Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2

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

1. Brute says:

   03/10/2010 at 11:30 pm

   Peter was correct all along. Check out this temperature graph of Greenland published by Jimmie Hansen at GISS.

   
2. Brute says:

   03/10/2010 at 11:38 pm

   
3. Brute says:

   04/10/2010 at 1:37 am

   So you are planning to buy ammunition and live in the hills?

   Pete,

   I already have lots of ammunition………

   I saw the advertising campaign regarding 10:10. Very clever Pete……certain to win over loads of converts to your new found religion.

   Tell me……those that refuse to “submit” are “dealt with” in the manner displayed in the video……..but what of the people that aren’t perceived as “doing enough”?

   I suppose incrementally those that fail to follow the ever increasing demands of environmentalist doctrine will be “dealt with” in a similar fashion…………

   Very funny………A real knee slapper Pete.

   You should be proud of your fellow environmentalists and be pleased to be included in such an “enlightened” group.
4. Brute says:

   04/10/2010 at 1:47 am

   Pete,

   Guess when this was published………

   There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

   The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

   To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

   A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

   To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

   Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

   Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

   “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

   Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
5. Bob_FJ says:

   04/10/2010 at 2:08 am

   You remember that “worst drought” in Oz for 1,000 years, (my Victoria being the worst affected state)?

   If no image click: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/5048837157_532706e476_b.jpg

   And, ironically:
   Desalination plant to cost us, even if no water is produced

   UPDATE 10.48am: HOUSEHOLDS will face ballooning water bills with the cost of the controversial desalination plant hitting a whopping $5.72 billion.
   [Victorian] Water Minister Tim Holding has been forced to admit the final cost may be closer to $15.8 billion by the time the contract runs out in 2037.
   And it will be Melbourne households slugged with the overruns through high bills with Melbourne Water ratepayers facing payments of up to $370 a year for the plant – not including the cost of the water.

   Oh, and also ironically, they have had to immobilise the just commissioned water pipe from up north to the Sugerloaf Reservoir, because it was 96% full, (on 30 Sept) but that only cost about $1 billion, so far.

   Both schemes generated a great deal of hostility
6. tempterrain says:

   04/10/2010 at 6:14 am

   Brute,

   I think your latest objection can be classed as “they
   said it was cooling in the 70’s”. “They”, it now seems, were mainly the writers of op-eds who were looking out for a story:
   See http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

   Certainly the position was less certain, then, but even so most climatologists of the time were aware that conditions were warmer than they’d been in previous centuries.

   In any case, and like everything else, knowledge has progressed since then. Wouldn’t you agree?

   Here’s one for Max here about his frequent misinterpretation of Trenberth:

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
7. tempterrain says:

   04/10/2010 at 6:27 am

   Was the 10:10 video in bad taste? I’d say ‘yes it was’ but I asked my kids and they thought it was funny and made a point well.

   Should it have been made? I’d have advised against it but my kids would disagree.

   Does it change the Science of Global warming either way? No. My kids and I do agree on that!
8. Bob_FJ says:

   04/10/2010 at 8:23 am

   Max, Reur 2004 on the “sixth great species extinction“:

   I’d [Max] say that, based on how things appear to be developing, “AGW-doomsayers” will be at the top of the list, even though some specimens may survive in zoos and university campuses.

   Well yes, but according to current popular understanding of the principles laid out by Charles Darwin; whenever there is a vacated ecological niche, it will inevitably become occupied by new species or what were formerly described as rare species.
   I have a feeling, (based on some rather strong evidence), that maybe within the next decade, a new humanoid that I propose to describe as “Homo Frosticus” and/or, possibly a sub-species “Homo Non-Erectus”, will emerge to dominate the religious climate domain for no more than one generation.

   After all, what we don’t hear much about are the facts of constant discovery of new species, most of which are immediately placed on the endangered list because they have been discovered in relatively small regions. (and BTW may have been infected with disease by their discoverers such as happened long ago with South American Indians?)

   Here is JUST ONE of many demonstrations of fauna species discovery:
   http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6058.htm
   EXTRACT from one tab:
   Michael Tyler AO is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was winner of the Michael Daley Eureka Prize for the Promotion of Science in 1997. He has published 23 books and more than 350 scientific papers. Among his many contributions to herpetology he has described 65 new frog species or genera, and reported the first fossil frog from Australia. He is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at The University of Adelaide, Honorary Associate at the South Australian Museum and Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Applied Herpetology.
9. tonyb says:

   04/10/2010 at 10:13 am

   Peter 2031

   I have given you numerous original links in the past demonstrating that the global cooling scare was real, but here you are bringing up the old chestnut yet again and quoting the same discredited sources.

   Here once again is the CIA document from the time.

   http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

   Also the various top scientists of the time were convinced of it. I suggest you read the Hubert Lamb books of the period-he was constantly referring to the various studies that demonstrated its reality.

   tonyb
10. tempterrain says:

    04/10/2010 at 11:57 am

    The CIA is not a scientific organisation.

    Hubert Lamb and others were predicting that the Earth would eventually drift back into a glacial maximum. For the last one million years they have been occurring every 100k years. The last one was 20k years ago so it would be reasonable to predict that we’ll get another in 80k years time. Who knows? But they may yet be correct!
11. manacker says:

    04/10/2010 at 12:11 pm

    PeterM

    Looks like (2032) you’ve got your kids well brainwashed to think like Papa does. Congrats.

    I’m not so worried about the 10:10 video being “in bad taste” (or non-PC). Nor have I given much though to whether or not it was “funny” (in a childish sort of way).

    I just believe that it was unbelievably stupid (as do most people from all sides, based on the Guardian site blogger comments), and that it revealed the dark, intolerant side of the AGW-activist movement to “think as I do or get eliminated”).

    And I further believe that those trying to sell the 10:10 message (who also say they believe that AGW has killed 300,000 people to date) have revealed their own utter stupidity by both the silly video as well as this absurd belief. That’s all.

    What do you think? Was it utterly stupid or not?

    Max
12. tonyb says:

    04/10/2010 at 12:33 pm

    Peter 2035

    Your complete absence of critical facilities has meant that once again you have not read the link. Read the summary first-which will take ten seconds of your life.

    This is a proper scientfic study that was the pre cursor of the IPCC. The material references many of the great and the good of climate science and their institutions.

    You can not just brush it under the carpet-this WAS the thinking at the time.

    Hubert Lamb and the numerous studies cited in the CIA document were talking about recent evidence, not some hypothetical slippage back into another ice age in thousands of years time. Much of this material was then featured in Lambs Book ‘Climate History and the Modern World,’ and other papers he and others wrote
    at the time.

    tonyb
13. manacker says:

    04/10/2010 at 12:38 pm

    PeterM

    You write (2035):

    The CIA is not a scientific organisation.

    True. Neither is the IPCC. Both just gather scientific data to make prognoses.

    Then you add:

    Hubert Lamb and others were predicting that the Earth would eventually drift back into a glacial maximum. For the last one million years they have been occurring every 100k years. The last one was 20k years ago so it would be reasonable to predict that we’ll get another in 80k years time. Who knows? But they may yet be correct!

    Some say that a real full-blown Ice Age (with temperature 6 to 8C colder than today) could come quite a bit sooner, but that there could also be several mini-ice ages such as the LIA (with temperature 1 to 2C colder than today) in between.

    One source tells us
    http://essayweb.net/geology/quicknotes/iceage.shtml

    The retreat of the glaciers at the beginning of the Holocene around 11,000 years ago marked a warming phase in the Earth’s climate. This was the first interglacial in which modern humans existed. As the ice sheets retreated across Europe and the Middle East, the warming climate encouraged the development of agriculture.

    It is unclear how long the current interglacial will last. Earlier studies indicated that we were at the beginning of a new glacial, but more recent data paints a more complicated picture. The current interglacial may in fact last as much as another 10,000 to 15,000 years. The effects of human induced global warming will surely factor into this, but it is unknown precisely how the climate will be affected over the next few thousand years.

    So I would agree with you that the future is anyone’s guess. I’d add that a myopic fixation on AGW alone (as IPCC has taken) will not give us any real answers.

    In hindsight, it is also clear today that the concerns by climate scientists in the 1970s of an upcoming LIA (the “global cooling scare”, to which TonyB refers) were also incorrect (or maybe simply off by 30-40 years?).

    Max
14. James P says:

    04/10/2010 at 1:27 pm

    PeterM

    In any case, and like everything else, knowledge has progressed since then. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Knowledge, perhaps. Scientific rigour, not at all.
15. manacker says:

    04/10/2010 at 1:56 pm

    Bob_FJ

    Thanks for your learned dissertation on new thoughts regarding the popular understanding of the principles laid out by Charles Darwin.

    The 1997 book by Jared Diamond of UCLA, Los Angeles, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies tells the story of the near extinction of the South American Indians (and several less spectacular examples).

    You suggest that [after the extinction of “Homo Globothermotremblinsins”]

    “Homo Frosticus” and/or, possibly a sub-species “Homo Non-Erectus”, will emerge to dominate the religious climate domain for no more than one generation.

    This sub-species has actually existed as a rare species since the 1970s, but it was almost forced into extinction by “Homo Globothermotremblinsins”, who became the dominant player in the religious climate domain for several decades. “Homo Australoglobothermotremblinsisns”, which is known to exist in the Queensland region, is an important, if somewhat rare, sub-sub-species of H.G.

    And I would agree with you that even if H.F. does now emerge to fill the ecological niche vacated by the demise of H.G. it will not be more than a decade before he, too, begins to become extinct and a new sub-species will emerge.

    The only species that seems dominant and invincible is “Homo Scareandtaxus”, who will benefit in symbiosis with both of these transient sub-species, relying on a parasitic relationship with “Homo Taxpayerus” for his own nourishment as well as that of his symbiotic partners.

    Max
16. manacker says:

    04/10/2010 at 2:43 pm

    PeterM

    You cited John Cook’s rationalization (on the pro-DAGW blog site “Skeptical Science”) of “what he [Trenberth] really meant” when he stated that the currently observed “lack of warming” (i.e. global cooling) was a “travesty” and added (2031):

    Here’s one for Max here about his frequent misinterpretation of Trenberth

    Cook’s rationalization is blatantly contrived and plainly ridiculous, Peter. Let me show you why.

    The Trenberth mail reads:
    http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

    This sentence is very easy to understand without a long rationalization (or misrepresentation) from some bloke named John Cook.

    Trenberth himself has said in an interview regarding the “missing energy” (bold face by me):
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it’s probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

    That can’t be directly measured at the moment, however.

    “Unfortunately, we don’t have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they’ve been playing during this period,” Trenberth says.

    In summary:

    · Recent observations (atmosphere plus upper ocean) tell us the planet is cooling
    · We can’t account for this and “it is a travesty that we can’t”
    · The “missing energy” is “probably going back out into space”
    · Clouds can act as a “natural thermostat”, to “either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet”, but we can’t measure this today

    Seems pretty clear to me (even if John Cook – and possibly Peter Martin – may still be struggling with it).

    Max
17. tempterrain says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:07 pm

    Max,

    If you don’t like the IPCC, if they aren’t scientific enough for you, then I suggest you take your scientific input from the US National Academy of Sciences. Or maybe you think they don’t know what they are talking about either?

    If you disagree with John Cook’s interpretation of Kevin Trenberth’s remarks, you must be disagreeing with Kevin Trenberth’s interpretation of Kevin Trenberth’s remarks too! They are both saying pretty much the same thing. See:

    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14167354

    So, either Keith Trenberg knows what he’s talking about or, if he doesn’t, his remarks aren’t worth discussing anyway.

    Incidentally, on the subject of people not knowing what they are talking about and the futility of trying to reason with those who either can’t or won’t understand, then I do wish I could take my own advice at times!
18. manacker says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:24 pm

    PeterM

    You are again flogging a dead horse in again bringing up John Cook’s interpretation of Trenberth’s remarks (which I quoted directly). They do not need an “interpretation”, Peter, as they are crystal clear.

    Just read them. They simply tell us that our planet has cooled recently, that we (Trenberth et al.) “can’t account for this”, that this is “a travesty”, that the missing energy “is probably going back out into space”, that “the Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds”, but that “we don’t have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they’ve been playing during this period”.

    Now if that isn’t clear to you, I can’t help you.

    Cook was apparently confused (or maybe he just didn’t want to understand these very straightforward statements, since they conflicted with his ingrained “dangerous AGW” belief system).

    Who knows the reason for his confusion?

    Who even cares?

    Max
19. Brute says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:25 pm

    Peter,

    Regarding the global cooling hypothesis of the 1970’s, once again, your histrionic personality has overtaken any semblance of reasoned, rational thought.

    The same groups that were prognosticating a new ice age 35 years ago are the very same that are predicting that the earth will become Venus today………The National Academy of Sciences, NASA and NOAA.

    The politicians of today have latched onto “the sky is falling” fear mongering in order to justify their legislative agenda and you’ve been duped into believing it.

    The same charlatans that were selling “miracle”, “free” electricity in 1975 have resurfaced and are peddling their junk to every unsuspecting rube based on junk science provided by the National Academy of Science, NASA and NOAA, et al…………speculations and “maybes” of future climactic catastrophes funded by handouts from the taxpayers to pad their pension funds long enough to fund their cushy retirements…………
20. tempterrain says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:28 pm

    I did say that I thought the 10:10 campaign had gone a little too far with its suggestion of blowing up deniers. Certainly I would have a bit of a problem with the kids, and Gillian Anderson who isn’t even a denier anyway.

    It really shouldn’t go any further than people like James Delingpole, Christopher Monckton, Jeremy Clarkson and that Snr Inhofe guy. Oh Maybe Sarah Palin and Anthony Watts too. I’ll have to make an effort to stop this! Once I get going, I find it just so hard to not just add one or two more names. Like Ian Plimer and Bob Carter and that Joanna Nova woman!

    No really that’s definitely it. At least for now. If you are worried that you might be included, send me your details and, if you are ever put on death row, I promise to do what I can to get you sent to re-education camps instead :-)
21. Brute says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:28 pm

    If you don’t like the IPCC, if they aren’t scientific enough for you,

    They aren’t the least bit “scientific”………they ARE politicians………
22. tonyb says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:44 pm

    Brute #2044

    Peter seems to have back pedalled now on ‘denying’ the global cooling scare. I assume he was old enough to remember it first time round so shouldn’t really need to be reminded of what the scientists wwere saying at the time, as referenced in that CIA document my #2034

    tonyb
23. manacker says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:44 pm

    PeterM

    You opined (2042) that I do not like the IPCC. This is incorrect.

    I do not “like” (or “dislike”) the IPCC, per se. Nor do I “like (or “dislike”) the CIA, for that matter.

    I simply stated that the IPCC “is not a scientific organization” (as you stated also for the CIA).

    Both organizations have their strengths and weaknesses and have had their ups and downs.

    The CIA got a lot of flak regarding its WMD claims in 2001, which turned out to be flawed and skewed to arrive at a false conclusion (due to political pressure to provide support for a proposed agenda?). Its director was eventually forced to resign as a result.

    The IPCC is getting a lot of flak today regarding its AGW claims, which have also turned out to be flawed and skewed to arrive at a false conclusion (due to political pressure to provide support for a proposed agenda?). Its chairman will most likely also be forced to resign as a result.

    Quite a bit of similarity there, Peter.

    Can you see this (or are you blinded by your dislike of the CIA and/or your admiration for the IPCC)?

    Max
24. James P says:

    04/10/2010 at 3:47 pm

    From the Skeptical Science piece:

    If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

    Of course. As with Holy Scriptures, they are far too deep to be taken at face value – they have to be interpreted, preferably by someone who claims to know better than the original author what was meant.

    Curiously, the more they charge for this service, the more infallible they are thought to be, and the greater the punishment for dissenters.

    I see a commenter even says that he didn’t really mean to use the word ‘travesty’, either. Poor man, it seems he didn’t know what he was saying at all!
25. manacker says:

    04/10/2010 at 4:01 pm

    PeterM

    Thanks for your 2045. Pol Pot would be proud of you His “revolution of radical egalitarianism, agrarian collectivism and cleansing of dissidents” seems to suit you.

    But I wouldn’t go so far as to call you a “crank and zealot”, just because you want to cleanse or exterminate some folks that have spoken out in disagreement with your personal version of the DAGW “party line”.

    That would be going too far. Right?

    Max