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.
Alex, Reur 1122
It might be that BPL’s vivid imagination could provide divergent thinking that is beneficial in science, by providing new ideas. However, he also uses science fiction in his spin on CAGW, and is supported by Gavin et mal running RC, and the faithful followers there.
For instance, they assert repeatedly that most of the heating of the Earth’s surface comes from back radiation of infrared light (EMR) from the atmosphere. (not from the sun) In fact, the only significant source of HEAT is from the sun, and the fact that EMR is a different form of energy to HEAT is overlooked. True, it can be absorbed by matter and be converted to HEAT, but only when there is a net difference in opposing sources of EMR. The fictional claim, which is widespread, is somewhat similar to asserting that a blanket thrown over a bed HEATS the bed, rather than slowing the rate of escape of HEAT.
Max, Reur 1117,
Yes, BPL is an interesting guy.
Whilst he claims to be a climate modeller and his assertions are disturbing, the inference that he may be seriously ill makes me hesitate as to how to continue the discussion.
I might try and write an article for WUWT starting on the IPCC/Trenberth cartoon, and work-up from there. But, there may be a tricky aspect in that Willis Eschenbach has in the past supported the cartoon, and even expanded on it. (He is a regular and popular contributor of articles there, but I don’t know if he has changed his views on it)
Pete,
Again you retreat……
I still love ya Pete……….you kook.
I’m thinking of mailing you a box of cigars.
Alex,
I think that the underhanded, blacklisting of scientists who question global warming religious doctrine has already backfired.
The general public isn’t stupid (as Pete believes). Public opinion has already shifted away from the “consensus” view as more and more of the details of the shenanigans that the UN and a Pete’s ever shrinking crop of agenda driven scientists espouse. The global warming faith healers are being exposed publicly.
Of course, politicians will continue to ring the alarm bell of “the end is near” in order to confiscate increasingly more tax money from the citizenry to pad their personal slush funds.
Unscrupulous scientists will continue to carry on the charade in order to justify more taxpayer funded handouts to purchase more petri dishes, bunson burners, test tubes and junkets to exclusive resorts in Fiji to study the mating habits of seaweed (can’t forget those taxpayer funded tweed jackets with the leather patches sewn on the elbows to impress this year’s freshmen cheerleaders!)
The industries that thrive on global warming hysteria will die on the vine.
There is a groundswell of discontent growing in the United States regarding big/Marxist government and nonsensical/unethical scientific “research”….
I believe that during the first week of November, the world will be in for a big shock regarding the political winds here in America.
Two (Democrat/Socialist) members of Congress are currently being investigated and have been charged with various breeches of the law……………unethical behavior (embezzlement).
Obama’s popularity is dropping like a dress on prom night and Congressional approval ratings among the general public is 11%.
There is increasing discussion of further members of Congress being indicted in state courts via citizens filing suit.
Should be interesting politically as “global warming” ebbs this year (referred to by normal people as winter).
Brute,
I may be slightly in retreat on the Y2K issue. That’s because Alex has reminded me that I’m in agreement with Robin! I’ve no strong opinion on the matter either way. Its a bit like the millions spent worldwide on swine flu jabs. In hindsight maybe we can say it was overdone, but if the only money wasted by governments was in the over-provision of medical facilities and support for the the world computer networks on which we all now depend it would be a better place than it is.
Think of the money spent as you would if you’d taken out life insurance but hadn’t actually died!
I don’t smoke, but thanks for the offer. It should be me sending you cigars. You aren’t allowed to buy Cuban cigars in that Marxist country of yours, I believe. Unless Obama has repealed that law?
Actually you’re absolutely right about the USA being Marxist. He did call in Communist Manifesto for “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. ”
I do believe the USA has implemented this suggestion. So can we look forward to your support for closing down all the publicly funded schools, and removing any legal obstacles to children being given jobs on the production lines instead? But of course they should have freedom of choice to choose between that and going down a mine!
I’m not sure if you still have apprenticeships in the USA but, if so, they’d have to go too. I don’t think you’ll have much problem in getting this through once you explain just how much Marxism you’d be eliminating!
Bob_FJ
Yes. There are many facets of the “IPCC/Trenberth cartoon”, which can be questioned (1126), and I know that you have gotten into various discussions regarding it.
But, as you recall from the discussion you and I both joined on the Chris Colose blog early this year, a key point in the latest “cartoon update” is the number of 0.9 W/m^2, purporting to be the “net annual imbalance” in our planet’s energy budget.
This number (it turns out) was not calculated by K+T, but rather taken over as a “plug number” (with a slight upward rounding) from a number of 0.85 W/m^2 (itself “rounded up” from a calculated 0.75 W/m^2) estimated by Hansen et al. in the “hidden in the pipeline” paper using the “circular logic” of starting with a model-derived climate sensitivity and assuming that all the unseen past warming, which should have occurred at this climate sensitivity but was not actually observed, was hiding “somewhere in the pipeline”.
In other words, it is a virtual number derived from computer model simulations using ”circular logic”.
This increases the theoretical “net annual imbalance” in climate forcing from added CO2 from around 0.1 W/m^2 by a factor of 9.
The “missing heat” was supposed to be “lurking” in the upper ocean, from where it would, some dreadful day, jump back out to the atmosphere by some unexplained mysterious mechanism, to warm our atmosphere and fry us all.
Problem is that since the more accurate ARGO measurements have replaced the old expendable XBT devices in 2003, the upper ocean has been COOLING (instead of warming).
And this has occurred at the same time that the atmosphere, both at the surface and in the troposphere, has been cooling since the end of 2000.
This presents a real dilemma for the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation, the 0.9 W/m^2 “net energy imbalance” that supposedly results as well as the model-simulated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, which forms the basis for the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
In fact BOTH the “hidden in the pipeline” hypothesis and the postulated (directly related) 0.9 W/m^2 energy imbalance have been directly falsified by the observed “missing energy”.
As Kevin Trenberth said: the “missing energy” is a “travesty”.
It sure is (for the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis).
BTW, Roger Pielke’s Climate Science site has published an article by William DiPuccio on this topis, which is worth reading. I’m sure you have already seen it, but am providing the link for others that may be interested.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
Max
PeterM
This is OT here, but it appears that you need to brush up a bit on US history (as well as “climate science”).
You write to Brute of US President Obama (1129):
The first compulsory school attendance laws were passed in 1853 (Massachusetts) and 1854 (New York). By 1918 all states had such laws as well as free public schools.
The first child labor law was passed in Massachusetts in 1836. A federal child labor law was attempted in 1916, but failed ratification. In 1938 a federal child labor law was passed.
This all happened long before President Obama was born.
That’s probably one of the reasons why the literacy rate is relatively high in the USA (99%), despite the high number of poor immigrants entering the country.
USA accepts far more immigrants than most of the countries with similar high literacy rates. While legal immigrants must pass a literacy test, this is, of course, not required for illegal immigrants. Estimates of illegal immigrants in the USA today vary from 12 to 20 million (out of a total population of around 310 million). These are estimated to have an illiteracy rate 2.5 times as high as that for U.S. citizens, with most coming from Latin America.
But, despite the fact that some people today blame the Obama administration for being too lax on illegal immigration, it is doubtful that this administration has had any impact on the US literacy rate, one way or the other.
Max
PS Maybe Brute (as an US citizen who is closer to the scene than you or I) has other thoughts on this.
Max,
No when I said Marxist, I meant Marx himself, not President Obama!
The “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor..” was first published as part of the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
Its possible that child labour laws passed by Massachusettians(?) did pre-date that. Good on ’em if they did!
Actually, Brute would be very embarrassed to learn that Marx was generally positive about the political system of USA.
PeterM
Sorry. I missed that you were referring to a socio-political treatise by Karl Marx rather than a political proclamation by Barack Obama.
Free public education (not as a theoretical and desirable political goal, but as a living fact) has existed in many countries (including the USA) well before Marx wrote about it.
No surprise that Marx would have been positive on the US representative republican system of government back in his days, when most other nations (with the exception of Switzerland) were still being run by non-elected rulers.
But times have changed and over the years many despots misused the writings of Marx to justify their totalitarian communist regimes since Marx’ time. Fortunately, most of these have collapsed with the demise of the Soviet Union.
But we’d better get back on topic before TonyN tosses us off the blog.
Max
Ouch………bad news Pete………
Alex,
The news is getting out and people all over the world are being made aware of the global warming fraud.
Not only is there a backlash attributed to the brown shirt tactics employed by the Environazis but the curtain is being drawn back and exposing the shotty “science” being passed around to support a political agenda.
August 6, 2010
Australians’ Views Shift on Climate Change
Fewer believe climate change results from human activities
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141782/Australians-Views-Shift-Climate-Change.aspx
Brute, that’s quite a drop, over in Australia. I just found this article about a recent Rasmussen poll which suggests that the numbers are continuing to fall in the US, too:
“Most voters (57%) continue to regard global warming as a serious issue, but that number has trended down slightly since last November when the Climategate scandal broke, raising questions about the research and methodology of many pro-global warming scientists. Thirty-nine percent (39%) do not share the concern about global warming. Forty-five percent (45%) say global warming is primarily caused by long-term planetary trends. Thirty-four percent (34%) feel human activity is the main contributor. Eight percent (8%) think some other reason is chiefly to blame. Voters have been shifting away for well over a year from the idea that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.”
On another note, a post here on Climate Audit, the technicalities of which even I had no problem in following!
Bob_FJ
We’ve both discussed the “cartoon” of Earth’s energy balance, where tiny differences between very large numbers (based on a “snapshot” of one point in time with one specific average annual surface temperature) are purported to cause major future changes in our climate.
The original Kiehl and Trenberth “Earth radiation budget” cartoon showed no “net absorbed” imbalance, while the later Trenberth-Fausillo-Kiehl version shows a “net absorbed” imbalance of 0.9 W/m^2, which is (as discussed earlier) a rounded up “plug number” taken over from the Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” postulation. The simplified picture favored by NASA shows an Earth in balance, with the total incoming energy equal to the total outgoing energy (does this imply that there is no “net imbalance” or “missing energy hidden in the pipeline” according to NASA?)
For a summary of the various “cartoons” out there, see:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Kiehl+Trenberth+Earth+energy+balance+diagram&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=eiVcTI33JdGaONTGmNAP&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QsAQwAA&biw=1188&bih=639
The 2007 peer-reviewed scientific publication by former NASA employee, Ferenc Miskolczi, purports to show a basic error in the method used to determine these “Earth radiation budgets” and the related high climate sensitivity of CO2, with the postulation (based on 61 years of observations) that there is a “natural thermostat” limiting the total greenhouse impact of water plus trace greenhouse gases (such as CO2) to an absolute total.
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
Interestingly, the Miskolczi study has apparently yet to be scientifically refuted, even though it tosses the whole “conventional” greenhouse hypothesis on its head.
A 2010 study by Noor van Andel (Netherlands) confirms the methodology and conclusions of the Miskolczi study
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/d6nj807q069u824u/
Lubos Motl has commented
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/hungarian-conversion-runaway-greenhouse.html
The exchange between Miskolczi and Vincent Gray in the attached comments section shows that, while Gray does not accept the K&T “Earth radiation budget” cartoons as realistic, he also has doubts concerning Miskolczi’s postulation of a climate “in equilibrium”.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/miskolczis-death-knell-on-greenhouse.html
Have you seen all this, and what do you think of it? Does Miskolczi have something here that should change the way we look at greenhouse warming?
Max
Bob_FJ
BTW, I forgot to mention that the last reference I cited in 1136 has an interesting you-tube explanation by Miklos Zagoni of Miskolczi’s hypothesis, entitled “The Greenhouse Effect of CO2 Is Already Saturated”.
Max
This one can be filed in the “global warming causes record cold” file……
Argentina Has Colder Winter Than Antarctica, Spurring Record Power Use…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html
This one could be placed in the “annoying deadbeats/panhandlers” file…………
Come to think of it, I don’t believe that the UN has paid the 10 years of back rent that they owe on the building they inhabit or the millions of dollars in parking fines that they’ve racked up either…………no wonder they’re so desperate. More worthless parasites……
UN panel: New taxes needed for climate fund…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_sc/climate_change
Max, Reur 1130 and 1136,
Thanks for all the links, some of which are new to me, and give me much to study. I don’t spend much time on the various contrarian hypotheses, because I see it as a no-win argument against the consensus view. They can simply insist that CO2 absorption can be proven in the laboratory, which of course is rather simplistic, because a small glass tube cannot simulate the atmosphere, with all its complexities*. Nevertheless, the mantra sounds convincing.
Furthermore, when you say:
Without yet reading it yet, I would be worried by that because I have deep respect for Vincent Gray, but as I show below, experts in the field can be wrong.
There are also other hypothesese around such as G & T, and very recently this from Tom Vonk over at WUWT, with a counter argument from Geoff Id. Tom Vonk, (nom de blog), also has his admirers, and used advanced quantum theory, whereas Geoff Id seems to have used a hypothetical experiment. (I’ve not studied Geoff’s yet, and need to read Tom‘s possibly several times more.) I’m not too sure about Tom though. For instance a couple of years ago, over at CA, I pointed out that quantum theory dictates that EMR is absorbed by matter at a higher T than in the source, which if treated as a single process, appears to be paradoxical to “law 2”. Further, I stated that it is theory that cannot be proven by observation. He responded that it can be observed because radio wavelengths are proven to be absorbed regardless of the T of the antenna. It got quite nasty when I pointed out that the standing waves on an antenna are not in any way affected thermally, but that a signal goes to the receiver at a lower electrical potential. (a true sink a la “law 2) I had to change my ID.
*(for example, initial radiation is mostly laterally, and absorption is close to the surface but to scale, I guess, mostly outside the lab)
Also, I’m not too comfortable when people talk about saturation of CO2 absorption.
Brute, Reur 1118, Concerning attacks on Judith Curry.
I guess the church gets really angry when one of their own questions the accuracy etc of their ideology. As I understand it, she believes that AGW IS a serious problem.
However, it seems that Judy understands the true meaning of:
* Hide the decline
* Delete Emails
* Obstruct FOI requests
* Influence editors of journals
* Etc
What makes me mad is that when she advises “go read Montford’s book”, a typical response is along the lines of: I have no intention of reading such a false book!
BTW, completely OT:
That reminds me a bit concerning Velikovsky’s book “Worlds in Collision”, editorially banned by that church, although admittedly it had some very doubtful theories based on imaginative interpretations of Exodus in the Old Testament, and dubious cherry picking from the writings of a scribe named Ipuwer. Oh, and what was Manna, and…..
On the other hand, I recall his “Earth in Upheaval” was required geology reading back in the 60’s at some U.S. university. Also his reconstruction of Egyptian history in several books, although disdained by Egyptologists, does make a lot of sense. For instance, why does the period style of Greek writing baked into the back of tiles, (in the British Museum), from one tomb, NOT belong to the consensus timing of that tomb….. Etc.
How did he manage to correctly depict so many things long ago, such as that there would be radio emissions from Jupiter, Venus would be very hot, etc……?
He was a friend of Einstein BTW
As Judith Curry seems to be your new ‘Golden Girl’, so to speak, I thought I might just take a look at what she was actually saying.
In a recent interview when asked about a denial machine, she replied:
“It’s complicated. The denial thing is certainly not monolithic. The skeptics don’t agree with each other at all. The scientific skeptics—[hurricane forecaster] Bill Gray and [MIT meteorologist] Dick Lindzen and [University of Alabama climatologist] Roy Spencer—criticize each other as much as we criticize them.”
So the first thing to note is that she’s including herself with the “we” rather than the “them”.
She right about disagreement among sceptics/deniers, but is she right about “them” criticising each other?
It seems to me that you deniers don’t much care whether the planet is or, is not, warming. You’ll happily say it isn’t and that its all down to a measurement error. If it is warming you don’t care whether it’s solar induced, a result of multi-decadal oscillations, the world coming out of an ice age, or the result of changes in Cosmic ray intensity. Have I forgotten anything? However, you certainly do care that it shouldn’t be ascribed to anthropogenic sources. Anything else will do!
If I’m wrong in thinking that, maybe someone could show me some examples of what Judith Curry might be referring to?
Brute, further my 1141, as an anthology of how the current scientific “abuse” is not new, and how as an example something somewhat similar happened ~60 years ago:
And,
Alex, since you have expressed an interest in science fiction, and Carl Sagan was a notable SF writer, you might be interested in this book title:
“Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky” by Charles Ginenthal.
My copy is from: New Falcon Publications, USA, dated 1995.
Among the back cover reviews, these two are brief and to the point:
* “…The glib and slipshod nature of Carl Sagan’s critique is repeatedly and tellingly exposed” – Roger W. Wescott, Professor of anthropology, Drew University.
* “After reading this book you will be convinced that Sagan is more of an entertainer than a competent observer” C.J. Ransom, Ph.D., Physicist
I have several other “about Velikovsky” faded yellow books of interest, if you are interested.
“Worlds in Collision” was apparently first published in UK by Victor Gollancz in 1950, and later (my copy) by Abacus. The first publishers approached by V, chickened-out when faced by threats from that church.
PeterM
You mention that it seems to you that “deniers don’t much care whether the planet is or, is not, warming” and then add
The first sentence is silly, so I will ignore it. As far as your question is concerned, I’ll try to help you out here, Peter.
Your selected quotation from the interview with Judith Curry leads one to believe that she has aligned herself with the “in crowd” on the AGW debate.
If one reads the entire interview, it is easy to say that she has not.
(Link posted separately)
“Excerpts from an interview of Judith Curry, Ph.D., professor of climatology, Georgia Institute of Technology”
The next sentences are:
So you see that she acknowledges that she “stepped off the reservation” (i.e. took a stand different from the “mainstream” mantra), believes “we should all be skeptical of all science” and differentiates between “scientific skeptics” (someone who looks at the scientific arguments), as are most of the skeptical bloggers on this site and a “political skeptic” (somebody who is getting the skepticism from talk radio), which I have observed does not apply for most of the skeptical (or non-skeptical) bloggers on this site.
But the Q/A at the beginning of the interview really get to the heart of the problem:
I’d say this is a very smart, well-informed and courageous lady, who also has given this whole topic a lot of thought, beyond the one quote you selected, and who has come to the conclusion that there have been errors in and inadequate interpretations of the data which “may have exaggerated the trend in the later half of the 20th century”.
That these exaggerated data were then used to arrive at (also exaggerated) projections of future climate change is fairly obvious, if not directly discussed in the interview.
I can see why many in the “mainstream” in-crowd are unhappy with Curry.
You may not classify her as a “skeptic” (nor would I, per se), but she has certainly expressed scientific skepticism of the “party line” (=IPCC) approach and results.
Max
Link to Judith Curry interview (remove brackets)
[http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=500856&page=285#7118]
Max,
That’s the second time in the last couple of days when you’ve either misunderstood something I wrote or deliberately misinterpreted it.
I was referring to the quoted passage
“It’s complicated. The denial thing is certainly not monolithic. The skeptics don’t agree with each other at all. The scientific skeptics—[hurricane forecaster] Bill Gray and [MIT meteorologist] Dick Lindzen and [University of Alabama climatologist] Roy Spencer—criticize each other as much as we criticize them.”
Can you give me some examples of what Judith Curry is referring to? ie Critical arguments between deniers/sceptics ?
To spell it out: I’m saying she is wrong. Sceptics don’t care enough about ccience to get involved in heated arguments between themselves. Unless, of course, they are about anthropogenic influences on the climate.
Bob_FJ
Thanks for your initial comments on Milkowczi.
He has some fairly elaborate mathematics in support of his hypothesis (plus, as he claims, 61 years of observed data), so it’s not simply “hot air”. I’ll be interested in your thoughts once you have dug deeper into the hypothesis.
I have searched the Internet for refutations (and have found none, so far, which seemed strange to me, as his orginal paper has been out for 3 years now).
As fas as G+T is concerned, I have only seen one (weak) rebuttal (I think by a Dr. Smith), which did not really refute G+T. The “faithful” have done a good job of labeling G+T as “mavericks” who are on the “fringe”, but I have not seen much substantial work leading to an invalidation of G+T. But that’s another story.
Max
Judith Curry was pretty clear in her interview (as she also was on ClimateAudit).
As to her point about differences between rational skeptics of the “dangerous AGW” postulation, let me paraphrase Tolstoy.
Chris Landsea is an expert on tropical storms; he tells us that AGW will not increase the number or intensity of these storms (contrary to IPCC claims to that effect).
Paul Reiter is an expert on vector-borne diseases; he tells us that AGW will not cause an increase in malaria (contrary to IPCC claims to that effect).
Richard Lindzen is an expert on our planets’s climate; he tells us that AGW will not result in dangerous warming of our climate (contrary to IPCC claims to that effect).
These are just three examples. But you see that each of the three are rationally skeptical (in the scientific sense) of totally different parts of the “dangerous AGW” postulation.
As to ”arguments between rational skeptics”, I have seen open disagreements between Spencer and Lindzen (both of whom are rationally skeptical of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis as postulated by IPCC) on some details of negative feedbacks.
I have also just posted Bob_FJ a blog exchange between Vincent Gray and Ferenc Milkowczi, both of whom are also rational skeptics, but apparently do not agree on the hypothesis of “climate equilibrium”, as postulated by Milkowczi.
Lubos Motl (another rational skeptic) has also expressed doubts regarding this hypothesis.
Wiki lists the different views of different skeptical scientists; some of these are directly in contradiction with one another, yet all of the quoted scientists are “rationally skeptical” of the “dangerous AGW” postulation (as promoted by IPCC).
There are other such examples. Just look around you.
Max
PeterM
Now that I have answered your rather convoluted query about disagreements between “rational skeptics” of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, let me get to your statement:
Peter, I have just demonstrated to you that she is right.
Besides being rather silly and judgmental, your statement “Sceptics don’t care enough about science to get involved in heated arguments between themselves. Unless, of course, they are about anthropogenic influences on the climate.” is an oxymoron in itself.
“Scientific skeptics” (as Curry calls them) do, by definition, “care about the science”. They also have differences of opinion (as pointed out above). And these difference may be specifically “about anthropogenic [as well as natural] influences on the climate”.
It is all very clear to me, and I have a hard time seeing why you cannot grasp it (or agree with Curry on that point).
Max
Pete,
I believe that Judith Curry has described herself previously as a “Lukewarmer”………..