THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Over 50 scientists at CERN are interested in just one spect of the Sun
Geneva, 19 October 2006. A novel experiment, known as CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets), begins taking its first data today with a prototype detector in a particle beam at CERN1, the world’s largest laboratory for particle physics. The goal of the experiment is to investigate the possible influence of galactic cosmic rays on Earth’s clouds and climate. This represents the first time a high energy physics accelerator has been used for atmospheric and climate science.
The CLOUD experiment is designed to explore the microphysical interactions between cosmic rays and clouds. Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth’s atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest that cosmic rays may influence the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance, and changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate. The CLOUD prototype experiment aims to investigate the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of new aerosols.
Understanding the microphysics in controlled laboratory conditions is a key to unravelling the connection between cosmic rays and clouds. CLOUD will reproduce these interactions for the first time by sending a beam of particles – the “cosmic rays” – from CERN’s Proton Synchrotron into a reaction chamber. The effect of the beam on aerosol production will be recorded and analysed.
The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. “The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area” says the CLOUD spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby of CERN. “CERN is a unique environment for this experiment. As well as our accelerators, we bring the specialist technologies, experimental techniques and experience in the integration of large, complex detectors that are required for CLOUD.” An example in the present CLOUD prototype is the gas system, designed by CERN engineers, which produces ultra-pure air from the evaporation of liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen. “It’s probably the cleanest air anywhere in the world”, says Kirkby.
The first results from the CLOUD prototype are expected by the summer of 2007. The full CLOUD experiment includes an advanced cloud chamber and reactor chamber equipped with a wide range of external instrumentation to monitor and analyse their contents. The temperature and pressure conditions anywhere in the atmosphere can be re-created within the chambers, and all experimental conditions can be controlled and measured – including the “cosmic ray” intensity and the contents of the chambers. The first beam data with the full CLOUD experiment is expected in 2010.
Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm
David, 221,
You wrote
Bob_FJ (211) — NO. The final point, plotted above about 2005 CE, is the average for the eight years 2000–2007 from the HadCRUTv3 global annaul temperature anomaly product.
This was in response to my:
“…my single simple question remains; regardless of how Tamino MSU for his end result;
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE FINAL DATA POINT ON HIS 10-YEAR BLOCK-AVERAGED CHART IS OF THE YEAR 2005 AD?”
Can I take that to mean YES?
(That is to say that the large black dot at the top right end of the plotted graph line, or the final data point, is located at the year 2005 AD)
David,
It has gone quiet since my lunchtime visit, but to follow-up this evening, just to attempt to make myself clear;
When you said NO;
You really meant YES?
Brute 227,
Your link concludes with:
“Couldn’t most of this global warming simply be part of some natural cycle?”
That seems tobe an evidently sound proposition!
Well, assuming that the published global average T data is somewhat relevant, and that we don’t get confused by regional variations, then I think the answer has to be:
YES, SI, DA, JA, et al
David: OK so your position is that, because the IPCC is careful to make “projections” rather than “predictions”, it doesn’t matter that they are unreliable. That would be fine if those projections, though unreliable, were not being accepted by the political classes and media (in the Western world) as reliable predictions on the basis of which damaging economic changes are being forced onto voters. Fortunately, voters are becoming aware of the deception.
Hi David,
Instead of addressing the many studies I cited that show a significant solar impact on climate, you came with the statement, “And by the way, it is not quite, quite clear that poster manacker is so driven by his own agenda that he refuses to look at the papers which use actual data to establish a range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity.”
The 3K figure (for 2xCO2) is a computer-generated artifact, David. You don’t need it to explain the past 100 years (or past 50 years) of actually observed warming. It is superfluous, so to speak.
Give me the observed facts over a GIGO computer study every time, David. I know computer studies are your “cup of tea”, but I prefer facts (the scientific approach, that is).
As to current temp (2008) being the highest in 7000 years, despite the fact that the record shows that 2008 is significantly colder than just 2005 (or 1998, for that matter), do you spot an inconsistency in your story, David? Seems pretty clear to me.
Regards,
Max
Hi David,
Brute was very much to the point in his statement to you:
“But to suggest that mankind’s existence on this planet is entirely responsible for a ½ of 1 degree temperature variation over 100 years and exclude the Sun’s influence is absurdly ridiculous.”
If you step back from your GIGO GCM projections for a few minutes and look at the basic facts of life, I think you have to admit that Brute is “spot on”.
Open your mind to the real world, David.
Regards,
Max
Hi David,
In your #222 you actually cited a study that defended the discredited Mann et al. hockey stick! Unbelievable!
That’s tenacity, written in capital letters.
It’s also an amazing display of “denial of facts”, David. Mann et al. has been shown by many studies and analyses to have been a piece of “bad science”. The first of these was:
S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003. “Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series,” Energy & Environment, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 751-771.
A report by Edward Wegman (given as testimony to a U.S. congressional committee) concludes: “Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
The “peer review” process that allowed this “bad science” to slip through was also shown to be inbred and ineffectual.
Wegman also made reference to other studies, which show that current temperatures (decade of the 1990s) were not higher than those during the Medieval Warm Period.
In addition to a plethora of historical record and physical evidence, there are, of course, other non-bristlecone pine paloeoclimate studies which confirm a global Medieval Warm Period with temperatures higher than today.
David, get real.
Regards,
Max
Hi David,
You wrote: “so there is no hancky-pankey. But the paleodata used to determine climate sensitivity is from ice cores.
You ought to read about it.”
Believe Wegman answered the “no hancky-pankey” part of your statement, by pointing out that that is exactly what allowed the bad science of the “hockeystick” to slip through peer review by Mann’s cronies.
Now to the report. Your cited article by Osborn/Briffa (two of Mann’s “buddies”, as Wegman pointed out)states: “Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.”
This does NOT AT ALL confirm the Mann hockey stick, David. In fact it confirms that there WAS a MWP. It just says that comparing current actual temperatures with the proxy studies shows a different “spatial extent”. Duh!
David. I suggest you physically READ articles which you cite before citing them. It will really keep you from repeatedly shooting yourself in the foot and looking silly in the process.
Regards,
Max
Robin, Brute, Max, etc… you will all enjoy your good friend Joe Romm’s latest piece, “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
This guy seems like he’d also like to establish AGW Commission’s like the Human Rights Commission’s in Canada who prosecute ‘hate speech’.
Should have spell-checked my last post. Please substitute “commissions” for “commission’s”.
Sorry!
Guys,
Here’s a hot one by Romm. I haven’t looked at the one JZ posted yet……may be one in the same with different headlines……
http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/30/climate_act/view/index32.html?show=all
Here’s another by Romm.
http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/30/climate_act/view/index32.html?show=all
Note to JZSmith
Thanks for links.
Joe Romm’s hysterical blurb about a “Climate Security Act” is total rubbish, of course, as could be expected from the author.
He does make one valid point:
“Needless to say, if you don’t believe humans are the cause of global warming, you’re not going to believe that humans are the solution to global warming.”
Well put, Joe.
Humans are not the cause of global warming.
Global warming shows signs of having stopped already, despite record human CO2 emissions, kicking “imminent tipping point” predictions and IPCC projections of future warming in the head.
Duh! “It’s the sun, stupid”, not humans, that controls our planet’s climate. Always has been, Joe.
And we can’t control the sun, even if we enact a “Climate Security Act”, as Joe would like to do.
Regards,
Max
Thanks for the Romm link, JZ – but “enjoy” is not perhaps the right verb. I considered a comment but there is so much that would have to be untangled in his piece that I decided to give it a miss. In any case, I have to consider my blood pressure.
BTW thanks for your kind reference to that excellent film “Twelve angry men” (I saw it many many years ago – when it made a big impression) and for your kind comment on my article on this blog – .
Er the link disappeared –
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=95
Hi Brute,
Thanks for your link to Spencer’s report on climate sensitivity; this is very informative.
It would be good reading for David B. Benson to give him a better insight into this topic.
But I doubt he’ll read it (since his mind is already made up).
Regards,
Max
Max, One for you: Climate Sensitivity Study
Oh by the way, the link above (#244) via Greenie Watch
Oh darn… I just noticed that Brute already linked to the report. Sorry!
One for DBB: “It’s not the Sun”
JZ,
It’s alright…..I linked to an article by Romm, (twice) that you posted earlier…….Seems as if the pace is picking up a bit today!
JZ Smith (247) — I’ve seen projections by solar scientists which are all over the map. In any case, his estimate of the global temperature change is much, much too high.
manacker (240) — Its not the sun:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
and Spencer’s paper completely ignores the ice core temperature records: with such low sensitivity there would be no cycling between stades and interstadial or interglacial periods.