had a chance to put anything down about it yet. Professor Stewart is an affable pleasant man who would be a most interesting dinner companion, as I suspect you would be. His first words to the audience were ‘I am not a climate scientist’.
I wish to revert to the problem of making you understand that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of objective knowledge on climate science.
To examine the reliability of Wikipedia in climate change matters it may be instructive to follow the role of the administrator of the climate section, Mr William Connelly
Firstly, it is worth restating the criteria for wikipedia in considering submissions made to them;
“Verifiability
Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.”
To examine the claims of bias made against William Connelly on the matter of him favouring material submitted to him by warmists, as against that from sceptics, it is worth following a specific case-that of Lawrence Solomons- who wrote the well known sceptics book ‘The Deniers’
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
The above is a very good link re alleged wiki bias, with a subsequent blog of claim and counter claim, including a robust defence mounted by the editor of wiki who was criticised. It is instructive reading and worth staying with to the end.
This is by way of a follow up and review of the book by Solomons in The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/06/the-climate-change-deniers/
This is another review and provides some further background to the wikipedia bias claim by Solomons, so throws further light on the first link.
http://richardvigilantebooks.com/
The link below is again biased, but throws interesting light on William Connelly and his alleged bias against sceptics views.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17981
This is the blog of William Connelly within Real Climate in which he actively supports them by, amongst other actions, attending a conference in Vancouver.
“ I was there with my Real Climate hat on, to offer ideas and insight on blogging in particular, and public communication of science in general.”
http://www.realclimate.org/
Some people wishing to submit sceptical material question whether wiki should allow people with close links to a web site enthusiastically endorsing the views of Dr Mann (whose Hockey stick reconstructions were thought to have been widely discredited) and known passions-he stood as a candidate for the UK Green Party-is objective enough to be allowed to oversee the editing of the climate pages of the worlds leading reference source as an administrator (definition and duties here )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators
The wiki core element of verifiability rather than truth allows some potential leeway in accepting articles that support a personal view. Consequently wiki’s objectivity- by any reasonable measure- should be called into some question (on certain controversial topics such as climate change) Checking back to original sources should be a follow up to any wiki climate related research, but many people rely on it as their primary and only source, thereby receiving a certain view of the topic.
This is William Connellys blog leading to various other topics he is interested in.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926
The guy is no ogre, has an obvious sense of humour, and has a particular world view as a Green party candidate. The policies of the party in general are here-they have sometimes been decribed as the green succesors to the communist party and anti capitalist. In Britain they have a Euro Mep in Caroline Lucas.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Babylon-Beyond-Economics-Anti-capitalist-Anti-globalist/dp/0745323901
This about other green party links to anti capitalist, socialist, communist and marxist movements
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/theory/ecology.htm
The Green party’s specific policies and philosophies can be read here. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsspb.html
This page states the green partys current understanding of climate change and their own mitigation policies
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsscc.html
William Connelly’s politics and beliefs are his own business in his personal life. Where they might impact on the public in a wider sense, some might say that his own deeply held beliefs and links may make him insufficiently objective to administer the climate science pages of the worlds most referenced information source.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
To Arctic sea ice, I’m glad you conceded (silently) that your 10+ year projection of a possible ice-free summer at current rates was exaggerated by a factor of six with your remark, “Even if there isn’t a tipping point, and there is indeed another 60 years to go before we have an ice free Arctic summer, that is still very significant. On a geological time scale, 60 years may be regarded as just about instantaneous.”
Yes, that’s right, Peter. And I have no idea whether or not the past 30-year linear trend will continue, will accelerate, will slow down or will reverse itself entirely. Do you?
To forecast 60 years in advance something as fickle and non-deterministic as Arctic temperatures, wind patterns, sea currents, and all the other many factors that affect sea ice, would be pure foolishness, as I am sure you will agree (and as the past record of the 1920s and 1930s showed us).
So it’s neither “an ice free Arctic maybe by next summer” as we heard from some alarmists a year ago, nor is it “if the trend continues down on a linear trend then there are still at least ten years to go before there is an ice free summer” as you wrote Brute.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote (2182) “you know, don’t you, before any work at all is done, in fact you’ve ‘known’ for years, before you’d even heard of Spencer’s efforts, that the whole of the AGW case is just BS!”
From this statement, which is in itself not true and unsubstantiated, it appears you seem to think that I am a “denier” of the greenhouse theory (if this is what you mean by “the AGW case”). This is not correct.
I do not claim that there is no warming at all from human CO2 (i.e. “the AGW case is just BS”). But, like Spencer, Lindzen, and a host of other climate scientists, I do not believe that there is any physical evidence indicating that the recent warming is (a) primarily caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, (b) in any way “unprecedented” or (c) that it could represent a potential threat to our planet or to humanity.
I believe IPCC reports are, by definition, skewed to paint an alarming picture of AGW and its effects on our climate. I detect a certain “know it all” arrogance in the IPCC claims of increased certainty of man-made climate forcing, etc. while essentially ignoring natural climate drivers; IPCC claims such as, “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” are not only arrogant, but they are also totally unsubstantiated. I take note of the fact that many of the IPCC claims and projections for the future are based on climate models, often being programmed with dubious assumptions in order to arrive at exaggerated results, rather than on actual physical observations. In addition I ascertain that some climate scientists turned AGW-activists, such as James Hansen, inflate the IPCC claims to hysterical levels with their own model-based predictions of irreversible “tipping points” leading to disastrous changes for our planet. I also observe that the impacts of AGW are blown out of proportion in press releases by various meteorological and scientific bodies, often combined with dire projections for the future (which never seem to actually materialize). And then there are the sensationalist media and paid TV commercials by various activist groups adding further fuel to the fire. I see the clearly political agenda involving billions of dollars that is behind all this hype. And finally I observe that there is an ever-growing body of scientists who distance themselves from the IPCC projections and the AGW hysteria.
So you see, Peter, I am not a “denier” of the greenhouse hypothesis, I’m just rationally skeptical of all the AGW hype out there.
Hope this clears up my position on this for you.
Regards,
Max
Message to TonyB
Your blog on Wikipedia was an eye-opener for me.
The AGW-slant of Wikipedia is apparent to any observant and informed individual (viz. their take on temperature records), but I had no idea how blatantly corrupt the Wiki input process really is.
Looks like the 50+ million/month Wiki visitors are intentionally and systematically being fed bogus information on AGW from what is supposed to be an objective and un-biased source.
For shame!
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
BTW, I forgot to list one of Lindzen’s key conclusions in his report (which you cited, 2177): a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, according to the greenhouse theory, should result in a 2% increase of the total greenhouse effect.
It is generally agreed that the total greenhouse effect results in a global warming of 33.2°C, so that a 2% increase would be around 0.7°C.
This is the 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” according to Lindzen, not the model-inflated IPCC value of 3.2°C, with the hypothetical (but since disproven) feedbacks on clouds and water vapor).
Just to clear this point up.
Regards,
Max
Peter and Max
Your debate with Max about clouds is getting confusing to follow what with so many claims and counter claims so I will stick to facts and not conjecture.
Various references to unreliable cloud models made by the IPCC have been posted by myself and others. They can both cool and warm and so be either negative or positive depending on the circumstances-it is not Lindzen asserting this it is the IPCC. Below are extracts from the IPCC assessment report;
“At the time of the TAR clouds remained a major source of uncertainty in the simulation of climate changes (as they still are at present: e.g., Sections 2.4, 2.6, 3.4.3, 7.5, 8.2, 8.4.11, 8.6.2.2, 8.6.3.2, 9.2.1.2, 9.4.1.8, 10.2.1.2, 10.3.2.2,10.5.4.3, 11.8.1.3, 11.8.2.2)”
“Additional important feedback mechanisms involve clouds. Clouds are effective at absorbing infrared radiation and therefore exert a large greenhouse effect, thus warming the Earth. Clouds are also effective at reflecting away incoming solar radiation, thus cooling the Earth. A change in almost any aspect of clouds, such as their type, location, water content, cloud altitude, particle size and shape, or lifetimes, affects the degree to which clouds warm or cool the Earth. Some changes amplify warming while others diminish it. Much research is in progress to better understand how clouds change in response to climate warming, and how these changes affect climate through various feedback mechanisms.”
“Clouds, which cover about 60% of the Earth’s surface, are responsible for up to two thirds of the planetary albedo, which is about 30%. An albedo decrease of only 1%, bringing the Earth’s albedo from 30% to 29%, would cause an increase in the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature of about 1°C, a highly significant value, roughly equivalent to the direct radiative effect of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Simultaneously, clouds make an important contribution to the planetary greenhouse effect. In addition, changes in cloud cover constitute only one of the many parameters that affect cloud radiative interactions:cloud optical thickness, cloud height and cloud microphysical properties can also be modified by atmospheric temperature changes, which adds to the complexity of feedbacks, as evidenced, for example, through satellite observations analysed by Tselioudis and Rossow (1994).”
“The importance of simulated cloud feedbacks was revealed by the analysis of model results (Manabe and Wetherald, 1975; Hansen et al, 1984), and the first extensive model intercomparisons (Cess et al., 1989) also showed a substantial model dependency. The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parametrization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities.”
The highlighting of this last sentence is mine. All the above comments can be accessed here;
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf
and here;
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/TGICA_guidance_sdciaa_v2_final.pdf
The idea of a negative feedback -or some doubt about the certainty of a positive one- are highlighted here in this report by James Hansen
“There is substantial uncertainty in the quantitative value of these feedbacks. However, the most important feedback, due to water vapor, seems certain to be greater than one and is unlikely to be less than approximately 1.5. The ice/snow albedo feedback seems certain to be greater than one. The cloud feedback could be greater or less than one. Our model suggests that it is a significant positive (f>1) feedback, but much more work is needed.”
“ In summary, available global climate models all suggest an equilibrium global climate sensitivity in the range of 2-4EC for doubled C02. This range is consistent with that estimated by the National Academy of Sciences, 1.5-4.5EC, which attempted to allow for uncertainties not accounted for in existing models. It is certainly conceivable that the true climate sensitivity is outside this range. However, a sensitivity smaller than 1.2EC would require the hypothesis of a net negative feedback. Such a hypothesis, though it can not be ruled out a priori, is faced with the difficult task of finding a negative feedback strong enough to overcome the dominant feedback mechanism that has been identified, that is, the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures, which is strongly positive (fwater vapor – 1.6) Improvement of the ability of global climate models to realistically simulate climate change will require better understanding of key physical processes such as moist convection, large-scale cloud formation and ocean circulation, including its response to a warming of the ocean mixed layer. Better understanding of these processes, in turn, depends on appropriate observations from both global-scale and small-scale studies.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
Nor dismissed by the American Meteorologcal society
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2855666
This 2008 study believes it depends on altitude
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/12079/EGU2008-A-12079.pdf
This from Nature (citing Hansen)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6135/abs/329138a0.html
Lindzens first paper on the subject was a mess but he partly redeemed himself with his second and Spencer has joined the hunt
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm
Both are pefectly respectable scientists albeit one is rather obsessed by the iris effect, but then again Dr Hansen is the only person to believe in a 20 foot rise in sea level- other than Al Gore
http://www.independent.com/news/2007/jul/05/new-study-predicts-greater-sea-level-rise/
10 inches rise in a century doesn’t have quite the same galvanising effect does it?
Even Scripps have joined in-if you believe they know anything about co2 presumably they know something about clouds as well. They say clouds cause net cooling and provide a good synopsis of how it happens
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf
I guess all this debate about cloud (and other) uncertanties just emphasises the scientists have no idea what is happening in vast areas of climate science after twenty years and millions of pounds spent on research. They say that quite clearly, the trouble is we don’t believe their uncertainties.
TonyB
Max,
As regards the question of when the Arctic will be ice free, it all depends on what linear trend you take. Over the last thirty years it will be 60 years as we both agree. However if you take the trend over the last five years when we have seen a fall of getting on for two million sq kilometres, then the answer does come out to be closer to ten years. There was about 4.7 million sq km left last year.
It is a pity we don’t have longer reliable records. If had a linear regression figure for the last 100 years then maybe we could calculate that it might be another 1000 years before the Arctic was ice free. I’m sure that you would happily go for that figure.
It is tempting to try to put a straight line through any set of data points and work out a simple linear regression, but you’ll more often get the wrong answer that way.
I’ll stick by my prediction that the Arctic will be ice free in about ten years. And, yes I do hope that I’m wrong, but we’ll see.
Hi Peter,
Come on. You can’t really be serious with, “As regards the question of when the Arctic will be ice free, it all depends on what linear trend you take. Over the last thirty years it will be 60 years as we both agree. However if you take the trend over the last five years when we have seen a fall of getting on for two million sq kilometres, then the answer does come out to be closer to ten years.”
Your approach of taking a five-year trend to show accelerated reduction only gives credence to Brute’s approach of taking a 1-year trend (2007-2008) to show that the ice has stopped receding and is now growing.
Your argument here is weak, Peter.
The 30-year trend is short enough, especially in view of warming/melting trends in the 1930s and 1940s that were reversed by cooling/refreezing trends in the 1950s to 1970s, again to be reversed by a warming/melting trend since 1979.
Based on the historical record this all appears to be cyclical on a multi-decadal basis (as indeed does the temperature record as well as the sea level record).
Obviously not a very clear AGW “fingerprint” here, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
“Just to clear this point up!” If you really could, you might well be in line for a Nobel prize! So, my advice to you, if you really feel you can, would be to quit your day job and start writing it all up!
It is nowhere near so simple as assigning every GHG a % figure. The effect of each component is highly non-linear as you yourself has acknowledged. Furthermore the contribution of one component affects the contribution of another. Then there are the clouds to consider.
If you can bring yourself to click onto a Realclimate link they can explain it better than me! They don’t disagree with your 33 deg C BTW , so you at least have one common point of reference.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Hi Peter,
Forget RealClimate. This is not a site for getting serious unbiased climate info. You might as well check with Rush Limbaugh, James Hansen or Al Gore.
Go to the physically observed data and make up your own mind.
But just a quick update from Switzerland. After some early September snow, a warm and dry early October is beginning to shift to cooler, wetter weather, as is normal for this time of the year.
The “almanacs” predict a cold, snowy winter like last year and the ski resorts are gearing up in hopes that this will happen again, but who knows?
They’ve learned that you just can’t bet on the weather or climate (a lesson that IPCC, with all its climate models and 2,500 scientists, has not yet learned).
Regards,
Max
TonyB,
Wiki isn’t the only on-line encyclopedia. Here is the Encarta’s account of global warming:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/Global_Warming.html
Is this more to your liking?
If not. Maybe you could consult with other climate sceptics and set up your own on-line encyclopedia. Contraripedia maybe ? You could have sections about how safe DDT is , how AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus, how smoking has been unfairly blamed for heart disease and lung cancer.
Would you exclude religious fundamentalists? They’ve got a fair bit of money to help you set it all up, but they’d probably want you to ditch evolution in favour of creationism and the story of Noah’s Ark.
Then there will be lots of conspiracy theorists who might like to join in. 911 was all a CIA plot. The USAF are secretly trialling rebuilt crashed UFO’s etc etc. Just like you guys they’ll get a bit upset if you try to keep them out, but where will you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is just a load of crap? Who will decide?
Peter
I specifically said Wikipedia was;
‘not a reliable source of objective information on climate science’.
I then explained chapter and verse using factual information about the background of the administrator of the section concerned. I make no comment on other areas Wikipedia covers as I do not know enough about them in detail to come to an opinion.
It is nothing to do with conspiracy theories just facts, the various red herrings you cite are not relevant to this issue. This is about your constant use of citing wikipedia as the source of all knowledge on this subject.
http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2006/07/wikipedia_in_the_classroom_con.html
The above link is from people who use it professionally and confirms the unease about Wikis objectivity in certain areas.
‘wikipedia should not be cited…It should be checked with other resources’
‘depends on the gullibility of the user…’
Wiki borrows information from other sources whose objectivity or knowledge will vary and these sources must be verifiable not necessarily true. That is their own words.
When the gatekeeper to the climate science section is known to be very hostile to sceptics and very enthusiastic in promoting AGW it is reasonable to ask if he can be objective enough to be responsible for information viewed by many as their primary and only source.
All I am suggesting is that you should go to the original sources, see them in context then argue your case from there.
TonyB
Max,
You’ve been banging on a bit recently about the Minschwaner + Dessler paper (2004), in posts 2114,2138,2142, 2146,2147,2164 and maybe some others I have missed, but are you sure that this supports what you are saying?
It seems to me that if you are in agreement with these guys, then you need to accept the principle of positive feedback as applied to water vapour in the atmosphere.
This is what they say “our model calculations predict an overall increase in UT water vapor mixing ratios at warmer surface temperatures, corresponding to a positive feedback situation.”
and
“The implied positive feedback is smaller than indicated by our model (8.5–9.5 ppmv K21), but as with the case of MLS, the HALOE water vapor data show that the UT humidity– c SST relationship in the present climate regime lies between the cases of constant mixing ratio and constant relative humidity.”
I think this all means that, whereas relative humidity may fall with increasing temperature, there is still an increase in the atmospheric water content leading to an overall positive feedback effect.
PS I bet you thought I didn’t read any of your links!
This article is interesting and relates to my posts re Wikipedia. It concerns medicine but the rationale behind it is probably universal and demonstrates the wisdom of the motto of The Royal Society
‘Take nobodys word for it.’
The subject is;
“Why most puiblished research findings are false”
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
This is for Max. It is a good site to keep an eye on as it seems to try to keep itself reasonably up to date regarding water vapour and Miskolczi. If I come across any other comments I will let you know.
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-water-vapor/
TonyB
This BBC story is about how “an international team of scientists is hoping to shed light on how clouds over the Pacific Ocean are affecting global climate and weather systems”. Hugh Coe, the lead scientist for the British consortium, comments:
Hmm – “uncertainties in current climate models”. Sounds like dangerous talk to me.
According to this report on a European environmental ministers meeting on Monday,
As China, India, Brazil etc. are most unlikely to agree, the prospects for a realistic new reductions regime seem remote. BTW this European position sounds remarkably like the dreaded G W Bush’s position on Kyoto. Surely not?