This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
Max/Robin,
Would this be an example of empirical evidence?
NZ research shows Pacific islands not shrinking
Full story here. Even their source, the New Scientist was forced to admit the “good news” but says “sea level rise warnings stand”. Yeah, sure, whatever.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/02/tuvalu-and-many-other-south-pacific-islands-are-not-sinking-claims-they-are-due-to-global-warming-driven-sea-level-rise-are-opportunistic/#more-20131
Brute,
So you are so anti-science that even when it actually comes out with something you might agree with, you still can’t bring yourself to link to it!
Full story: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700-shapeshifting-islands-defy-sealevel-rise.html
Hello all,
I’m just a female canine, subservient to my master. Yet I whine; He has been very bad lately, has become stronger on the Sharia, has been more and more yelling really loud; ARGHHH, and even kicking me, to the extent that I’m surprised that the neighbours or our local authorities have not made enquiries.
He kept muttering; those RC ******* bastards, (expletive disguised), they’ve got my ID and computer IP, so it is up to you Jedda to carry my sword!!! Tell them something on your computer. So, I done this wot I copied from the RC screen whilst it was in mediation:
However, it disappeared, so I tried again:
OK, so RC can’t help; Can anyone here help?
Brute (626)
Ain’t that the truth!
Brute and James P
Yeah. The “growing island” report is good news, even if it included the obligatory warning:
But are sea levels really rising at all? And, if so, is the rate if rise accelerating as IPCC would have us believe?
Tide gauge records show that there was considerable variability in the rate of rise over the past century, with a slightly higher rate of rise in the first half.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007…/2006GL028492.shtml
IPCC have played the trick of changing measurement methodology (from tide gauges to satellite altimetry) and scope (from selected coastlines to the entire oceans, excluding coastal and polar areas, which cannot be measured) in 1993, and then cobbling together a record of the two measurement approaches over the different time periods to claim an acceleration of sea level rise in 1993. (Bad science, at best and outright skullduggery, at worst.)
But wait.
Just how accurate (or representative) are the satellite altimetry measurements?
The scientists using them do not think they are very good.
Carl Wunsch et al. have written:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
And two of the NOAA scientists making these measurements are even more skeptical (italics by me).
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
Ouch!
Looks like another case of flawed data and bad science being used by IPCC to bamboozle the public.
Max
I think most engineers would be dubious of an inferred accuracy of millimetres from an orbiting satellite. The Eumetsat site says this: “An extremely precise knowledge of the satellite’s orbital position is necessary in order to obtain measurements accurate to within a few centimetres over a range of several hundred kilometres” and mentions that even to get this level of precision (1 part in 10^7), reference measurements have to be made on ‘fixed’ targets, such as land areas of known elevation.
If the land itself is moving, however slowly, then such measurements are even less precise. Who knows how much vertical movement results from plate tectonics, or just occurs diurnally on our little world?
The results of Australian research on sea level rise:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
James P
Satellite altimetry for measuring changes in ice sheets (Greenland or Antarctica) give good results.
Trying to measure a heaving ocean, when every ship gives a distortion covering several square kilometers, is a challenge, as the NOAA scientists, themselves admit. The errors are as great as or greater than the actual measurement itself!
Max
Off topic, but AlexCull has just had a comment removed on a Monbiot thread at Guardian Environment. It happens to me all the time, but Alex is the politest blogger I have ever come across. What’s come over him?
PeterM
Your post on “Australian sea level research” (632) was interesting, but does not really tell us much..
Here is a summary of sea level developments of the past century, based on the tide gauge record (with more recent records shown, as well).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
As you can see, there are a lot of multi-decadal “ups and downs”, but there is no real “acceleration”, Peter, despite what IPCC has tried to sell us.
Max
Geoff (#634), it was one of my very silly faux news articles, in which I described tumultuous public reaction to the Prof. Abraham critique of Monckton, and mentioned fighting in the streets between Monckton and Monbiot supporters.
No person, living or deceased, was harmed during my comment, however, although the mods must have considered it somewhat irritating!
Alex/Geoff/Max:
RE Hertzberg et al and S-B law
I’ve read through the Hertzberg article this morning without checking the eleven references and am a bit discouraged by some immediate errors in application. They write incorrectly:
1) They appear to confuse aspects of the S-B law and Kirchhoff’s law. S-B refers to the instantaneous emission of a surface according to it’s surface temperature at the time, regardless of whether or not the body surface is in equilibrium. On the other hand, Kirchhoff’s law gives:
At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity. Thus, thermal inertia of the body is important in dynamic situations, but is nothing to do with the S-B law.
2) The S-B law applies to grey bodies also, by applying an emissivity factor. Also, most matter at low temperatures approximates closely to a black body in the infrared range.
3) Presumably their opening line refers to the moon, and if that is what “climate scientists” do, than they are as guilty as they are in ignoring Kirchhoff’s law. (It is not applicable to a planet with an atmosphere, especially if there is an ocean.)
I can’t get enthusiastic about the rest of it, but yes, the thermal inertia of the regolith is crucial on the Moon, but issues like heat loss via radiation being proportional to the fourth power of temperature, (ranging some 350C), and rapidly reducing solar input per unit area at high latitudes, and towards the solar terminator are not adequately discussed.
To determine average surface temperature, it is necessary to integrate the entire surface area, and not just take the average of two points. The following statement thus appears to be wrong. For instance the day and night temperatures at high latitudes would both be much lower than at the equator.
I might have a look at the eleven references when I have time.
Disappointed of Melbourne
Gee Pete, you wouldn’t want to defy the “consensus” now would you? Mainstream science has spoken quite loudly here Pete and it seems that “mainstream science” says the IPCC are a bunch of liars………
Call off the evacuation: Pacific Islands are expanding
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/03/call-off-the-evacuation-pacific-islands-are-expanding/
Pacific islands growing, not sinking
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/03/2916873.htm?section=justin
The Irony, It Burns …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/03/the-irony-it-burns/
Brute,
Leaving aside your assertion about ‘liars’ which is something you’ve just made up, quite nonsensical, and unworthy of further comment – I might just point out that I would actually like very much to challenge the consensus of mainstream science.
Does that surprise you? Should I bother explaining why or can you figure out the answer for yourself?
PeterM
You take Brute to task (639) for referring to IPCC as “a bunch of liars”
li·ar n .One that tells lies.
lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Brute is right, Peter, when he writes that IPCC has “lied” (and is thus a “liar”), i.e. has made “false statements deliberately presented as being true” and “meant to deceive or give a wrong impression”.
There have been several instances in the recent revelations (rain forest loss, Africa crop loss, Himalayan glacier disappearance, etc.); most of these have to do with WGII lies.
For WGI falsehoods, exaggerations, etc. I will again cite the excellent summary by Paul M., which came originally from a CA thread.
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
This is worth going through in detail, Peter.
Max
PS Not everything in AR4 WG1 or SPM 2007 is a “lie”, Peter. But Brute is probably correct in stating that there are enough instances of “falsehoods” to qualify IPCC as “a bunch of liars”, especially since IPCC has been touted as the “gold standard” source of up-dated climate information, when it is quite obvious that it is not.
Bob_FJ
Thanks for your 637 analysis on Hertzberg et al and S-B law.
Max
Max,
To get it straight – what Brute said was “..’mainstream science’ says the IPCC are a bunch of liars………”. We can all understand why denialists, themselves, would accuse the IPCC of lying but it is just nonsense to suggest that groups like the RS, or anyone from the scientific world, are using the same language.
Brute quoted from the Financial Post, and I suspect he might believe what they write. However, regardless of what anyone’s views on AGW might be, can anyone having read this on the RS website:
http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-to-publish-new-guide-to-the-science-of-climate-change/
really say that this:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/05/31/and-then-there-were-three-britain%E2%80%99s-royal-society-rejects-alarmism/
is an accurate account?
It is worth noting that the Financial Post give a link to an older pdf file but no link to the RS scientific review itself. I wonder why not!
PeterM
Regarding your 642 let’s see what the RS comes out with in summer, rather than speculating now. I have not seen the statements from the French or Indian societies, which were mentioned by FP. Have you?
I have already expressed (on the thread covering the RS switch) skepticism that RS will do a complete 180 degree turn (as FP reports), but we shall have to wait and see.
But I think it is a positive sign that RS is abandoning its former “the science is settled” stance – that just was not a fitting thing for a scientific body to say, especially considering the many vagaries associated with our planet’s climate.
As to IPCC “lies” (or “untruths”, “falsehoods”, “prevarications”, “exaggerations”, etc. if you prefer these milder expressions for the same thing), the recent revelations have exposed several. The summary, which I cited, lists others.
As far as the “mainstream science” (on AGW) is concerned, this term has never really meant very much and is obviously shifting today, as all these IPCC problems are surfacing.
Roger Pielke, Jr. is a scientist, who is appalled at the recent IPCC falsehoods. Is he a “mainstream” scientist or a “sidestream” scientist?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5038
Nils Axel Mörner, another “mainstream” (or “sidestream”?) scientist, tells us IPCC has “lied” on sea level projections, while Richard Lindzen (which “stream” do you put him in, Peter?) also agrees that there is a lot of exaggeration in the IPCC temperature projections for the future. And then there is Roy Spencer and many more.
I once gave you a list of 200+ scientists, who do not support the IPCC claims on “dangerous AGW”. Are these “mainstream” (or “sidestream”) scientists? Who decides who is which? You? Me? Brute?
So, you see, that there area lot of scientists, who believe that IPCC have not told us the truth (i.e. have “lied”).
And the list appears to be growing.
Max
PeterM
Here is a report about the position of France’s National Academy of Sciences – apparently the NAS (wisely) supports neither the IPCC nor the skeptical position on AGW, but the French science ministry will hold a debate this fall on the subject.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5474
Max
Like Max, just to say many thanks to Bob_FJ re your #637, which chimes in with some other analyses I’ve seen on the web – it does look like the S-B law is safe for the moment. :-) I think these things are sometimes worth challenging though, be they ever so fundamental. Not to do so would be to assume that everyone else has done due diligence and questioned the basics: because, what if they haven’t?
Max,
Yes I agree – it would have been better if everyone had refrained from drawing any conclusions until the RS report had actually been released.
I’ll predict that the RS report will tidy up a few details. Himalayan glaciers is an obvious example of where the IPCC did get it wrong. But I’ll further predict that the RS will not make the fundamental change that many readers of the ‘journals’ such as the Financial Post have been led to expect. Will the Financial Post then acknowledge that they got it wrong? What do you think?
I notice that even you can bring yourself to defend them. They weren’t the only ones of course. I’d include all the usual suspects like the UK’s Times, Mail, Express, Telegraph, Spectator, and The Australian. When it is so obvious that they are capable of this level of disinformation why do you believe them on anything at all?
Max,
You say “apparently [France’s National Academy of Sciences] (wisely) supports neither the IPCC nor the skeptical position on AGW”
Why “apparently”?
But do the NAS take that view? Do they really? Have you taken the trouble to find out what they are actually saying themselves rather than what the right wing press claim they are saying?
Let’s take a look Pete.
Here’s 63 “falsehoods” associated with either the IPCC or the AGW premise. I’m certain if I spent more than 5 minutes I could come up with another 63.
Face it Pete, the IPCC is propagating this lie in order to extort monies and justify their existence.
The entire theory of AGW is a histrionic charade to separate hard working people from their earnings.
You’ve been duped Pete.
Swallow your pride and face reality.
1. Acceleration-gate
2. Africa-gate
3. AIT-gate
4. Amazon-gate
5. Antarctic sea-gate
6. Bangladesh-gate
7. Boot-cleaning manual-gate
8. China-gate and here
9. Climate Camp-gate
10. Climate-gate
11. CRU data deletion-gate
12. Dog-ate it-gate
13. Discernable influence-gate
14. Drought-gate
15. EPA-gate h/t Climate Depot
16. Five-star WWF-gate
17. Finland-gate
18. Flooded house-gate
19. FOI-gate
20. Fungus-gate
21. Gatekeeping-gate
22. GISS Metar-gate
23. Gore private jet-gate
24. Greenpeace-gate
25. Hansen 1930s hot-gate
26. Hansen stagecraft-gate
27. Himalaya-gate and here
28. Hockey-stick-gate and here and here WCR
29. Hollywood hypocrites-gate and Dave Matthews
30. Hurricane-gate
31. Jesus Paper-gate
32. Kilimanjaro-gate
33. Malaria-gate and here (new!)
34. Meat-gate h/t reader Catalina
35. Mega-mansion-gate
36. Met Office computer-gate
37. NASA/NCDC bad data-gate and here
38. New Zealand-gate
39. NOAA adjustment-gate and here, and here
40. NOAA/GISS data selection-gate and here
41. NYT alarmism-gate and here
42. Overpeck get rid of MWP-gate
43. Oxbourgh-gate and here (bishop hill)
44. Pachauri-gate and here and here
45. Peer-review-gate 1
46. Peer-review-gate 2
47. Persecute and execute-gate
48. Polar bear-gate and here
49. Porn(soft)-gate
50. Rahmstorf smoothing-gate and here and here
51. Revelle-gate
52. Russia-gate and and here video
53. Solar-gate Spain solar-gate
54. Sting-gate
55. Student dissertation-gate
56. Surface stations-gate and here
57. Toad-gate
58. UNEP-gate
59. UN natural disasters-gate
60. Ursus-gate
61. Windmill-gate and here
62. Wikipedia William Connelly-gate h/t to rechauffementmediatique.org
63. Yamal-gate
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/gate-blowup-come-on-in-gate-lovers/
PeterM
I have seen a long paper by the French NAS dated in 2008, which stated several different viewpoints of different members, but gave a generally positive nod to the IPCC position.
At that time there is no doubt that the management of most scientific organizations gave a “rubber stamp” to the IPCC stand. Was this primarily “political” or “scientific”? Who knows?
I have not seen anything recent, as reported by FP (other than repeats of the FP story).
It is apparent that the many recent revelations of IPCC malfeasance have caused some scientists (and organizations) to take another look at the whole story.
Is this just a temporary shift or is it a “sea change”, as some commentators seem to think?
Let’s wait and see how this all plays out, Peter.
Max
PeterM
My personal opinion is that IPCC has permanently lost credibility among both the general public as well as among many scientists, as a result of all the many recent revelations, which it will not be able to regain.
The IPCC reaction (arrogant denial and stonewalling) has not helped.
In addition, the press, which was once very positive, has begun to turn against the IPCC.
This is just my opinion (which may or may not be shared by others).
Max