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.

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

  1. PeterM

    You apparently actually “believe” that investing trillions of dollars into doubtful schemes in the hopes of mitigating against what physicist Dennis Rancourt refers to as “strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass” is a good investment.

    I do not (even though I am, like you and Brute, a member of the “First World middle class”).

    So you should be allowed to invest your money into this cause.

    And Brute and I should be allowed to refrain from doing so (and invest our money into causes, which we feel are more worthwhile).

    Makes sense, doesn’t it? Sounds to me like a “win-win solution” for everyone.

    One could arrange, on a strictly voluntary and democratic basis, a collection or, better yet, an automatic monthly payment scheme for all those, who truly believe that mitigation against AGW is important. It could be tied to each individual’s estimated “carbon footprint” as a sort of “feel good” atonement or “guilt tax”.

    Would you have any objection to this approach?

    If so, what would it be?

    (This is a serious question, Peter.)

    Max

  2. Max 1501

    I am very worried about a repeat of a Carrington event. There is empirical evidence that it happened before (in 1859) and a repeat is considered certain by top Solar scientists. It would destroy our civilisation.

    http://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20-%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf

    I want to try and find ways of averting this disaster, or at least to mitigate it. I am looking for 8 Trillion dollars to fund it, which sounds very good value to me compared to the projected future GDP of the world (which of course won’t happen if it is destroyed by a Carrington event).

    I will be looking for various people to do research and write impressive papers with lots of graphs. Are you interested in a senior position?

    No doubt as Peter will readily recognise this to be a much greater and more quantifiable disaster that is based on actual evidence he will also want to become involved and put theoretical CAGW on the back burner for the time being.

    Tonyb

  3. PeterM

    I see that your brain works in strange and mysterious ways.

    Brute posts links to an article by a physicist who says (among other things) that the man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a

    corrupt social phenomenon

    It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else

    I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.

    In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized

    Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass

    Out of all this, your brain distills this down to:

    It is probably slightly off topic but the comment of your Marxist ally that AGW is due to some deficiency of the 1st world “middle-class” is not untypical. They seem to hate the “middle-class” more than the ruling class, and the term is often used as a form of derision against those they perceive to be “class enemies”. Which is quite odd especially as they, like Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh , usually come from the middle classes themselves anyway.

    Peter, get it through your head. Rancourt is not discussing the Marxists’ political dislike of the “middle class” (from which he and some notable Marxist leaders originated).

    He is telling us (as a physicist) that the “global warming myth is a red herring”, a “corrupt social phenomenon”, pushed by “power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations”, and that it is “an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass”.

    I agree with his conclusions, but you have apparently failed to grasp what he is telling us as a physicist, and are instead sidetracking to a vague off-topic discussion of Marxist politics.

    Max

  4. Just to say here‘s a transcript of last Monday’s Newsnight programme on the BBC: “The disastrous floods in Pakistan – is global warming a factor?”


  5. TonyB

    I can share your deep concern about a future catastrophic Carrington event.

    Your suggestion to put a future catastrophic Carrington Event on the front burner and toss the computer-generated AGW hobgoblin into the trash heap of history makes good sense (the AGW fad has begun to lose its “oomph” and it is high time for something new, in any case).

    Before we can do this, though, we need to identify and mobilize the powerful political and economic forces that will benefit from a new Carrington-disaster craze (TonyN’s “very convenient network”).

    In itself, this should not be too hard to do, once these forces smell the prospect of major financial or political gain.

    I do see one problem: a future Carrington event cannot easily be tied to perceived human guilt (as has been so cleverly done with AGW in the “rich man’s world” in order to invoke the Judeo-Christian “morality” issue).

    Politicians should be easy to switch over: they shift with the wind and love to talk of “change” (and this would be a great example). The “Mencken principle” could also work well here.

    I do not readily see the potential of obscene amounts of money coming from a direct or indirect tax scheme (as is a major driving force for the AGW hysteria), but I am sure that the politicians can figure this one out.

    Getting the scientists on board should be no problem at all, once taxpayer funding for research grants can be assured (this may be a slightly different group than the current “mainstream gurus”, but the computer nerds will be a key part of creating a new virtual hobgoblin, as they are now).

    The media should be a pushover here. They are already tiring of AGW (which has become boring and no longer sells that well with the public).

    Industrial corporations should also be easy to convert; I can imagine whole new industries popping up like mushrooms after a summer rain once the gravy train starts rolling.

    With a few minor changes in delegates and political appointees, the IPCC could actually stay in place as is, with a slight modification in name to “Intergovernmental Panel for Carrington Catastrophe”.

    Guys like PeterM may be more difficult. Changing religions does not happen at the drop of a hat. But if one can tie it to the proper political ideology…
    Who knows?

    Max

  6. Max,

    If Rancourt, as a physicist, is telling us anything about AGW shouldn’t he be illustrating his argument with explanations of such things as the absorption of IR by CO2 and water vapour? I don’t see anything scientific at all – just some mutterings about the defiencies of the middle class.

    If scientists are considered to be middle class, as most scientists probably would consider themselves to be, I suppose he could argue that the science of AGW has indeed come from the middle classes. However, if he were to read his Marx he would find that capitalism has “converted the physician, the lawyer, …. the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.”

    So on a strictly Marxist interpretation he should be arguing that it has come from the western proletariat! But, I suppose the counter-argument might be that the “paid wage labourers” are trying to please their masters in the bourgeoisie so in a sense all classes could be said to be involved.

  7. PeterM

    Your “yes or no” question 1489 misses the point, but I will try to answer anyway.

    Hansen’s proposal is “hare-brained” because it achieves absolutely nothing at exorbitant cost, as the numbers clearly show.

    As I understand them from the brief description given, the IPCC WGIII proposals fit the same description.

    “Wasted money to chase an imaginary hobgoblin”, might be a more acceptable description for you than “hare-brained scheme”.

    Either one will do for me.

    Max

  8. PeterM

    Forget the “middle class” argument and concentrate on what physicist Rancourt tells us about AGW.

    He confirms what many of us have known for some time.

    AGW is not a major potential threat (even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas).

    Rancourt does not need to provide empirical data to support his statement.

    It is up to the proponents of the postulation that AGW is a major potential threat to provide the empirical evidence to support this premise, which they have been unable to do (as Rancourt, being a physicist, knows full well).

    Max

  9. Max and TonyB,

    I can sense the mirth of ignorance in your prattling about solar storms and “Carrington” events.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/

    I’m sure engineers have designed in protection measures as far as is possible to prevent widespread damage. They probably won’t be completely effective though and some future damage can be expected. But really, the threat is just nowhere near the same as the effects from hundreds of years of AGW.

  10. Geoff, further to your 1484

    Badastronomy gives them the same kind of slagging we get from the warmists.

    It is interesting to see this church behaviour demonstrated in V’s Article “A Near Miss”. V’s publisher wrote to the discoverers of radio noise from Jupiter, advising of V’s prediction of this in his yet to be published book; “Earth in Upheaval”. The astronomers replied on April 12, 1955

    Dear Mr. Bradbury: [of Doubleday publishers]
    Your letter of April 7, 1955, referring to our recent radio work has been received.

    In his previous work Dr. Velikovsky has shown a willingness to make frequent speculations on the vaguest (and frequently incorrect) physical grounds. It is not surprising that an occasional near miss should be found in the large number of wild speculations that Dr. Velikovsky has produced, but such a coincidence could never be regarded as a true prediction.

    We do not feel anything would be gained from a meeting with Dr. Velikovsky.
    Sincerely,
    Bernard F. Burke
    Kenneth L. Franklin

    What can be said is that the astronomers could not have possibly read V’s manuscript, and it would also seem unlikely that they read “Worlds in Collision”, since it was unnecessary, given the edicts from on high. (some of whom officials proudly declared that they had not and will not read it)

    It is a pity that Einstein died long before some of V’s other predictions such as Venus’ high temperature and anomalous rotation were confirmed by probes in the 60’s & 70’s. He was certainly impressed by the Jupiter discovery, but died before his promise of help to V could be implemented.

    All told, V had an impressive array of “near misses”, but whenever I find a second hand bookshop, I head first for the ”science fiction” shelf, where his books may be found.

  11. PeterM

    You gave your unsolicited personal opinion regarding a “Carrington event”:

    the threat is just nowhere near the same as the effects from hundreds of years of AGW

    Without getting into the potential impact of a major Carrington event, let’s look at your statement.

    Over the past 100 years we have had 0.7C warming with no noticeable negative impact, and only around half of this is attributable to AGW, with the rest most likely caused by natural forcing.

    100 years of future AGW = 0.5 to 1.5C warming above today’s temperature, depending on whose estimate you believe (based on the evidence out there, I have concluded that the low end of the estimate is more likely, as this also checks well with the past warming).

    Doesn’t sound like a very big deal to me, Peter.

    Max

  12. Good news Pete!

    Thanks to Obama’s new “green” initiative the government is relaying the railroad tracks in my area. A buddy of mine works for the railroad and there is a mountain of creosote impregnated railroad ties available to me for free!

    I appropriated a circa 1920’s coal fired boiler from a downtown apartment house……and the railroad worker has an awesome machine at the yard that cracks/breaks the ties into firebox size lengths. I’ve run water pipes from the boiler to all of the outbuildings at the Brute compound and will heat the entire site with free Obama provided railroad ties this season………isn’t that great!

    My next project is procuring an Army surplus electrical generator from the local armory………this thing is a monster and will burn most anything………I get used motor oil (thanks to a guy I know that will divert it from the local waste depot) and I’ll have free electricity!

    And you thought I wasn’t environmentally friendly…………

    Recycling the railroad ties and the used motor oil will save more polar bears than you could begin to dream of…………and me and Mrs. Brute will save tons of money!

  13. PATTERSON: Al Gore’s global-warming crusade shrinks

    Eco-autocrats are exposed as frauds

    Take, for example, the infamous “hockey stick” graph, a version of which was featured prominently in Mr. Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” The graph appeared to show global temperatures relatively flat for a millennium and then suddenly spiking upward in the late 20th century – proof, according to Mr. Gore and his acolytes, of man-made global warming caused by industrial carbon emissions.
    Temperature records for the past century are based on instrumental data: thermometers, satellites, etc. For prior centuries, however, scientists rely on proxy data; in the case of the original hockey-stick graph, researchers relied on tree rings. But as Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, writes in “The Great Global Warming Blunder,” “the most recent tree-ring data do not even show the warming that occurred in the second half of the 20th-century, but appear to indicate a cooling instead.” Because tree rings do not show the recent warming that we know occurred, it follows that tree rings are not an adequate proxy by which we can accurately gauge past temperatures.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/24/al-gores-global-warming-crusade-shrinks/?page=1

  14. Peter #1509

    I grow ever moe convinced you don’t read your own links.

    “More than 35 years ago, I began drawing the attention of the space physics community to the 1859 flare and its impact on telecommunications,” says Louis J. Lanzerotti, retired Distinguished Member of Technical Staff at Bell Laboratories and current editor of the journal Space Weather. He became aware of the effects of solar geomagnetic storms on terrestrial communications when a huge solar flare on August 4, 1972, knocked out long-distance telephone communication across Illinois. That event, in fact, caused AT&T to redesign its power system for transatlantic cables. A similar flare on March 13, 1989, provoked geomagnetic storms that disrupted electric power transmission from the Hydro Québec generating station in Canada, blacking out most of the province and plunging 6 million people into darkness for 9 hours; aurora-induced power surges even melted power transformers in New Jersey. In December 2005, X-rays from another solar storm disrupted satellite-to-ground communications and Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation signals for about 10 minutes. That may not sound like much, but as Lanzerotti noted, “I would not have wanted to be on a commercial airplane being guided in for a landing by GPS or on a ship being docked by GPS during that 10 minutes.”

    Yes I have actually done some research on this as opposed to you doing a quick google. As part of a related project I asked five of the biggest infrastructure suppliers of services in the UK as to what measures had been taken to protect electronic devices likely to be affected. This covered such basics as water, waste disposal, electricity.

    I won’t pretend it to be comprehensive but only one service provider had actually heard of a Carrington event let alone knew of its potential effects. No one had-or intended to- do anything about it unless instructed by the Government.

    Needless to say they had all heard of AGW.

    The serious point I wished to make is that there are many things that I consider to be of greater importance than AGW for the simple reason that we have evidence that they are real. This was one example of something that that has actually happened in the past and will happen again.

    Its effect will be to almost instantly destroy modern life on earth and throw us suddenly back to the pre industrial society that you appear to admire (as we weren’t then producing quantities of Co2 that fuelled our civilisation.)

    You are living in a dream world if
    A) You believe we have prepared for this
    b) It won’t happen
    c) That highly theoretical CAGW is much more important than something we have empirical evidence on and that top solar scientists agree is a major problem, (re-read what Hathaway said in your link plus my own first link)

    You concluded

    “But really, the threat is just nowhere near the same as the effects from hundreds of years of AGW.”

    I quite agree Peter, the effect will be much worse (especially as AGW has yet to be proven)

    Why you would ignore such a thing as this yet enthusiastically promote something that appears to be a minor concern-if it exists at all-is somehing that others might care to comment on.

    tonyb

  15. Brute,1513;
    It was also notably chilly in South Africa during the “World Football Cup” last June.

    500 African penguins freeze to death in South Africa
    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6086915-500-african-penguins-freeze-to-death-in-south-africa
    Other reports give ~600 deaths

  16. Brute and Bob_FJ

    Just shows how uninformed those Bolivian fish and South African penguins really are (1513/1516): freezing to death by the millions when GISS and Hadley both tell us this is poised to become a “record hot year”.

    Peter needs to straighten out these dumb creatures.

    Max

  17. Max #1505

    I think the mane IPCC is a splendid one as I understand the organisation already bearing that name is likely to become defunct soon. I am of course worried that the existing holders have a poor reputation which I hope we won’t inherit.

    As you say;

    ‘Guys like PeterM may be more difficult. Changing religions does not happen at the drop of a hat. But if one can tie it to the proper political ideology…’

    Peter has exhibited this with his comment about our mirth of ignorance and his scorn over the effects of something that has happened in the past, against which we are making no preparations whatsover as our whole attention is focused on promoting what you describe as a religion.

    Seems illogical to me for Peter to scorn empirical evidence.

    Tonyb

  18. TonyB

    You write:

    Seems illogical to me for Peter to scorn empirical evidence.

    I would agree, Tony. To me his disdain for empirical evidence points to the suggestion that he does not see AGW as a “science” (despite his claims to the contrary), but rather as a dogmatic “belief”.

    An essay entitled “An Introduction to Science” defines “science”, “reliable” (or “scientific”) “ knowledge”, “scientific” (or “critical”) “thinking” and the “scientific method”.
    http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html

    It appears to be quite pertinent to our discussion here, so I will quote excerpts.

    Science is a method of investigating nature–a way of knowing about nature–that discovers reliable knowledge about it. In other words, science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. There are other methods of discovering and learning knowledge about nature … but science is the only method that results in the acquisition of reliable knowledge.

    Reliable knowledge is knowledge that has a high probablility of being true because its veracity has been justified by a reliable method.

    Science is a method that allows a person to possess, with the highest degree of certainty possible, reliable knowledge (justified true belief) about nature. The method used to justify scientific knowledge, and thus make it reliable, is called the scientific method. I will explain the formal procedures of the scientific method later in this essay, but first let’s describe the more general practice of scientific or critical thinking.

    The Three Central Components of Scientific and Critical Thinking

    The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasonsing (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical attitude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one’s beliefs). These three ideas or principles are universal throughout science; without them, there would be no scientific or critical thinking. Let’s examine each in turn.

    The first principle is “Empiricism: The Use of Empirical Evidence”:

    Empirical evidence is evidence that one can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell; it is evidence that is susceptible to one’s senses. Empirical evidence is important because it is evidence that others besides yourself can experience, and it is repeatable, so empirical evidence can be checked by yourself and others after knowledge claims are made by an individual. Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence that possesses these attributes and is therefore the only type used by scientists and critical thinkers to make vital decisions and reach sound conclusions.

    The most common alternative to empirical evidence, authoritarian evidence, is what authorities (people, books, billboards, television commercials, etc.) tell you to believe. Sometimes, if the authority is reliable, authoritarian evidence is reliable evidence, but many authorities are not reliable, so you must check the reliability of each authority before you accept its evidence. In the end, you must be your own authority and rely on your own powers of critical thinking to know if what you believe is reliably true.

    Some authoritarian evidence and knowledge should be validated by empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and critical thinking before you should consider it reliable, and, in most cases, only you can do this for yourself.

    The above paragraphs describe how a rational skeptic searches for “empirical evidence” in order to validate or falsify the “authoritarian evidence”, which others (in this case IPCC) “tell you to believe”. Peter has not chosen to question the IPCC claims critically by insisting on their validation by empirical evidence (the point you made earlier).

    Part 2 covers “Rationalism: The Practice of Logical Reasoning”:

    Scientists and critical thinkers always use logical reasoning. Logic allows us to reason correctly, but it is a complex topic and not easily learned.

    Emotional thinking, hopeful thinking, and wishful thinking are much more common than logical thinking, because they are far easier and more congenial to human nature. Most individuals would rather believe something is true because they feel it is true, hope it is true, or wish it were true, rather than deny their emotions and accept that their beliefs are false.

    Often the use of logical reasoning requires a struggle with the will, because logic sometimes forces one to deny one’s emotions and face reality, and this is often painful.

    To part 3, “Skepticism: Possessing a Skeptical Attitude” the treatise continues:

    The final key idea in science and critical thinking is skepticism, the constant questioning of your beliefs and conclusions. Good scientists and critical thinkers constantly examine the evidence, arguments, and reasons for their beliefs. Self-deception and deception of yourself by others are two of the most common human failings. Self-deception often goes unrecognized because most people deceive themselves. The only way to escape both deception by others and the far more common trait of self-deception is to repeatedly and rigorously examine your basis for holding your beliefs. You must question the truth and reliability of both the knowledge claims of others and the knowledge you already possess. One way to do this is to test your beliefs against objective reality by predicting the consequences or logical outcomes of your beliefs and the actions that follow from your beliefs. If the logical consequences of your beliefs match objective reality–as measured by empirical evidence–you can conclude that your beliefs are reliable knowledge (that is, your beliefs have a high probability of being true).

    In the case of the AGW hypothesis as promulgated by IPCC, there have been predictions of warming made in the 1980s. These have been shown to be exaggerated, with only the lowest estimates of a very wide range approaching the observed reality. This would lead to the conclusion that the hypothesis has not “matched the objective reality as measured by empirical evidence”, and should therefore be rejected or modified. (More on this topic below, under “testing a hypothesis”).

    In discussing the “scientific method” the treatise states:

    The scientific method, as used in both scientific thinking and critical thinking, follows a number of steps.

    One must ask a meaningful question or identify a significant problem, and one should be able to state the problem or question in a way that it is conceivably possible to answer it. Any attempt to gain knowledge must start here. Here is where emotions and outside influences come in.

    Many outside factors can come into play here. Scientists must choose which problems to work on, they decide how much time to devote to different problems, and they are often influenced by cultural, social, political, and economic factors. Scientists live and work within a culture that often shapes their approach to problems; they work within theories that often shape their current understanding of nature; they work within a society that often decides what scientific topics will be financially supported and which will not; and they work within a political system that often determines which topics are permitted and financially rewarded and which are not.

    Also, at this point, normally nonscientific emotional factors can lead to divergent pathways. Scientists could be angry at polluters and choose to investigate the effects of pollutants; other scientists could investigate the results of smoking cigarettes on humans because they can earn a living doing this by working for tobacco companies.

    Then to “post-modernism” in “science”:

    There exists a school of thought today in the humanities (philosophy, history, and sociology) called post-modernism or scientific constructivism, that claims that science is a social and cultural construct, that scientific knowledge inevitably changes as societies and cultures change, and that science has no inherently valid foundation on which to base its knowledge claims of objectivity and reliability. In brief, post-modernists believe that the modern, scientific world of Enlightenment rationality and objectivity must now give way to a post-modern world of relativism, social constructivism, and equality of belief. Almost all scientists who are aware of this school of thought reject it, as do I; post-modernism is considered irrelevant by scientists and has had no impact on the practice of science at all.

    An extension of post-modern science is the premise that because the consequences of “dangerous AGW” are potentially so devastating to humanity itself, the hypothesis should not be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method, but mitigation steps should be initiated immediately “just in case” (a.k.a. the “precautionary principle”). Obviously this has nothing to do with science anymore.

    One must next gather relevant information to attempt to answer the question or solve the problem by making observations. The first observations could be data obtained from the library or information from your own experience. Another souce of observations could be from trial experiments or past experiments. These observations, and all that follow, must be empirical in nature–that is, they must be sensible, measurable, and repeatable, so that others can make the same observations.

    Now one can propose a solution or answer to the problem or question. In science, this suggested solution or answer is called a scientific hypothesis, and this is one of the most important steps a scientist can perform, because the proposed hypothesis must be stated in such a way that it is testable. A scientific hypothesis is an informed ,testable, and predictive solution to a scientific problem that explains a natural phenomenon, process, or event. In critical thinking, as in science, your proposed answer or solution must be testable, otherwise it is essentially useless for further investigation. Most individuals–noncritical thinkers all–stop here, and are satisfied with their first answer or solution, but this lack of skepticism is a major roadblock to gaining reliable knowledge. While some of these early proposed answers may be true, most will be false, and further investigation will almost always be necessary to determine their validity.

    Next, one must test the hypothesis before it is corroborated and given any real validity. There are two ways to do this. First, one can conduct an experiment. This is often presented in science textbooks as the only way to test hypotheses in science, but a little reflection will show that many natural problems are not amenable to experimentation, such as questions about stars, galaxies, mountain formation, the formation of the solar system, ancient evolutionary events, and so forth. The second way to test a hypothesis is to make further observations. Every hypothesis has consequences and makes certain predictions about the phenomenon or process under investigation. Using logic and empirical evidence, one can test the hypothesis by examining how successful the predictions are, that is, how well the predictions and consequences agree with new data, further insights, new patterns, and perhaps with models. The testability or predictiveness of a hypothesis is its most important characteristic. Only hypotheses involving natural processes, natural events, and natural laws can be tested; the supernatural cannot be tested, so it lies outside of science and its existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to science.

    If the hypothesis fails the test, it must be rejected and either abandoned or modified. Most hypotheses are modified by scientists who don’t like to simply throw out an idea they think is correct and in which they have already invested a great deal of time or effort. Nevertheless, a modified hypothesis must be tested again.

    This is the key weakness of the hypothesis that most of the recent warming has been caused by AGW and that AGW represents a serious potential threat. It has “failed the test”. In fact, many of the recent empirical observations have falsified the hypothesis (ex: “missing heat”, observed net negative feedback from clouds, etc.) But, instead of rejecting and abandoning the hypothesis, various rationalizations are proposed to “explain” why the observed data are either inaccurate or can be rationalized away with alternate hypotheses (ex: mid-century cooling caused by human aerosols, lack of observed warming rationalized away with “hidden in the pipeline” postulation, etc.)

    If the hypothesis passes the further tests, it is considered to be a corroborated hypothesis, and can now be published. A corroborated hypothesis is one that has passed its tests, i.e., one whose predictions have been verified. Now other scientists test the hypothesis. If further corroborated by subsequent tests, it becomes highly corroborated and is now considered to be reliable knowledge.

    This step has not occurred for the “dangerous AGW” premise; in other words, it is still an “uncorroborated hypothesis” in the scientific sense.

    Scientists never claim that a hypothesis is “proved” in a strict sense (but sometimes this is quite legitimately claimed when using popular language), because proof is something found only in mathematics and logic, disciplines in which all logical parameters or constraints can be defined, and something that is not true in the natural world. Scientists prefer to use the word “corroborated” rather than “proved,” but the meaning is essentially the same. A highly corroborated hypothesis becomes something else in addition to reliable knowledge–it becomes a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it. This type of reliable knowledge is the closest that humans can come to the “truth” about the universe (I put the word “truth” in quotation marks because there are many different kinds of truth, such as logical truth, emotional truth, religious truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, etc.; it should be clear that this essay deals with scientific truth, which, while certainly not the sole truth, is nevertheless the best truth humans can possess about the natural world).

    “Dangerous AGW” is obviously several steps away from this status, and based on the empirical evidence observed so far, it appears very doubtful that it will ever become a “scientific fact” or “truth”, but will remain an “uncorroborated hypothesis”, or even eventually be discarded as a “falsified hypothesis”, which has been invalidated by the observed “empirical data”.

    But this is very hard for Peter to accept, as you say.

    Max

  19. Brute and Bob_FJ

    Eureka! We’ve got the answer (at least for why all the tropical fish in Bolivia are freezing to death, even if it may not cover the frozen South African penguins, as well).

    The cause of this disaster is (believe it or not!)

    CLIMATE CHANGE (a.k.a. “anthropogenic global warming”)

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/27/nature-notices-bolivia.html

    Max

  20. TonyB

    Back to your proposal to shift the fizzling effort on AGW to a new, sexier and more realistic potential disaster scenario from a “Carrington event”.

    Pachauri would have to go, of course, as would the guys incriminated by Climategate and a few die-hards like Hansen (who should retire from active government pay in any case), but the political cats (who don’t know anything about the science anyway) could stay on to spread the new political message. I think we could get Gore lined up as well, if we can promise him a major cut of the action plus maybe a new Nobel Peace Prize.

    We still need to solve the potential tax issue – with no prospect of trillions of (publicly funded) dollars, it will be hard to get the “very convenient network” together.

    And there is still the “human guilt for being affluent” issue, which is harder to construct for this disaster than it was for AGW. Maybe we can tie it to a “back to nature” movement. After all, Stone Age Man would not have been affected much by a Carrington event, so maybe that could be the key. We all need to return to the Stone Age to avoid the disastrous consequences, which an affluent modern world would suffer. This aspect still needs work, Tony.

    Any suggestions you might have are welcome.

    Max

  21. TonyB

    Here are some excerpts from Michael Brooks’ report in New Scientist Magazine on what could happen if a solar storm the size of the “Carrington Event” were to happen today:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html?full=true
    http://chasblogspot.blogspot.com/2009/08/carrington-event.html

    IT IS midnight on 22 September 2012 and the skies above Manhattan are filled with a flickering curtain of colourful light. Few New Yorkers have seen the aurora this far south but their fascination is short-lived. Within a few seconds, electric bulbs dim and flicker, then become unusually bright for a fleeting moment. Then all the lights in the state go out. Within 90 seconds, the entire eastern half of the US is without power.

    A year later and millions of Americans are dead and the nation’s infrastructure lies in tatters. The World Bank declares America a developing nation. Europe, Scandinavia, China and Japan are also struggling to recover from the same fateful event – a violent storm, 150 million kilometres away on the surface of the sun.

    It is clear that a repeat of the Carrington event could produce a catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen. “It’s just the opposite of how we usually think of natural disasters,” says John Kappenman, a power industry analyst with the Metatech Corporation of Goleta, California, and an advisor to the NAS committee that produced the report. “Usually the less developed regions of the world are most vulnerable, not the highly sophisticated technological regions.”

    According to the NAS report, a severe space weather event in the US could induce ground currents that would knock out 300 key transformers within about 90 seconds, cutting off the power for more than 130 million people (see map). From that moment, the clock is ticking for America.

    First to go – immediately for some people – is drinkable water. Anyone living in a high-rise apartment, where water has to be pumped to reach them, would be cut off straight away. For the rest, drinking water will still come through the taps for maybe half a day. With no electricity to pump water from reservoirs, there is no more after that.

    There is simply no electrically powered transport: no trains, underground or overground. Our just-in-time culture for delivery networks may represent the pinnacle of efficiency, but it means that supermarket shelves would empty very quickly – delivery trucks could only keep running until their tanks ran out of fuel, and there is no electricity to pump any more from the underground tanks at filling stations.

    Back-up generators would run at pivotal sites – but only until their fuel ran out. For hospitals, that would mean about 72 hours of running a bare-bones, essential care only, service. After that, no more modern healthcare.

    The truly shocking finding is that this whole situation would not improve for months, maybe years: melted transformer hubs cannot be repaired, only replaced. “From the surveys I’ve done, you might have a few spare transformers around, but installing a new one takes a well-trained crew a week or more,” says Kappenman. “A major electrical utility might have one suitably trained crew, maybe two.”

    Within a month, then, the handful of spare transformers would be used up. The rest will have to be built to order, something that can take up to 12 months.

    Even when some systems are capable of receiving power again, there is no guarantee there will be any to deliver. Almost all natural gas and fuel pipelines require electricity to operate. Coal-fired power stations usually keep reserves to last 30 days, but with no transport systems running to bring more fuel, there will be no electricity in the second month.

    …With no power for heating, cooling or refrigeration systems, people could begin to die within days. There is immediate danger for those who rely on medication. Lose power to New Jersey, for instance, and you have lost a major centre of production of pharmaceuticals for the entire US. Perishable medications such as insulin will soon be in short supply. “In the US alone there are a million people with diabetes,” Kappenman says. “Shut down production, distribution and storage and you put all those lives at risk in very short order.”

    Help is not coming any time soon, either….
    “I don’t think the NAS report is scaremongering,” says Mike Hapgood, who chairs the European Space Agency’s space weather team. Green agrees. “Scientists are conservative by nature and this group is really thoughtful,” he says. “This is a fair and balanced report.”… […]

    The article goes on about some of the things we might do to lessen the threat, but also acknowledges the difficulties of convincing people of the threat, and taking the necessary precautions.

    I have posted before about how our dependency on electricity and computer chips increases our vulnerability to EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) weapons:

    EMP Vulnerability: Could Advanced Electronics be the Achilles’ Heel of our Western Civilization?

    While the emphasis on that post was the danger posed from EMP weapons, the effects of large solar storm/flares share some similarities with EMP events. Both involve fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field, that are damaging to electrical systems. And the safeguards needed to protect our electrical infrastructure from said fluctuations, be they from natural or man-made sources, are largely the same. Yet it’s hard to convince people of the need to protect against something that has never happened in their own experience, or in the case of the Carrington Event, within living people’s memory.

    Even with the solar storm of 1859, there were no advanced electronics. The U.S. electric power industry didn’t even exist yet (it only began in 1882). A comparison with today is difficult.

    Today’s advanced electronics, like computer microchips, are very vulnerable to magnetic field fluctuations, but we have only had them in wide use in recent decades. People aren’t likely to think of the consequences of them failing en-mass, until they do.

    Some people argue that storms like the Carrington Event only occur every 500 years or so, so why worry? But the data and arguments on that assertion are disputed, it’s by no means a certainty. Also, a storm or flare of lesser strength still might do a lot of damage nowadays, given the delicate nature of our advanced electronics. Oddly enough, there could be a blessing in that, if it makes people aware of the danger, and more likely to protect against a larger event. Hopefully we won’t have to learn hard way, by the worst scenario.

    Since 1859, several solar storms about half the strength of the Carrington Event have been observed; but none of those observed flares were moving in the direction of Earth. It may be just a matter of time before one does. Scientists are watching the sun closely. We’ve learned more about the sun in the past decade, than we have in the last 100 years, but we still can’t predict solar flares yet. Hopefully our ability to do that will improve over time. And hopefully, the next big storm we do experience won’t be as big as the Carrington Event.

    You are right, Tony. This makes AGW (even the hysterically hyper-inflated Hansen version) sound like a stroll in the park.

    Max

  22. Max

    Thanks for your two very intersting and long posts. I know this is a subject that Peter Taylor is also very interested in.

    The attention of NGO’s, Government, Business, Media etc are all focused on AGW. I increasingly believe that humanity is unable to face up to more than one ‘disaster scenario’ at a time, witness the periodic scares on Sars, Swine flu etc etc that sweep the world then suddenly die down.

    The end result is that this complete preoccupation with a hypothetical problem-CAGW- is blinding us to other problems of a greater magnitude.

    Personally I think its genuinely scary that modern infrastructure is now completely vulnerable to solar induced problems of the type described, and that there seems to be no plan to ensure that the electronics on which we rely are protected.

    No Fuel, No water, No food, No waste disposal No computers… the list goes on. This isn’t science fantasy it HAS happened before and its only pot luck it hasn’t happened again. The world is uniquely vulnerable to this threat because of the way we have developed, relying on technology but without the means to protect it.

    So should we concentrate on REAL problems, of which a Carrington event is one example of many, or should we spend trillions chasing a chimera called CAGW?

    As you say, this sort of thing hasn’t got the tax dollars potential for Government, nor the almost pseudo religious appeal appeal to those who don’t really seem to like humanity and want to curtail our activities and send us back to the pre industrial world where only the priviliged would thrive.

    Tonyb

  23. Brute 1515

    You are setting a fine example to the rest of us with your impeccable green credentials :)

    Tonyb

  24. Max,

    Your comment “This [a possible Carrington event] makes AGW …..sound like a stroll in the park ”

    The damage from a possible Carrington event, under a worse case scenario, is more comparable with the sort of damage which may be expected in a war of comparable magnitude to WW2 in Europe. That is reversible and the situation is recoverable.

    The worst case for scenario for AGW is one of runaway warming and the Venus effect! That’s not quite so easy to recover from.

    Even under a less than worse case scenario of 3 degrees of warming and a couple of metres of seal level rise, the long term effects will be much more damaging and costly.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


− one = 5

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha