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.
Bob_FJ
Looks like that “moon study” just won’t go away.
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7055-nasa-charged-in-new-climate-fakery-greenhouse-gas-data-bogus
Max
PeterM
I have the feeling that you will remain a firm supporter of the IPCC “mainstream” view, even if it were to become completely unraveled (which appears to be happening today).
My reason for saying this is that you incredibly still “believe” that the Mann “hockey stick” was based on “good science”, long after it had been comprehensively discredited.
Are you really open to new viewpoints on AGW, or is your mind firmly made up?
Just curious.
Max
Bob_FJ
Back to S-B and the “moon study”.
Check out the comments on the blog thread I cited. They may add some new input on some of the points.
I agree with you that S-B itself has certainly not been refuted (or invalidated) by the study, just that its direct application to the real world (planet Earth) as is being used by the IPCC contributors has been put into question, raising even more serious questions concerning the assumed 3 to 4-fold increase in warming resulting from increased CO2.
Max
Alex, Reur 645;
Re: S_B law:
Yes indeed! In fact I have a pondering on the S-B law over what seems to be the case that there is nothing in the literature over how does it apply when a body is immersed in an opaque fluid; even thinly so as in the Earth’s atmosphere, versus a transparent situation.
Here is a first principles argument:
a] Consider a block of concrete that is covered with opaque paint; There are no photon emissions from the concrete, but only from the paint surface.
b] Consider a block of wet water-ice at zero degrees; There are no photon emissions from the ice, but only from the water surface. (a water skin is opaque to EMR photons that might otherwise emanate at low temperatures).
c] Consider the rock surface of Venus; Apart from a small window around 2 microns wavelength, it seems probable that almost all free path lengths for photons would be blocked, and the surface can only loose HEAT via conduction, and convection will carry this HEAT away, accelerating that process.
d] Consider where might be a transition point in less opaque fluids compared with the Venus atmosphere, when such an effect in c] starts to become unimportant.
e] Consider the surface of Earth; Whilst the concentration of opaque molecules is very much less than on Venus, some must be in intimate contact with the surface, with conductive HEAT loss consequences. (if air temperature is below that of the surface) Again, convection/advection will accelerate this process.
f] Should the S-B constant be lower on Earth in the humid tropics than in dry regions, or higher on the moon? I guess the answer is yes, but to an insignificant degree.
Who knows? It seems that the answer is; no one.
Max, Reur 651, 653,
Re; Hertzberg & S-B.
That’s an interesting link but again I think the author is hyperventilating, on a quick read through. Some interesting stuff there worth checking though.
Concerning the Hertzberg article, notice that the average temperature of the moon cannot be concluded from the data given, which is rather key to the whole topic. Also, other very important thermodynamic aspects were not covered.
BTW, in my 637, item 3), where I wrote:
(It is not applicable to a planet with an atmosphere, especially if there is an ocean.)
What I meant by ‘It’ was the alleged lunar method, and that the Earth’s surface temperature certainly cannot be determined from the solar input.
Max,
The IPCC reports are effectively the position of mainstream science on the AGW issue. So I would say that you can’t deny the first without the second too. That is not to say the reports are perfect – but neither does it mean that any mistakes discredit the whole case which is of course what deniers try to suggest for their own political purposes.
And, of course, as errors come to light they will be corrected in subsequent reports. It probably would be be worthwhile for the IPCC to produce iterim reports to deal with any issues on an annual basis. If they have the $$ millions ( or is it $$ billions ?) that you guys claim they have at their disposal it shouldn’t be too much of a problem!
There is an old saying that the only way to avoid mistakes is to do nothing at all. However, looking at how many mistakes you guys make while effectively setting out to do less than nothing makes me wonder if that is really true!
PeterM
Why must it always be a ‘political purpose’?
We just don’t like the way the science was presented as ‘settled’ on what increasingly appears to be flimsy (and in some cases, fabricated) evidence, while its protagonists kept their fingers crossed that global temperatures (whatever they are) and sea levels would keep rising.
I accept there’s a political element in clumsy government attempts to limit CO2 production and dodgy ‘carbon trading’ schemes, but that’s thanks to the warmists – nothing to do with us!
JamesP,
You ask why I accuse denialists of being primarily motivated by politics rather than science. Would you at least agree that it is nearly always either one or the other?
Now I could be wrong, and maybe you can tell me why, but I’d be very surprised if many, if any, of the regular denialist contributors to this blog had ever shown much, if any, interest in science until the AGW problem reached a certain level of prominence.
The Australian CSIRO have never been accused of anything underhand or of any malpractice as far as I know. That may be a dangerous thing to suggest – I’m sure that people can be found who’d be quite willing to accuse them of just about anything! However, if you are genuinely looking for a scientific opinion, you might want to take a look at their website below:
http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change.html
Excuse me Pete but isn’t the United Nations (The IPCC) a political organization?
Just checking………..
Peter M, re your #658, well I’ve been interested in astronomy and cosmology from an early age – I remember also being inspired by Cosmos, Carl Sagan’s TV series but even before then I was familiar with star types, Hertzsprung–Russell diagrams, etc. The climate change debate I find fascinating because not only does it tie in with astronomy but also with other interests such as history and psychology. How about yourself?
Alex Cull,
You ask about my scientific interests. Yes I have always been interested in science. Did a first degree in Physics, and then a postgrad in Electronics and in which I’ve worked since. So, I’m not claiming any direct experience in climate science directly.
I wouldn’t even claim I was in much of a better position to directly assess the evidence than the most scientifically illiterate who may not know the difference between a proton and and a photon. I’d need to go back to uni to study climate science for a year two, then get involved directly in front line work. Despite what you guys think, it doesn’t actually pay that well so there no chance of it ever happening!
However, I do know the way science works and the motivations of individual scientists who, by and large, are politically quite neutral, even non -political, which incidentally doesn’t prepare them well for their current position. If there were any serious flaws in the IPCC case, there would be no shortage of scientists willing to make a name for themselves by exposing them.
Brute,
Yes, of course, the UN is political.
But what about organisations like NASA, NOAAA, NSIDC, and all your country’s university science departments? Are they political too? If you feel the IPCC is tainted with guilt by association with the UN, and you don’t trust foreign organisations like the UK’s Royal Society , why don’t you just listen to them?
Incidentally, I do wonder if ex-President Reagan whose administration pushed for the IPCC to be set up under the banner of the UN, wasn’t shrewder than many of us gave him credit for at the time. Did he know that right wingers like yourself would use that UN link against them?
I’m not sure if ‘shrewd’ is the correct word, though. Ultimately what is the point of seeking to prevent the truth from emerging?
PeterM
You asked (wisely):
That is precisely what the IPCC has tried to do, Peter, but as the recent developments are showing, the truth (about sloppy science, biased evaluations, exaggerated forecasts and outright fabrications on the part of IPCC) is emerging.
You are right. The truth will eventually emerge and IPCC will be exposed. It is only a matter of time.
Max
PeterM
Let me get this straight. You state that most scientists are “non-political”.
Would you put James E. Hansen, Michael Mann, Richard B. Alley, Josh Willis, Phil Jones, Marc Serreze, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, etc. into that category?
Or how about Richard Lindzen, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke, Sr., William Gray, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, William Kininmonth, etc.?
Which group would you say are “more political”?
Just curious how you see things from your vantage point, Peter.
Max
PeterM
Back to your 661 where you write:
Look around you, Peter. “Serious flaws in the IPCC case” are being “exposed” quite regularly since the Climategate, etc. scandals have broken.
Max
PeterM
You have a tendency to make sweeping (and totally irrelevant) generalizations.
An example (658): Those who are (what you refer to as) climate “deniers” have no basic interest in science or technology, but are simply politically motivated, while those (like yourself) who have endorsed the IPCC position are motivated by a basic interest in the scientific “truth” about our planet’s climate and man’s role in changing it.
Can you see how silly and one-sided such a standpoint is?
Like Alex Cull, I have been interested in science since I was a young boy and was an avid reader of anything to do with astronomy, physics, etc. I studied chemistry before switching to chemical engineering.
I have been saddened to see how “climate science” got hijacked and bastardized by the politicians of the UN and the billions of dollars involved in AGW.
Face it, Peter.
Your standpoint on AGW is no more correct than anyone else’s opposing view, nor is based more on “science” (and less on “politics”).
It is interesting, as a matter of fact, that you are the one on this blog that brings up “politics” more often than many of those whom you accuse of being primarily politically motivated. Have you noticed that?
Max
Max,
I did say most. Not all. I wouldn’t include myself for a start!
One name you haven’t included in your list is Fred Singer who started off as a good and able scientist but has had a pretty dodgy track record since. Naomi Oreskes certainly has him in her sights in her book “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”.
I haven’t researched the political opinions of any of the names on your two lists but I would expect the second list to be markedly more right wing than the first.
Also, I doubt if any climate scientist, ever expected, at the start of their career, to become enmeshed in something quite as controversial. Many, including James Hansen, who regularly receives death threats from Right wing extremists, have had a harsh lesson in political realities:
http://www.countercurrents.org/hamilton220210.htm
which would mean that they certainly could never again support the US Republican Party or the Australian Liberal Party though they may have done previously.
PeterM
There you go again, with a silly political assumption:
This is just as dumb as if I would write:
“Left wing”, “right wing”? “Fuggitaboudit”, Peter.
Max
PeterM
I gave you a short list of 8 representative scientists on either side of the dangerous AGW hypothesis (obviously not a complete list) and asked for your opinion on whether or not one list was motre “political” than the other.
I left off Fred Singer as well as Stephen Schneider, plus hundreds of others.
Naomi Oreskes would not fit on either list, since she is a historian, not a scientist. Her “study” on percentages of scientists and scientific studies, which support the so-called “mainstream” position, got debunked afterward (but it was a good try and, like the IPCC reports, fooled a lot of people at the time).
You did not answer my question, however, but tried a “side track”.
Max
PS Do you have any evidence for your statement that “James Hansen regularly receives death threats from Right wing extremists”? Or is this just more BS?
The Swiss press is reporting that, under the conservative government of Stephen Harper, Canada announced on Friday a 90% reduction in its goal to cut CO2 emissions, evoking the anger of environmental groups, such as Greenpeace.
According to the report in “Tagesanzeiger”, Harper has reduced the 2010 reduction goal from 52 million tons to 5 million tons, and the goals for 2011 and 2012 from 64 and 74 million to only 8 and 10 million tons, respectively, thereby canceling out the agreement of the preceding government to the provisions of Kyoto.
The long-term goal will be a CO2 reduction of 17% compared to 2005 levels by 2020.
Opposition politicians were very critical of the new government position. Bernard Bigras of the Bloc Québécois stated that Canada would become an “environmental criminal”.
Too bad we do not have any Canadian posters on this thread to give us their thoughts on this new development there.
Max
PeterM
You made a blanket statement:
This is pure balderdash, Peter (and you know it). I cannot believe that you are really naive enough to believe this.
Even before all the revelations of bad and sloppy science, exaggerated projections, biased evaluations and outright falsehoods contained in the IPCC reports, they were not the “position of mainstream science on the AGW issue”, but simply one side of the story.
Today, after all these revelations, it has become clear to one and all that these reports are simply one-sided “sales pitches” for the premise that AGW is a serious potential threat.
Max
Max,
If you don’t know its is better to just say that, as I did re: the political opinions of the scientists you listed, rather than make it up.
You say that Naomi Oreskes “is a historian, not a scientist.”
However according to Wiki:
She received her BSc degree in Mining Geology from the Royal School of Mines of Imperial College, University of London in 1981, and worked as a Research Assistant in the Geology Department and as a Teaching Assistant in the departments of Geology, Philosophy and Applied Earth Sciences at Stanford University starting in 1984.
Max,
You say “This is pure balderdash, Peter”. Of course anyone can say that when they have no argument to the contrary.
The last IPCC report did include mistakes, on the glaciers, which have been blown out of all proportion but have been acknowledged. So I’m not including them. Everything else in the report is accepted as being the scientific consensus. There will be a new one out shortly and there will of course be updates, and corrections, but there is really nothing in the scientific literature to justify any wholesale revision.
It sounds like you’ve been reading too many right-wing climate blog sites and have started to make the mistake of believing your own propaganda. You’d have a hard time finding critical references to the IPCC on any website of scientific repute. And no I don’t mean wattsupwiththat!
PeterM (658)
So, according to you, we’re all red-necked conservative/republican lobbyists for the oil industry with degrees in arts and humanities!
I should have thought that the standard of debate on here would lend some clue as to the education and interests of most of contributors. People without a scientific background are hardly going to start challenging AGW on theoretical grounds without any awareness of the mechanisms involved.
As I’ve said before, I swallowed the AGW line to begin with, as it seemed plausible enough until I started to think about it, and read some of the wackier statements from its protagonists (I used to take the Observer, and Hansen’s ‘death trains’ article confirmed it).
I also worked in commercial greenhouses, which taught me that 1000ppm of CO2 is good for plants and not bad for people, and that the ‘greenhouse effect’ doesn’t actually apply to greenhouses, i.e. nothing to do with IR, which is attenuated by glass in both directions, as RW Woods demonstrated 100 years ago.
James P,
IR in the atmosphere is attenuated equally in both directions too. Energy comes into a Greenhouse mainly in the visible region and glass is transparent to that. Energy from the ground underneath the Greenhouse is radiated in the infra red. If the reflected infra red is attenuated by the glass, and yes it will be the same in both directions, the heat will be trapped and the GH will warm.
A real GH also stops convection. The upwards movement of warm air. So even if the glass in the GH were totally transparent to IR it would still warm. So the GH effect may not be the best term, but it has stuck, and no-one has come up with anything better so I guess we’ll have to live with it.
You can see the atmospheric GH in action on cloudy nights. These are warmer than clear nights as the clouds slow the radiation of ground heat into space.
Its curious that you say “People without a scientific background are hardly going to start challenging AGW on theoretical grounds without any awareness of the mechanisms involved.” But they certainly do challenge it. Did you read that link I posted previously?
This person obviously has some slight reservations over the position of mainstream science. Maybe they detailed their theoretical grounds in a separate post!
“Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t!”