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.
Hey TonyB,
Looking at the average annual temperatures of Zurich, Central England and northern California (Orland/Marysville), I must admit I’d rather live in California than either “Central England” or Switzerland(especially now that winter is coming on).
Lucky “Oz-dwellers” (like PeterM and Bob_FJ) or “SoCal cats” (like JZSmith) can only chuckle at our unfortunate plight.
Gimmee some more AGW, please!
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyN,
Reur comment 2549.
Yeah. It was a typo. It’s getting late here in scenic Switz, I’ve had a glass or two of local wine with dinner and I’m going to bed now.
Regards,
Max
TonyN
Before going to bed, yes your notes on Hadley’s CET would be of interest (I’m sure to TonyB as well).
Regards,
Max
Hi Max
Intriguing!
I have approximately plotted Becks figures over my graph back to 1820.
The readings from the ‘mean average’ line down to the lowest temperatures below this line are correct (or very close)in the dates, and correct (or very close) in the temperatures they should correspond to in their ranges from 305 to 350ppm.
The ones from mean average to high temperatures (above the line) are very close in date, temperatures, and amount up to 380ppm. There are some well over 450 which seem to make no sense. However, the interesting thing is they are correct in their date and correct in indicating high temperatures- but according to my graph should never be more than 380.
I have linked Becks original work.
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
I would be interested to see the original readings to see who did them and in what circumstances-in other words was there contamination and should they be discounted?
The thought came to me that either these high readings are plain wrong (most likely) or have we reached the logarithmic curve of co2 and a reading of 450ppm will show the same temperature as one of 380? Pure speculation at this stage of course and surely not possible!
Insert the various readings from 1820 to the Keeling era into the graph and it makes much more sense of the temperature peaks and troughs than the IPCC version of CO2 levels-
Have you ever come across the actual original figures that Beck is working from?
TonyB
Interesting site…..comparing Arctic sea ice dates/years over the last 30 years.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=07&fy=1990&sm=11&sd=07&sy=2008
Addendum: I’d just like to make note that the sea ice extent is greater today than it was at the same date last year……….(It’s getting colder Pete).
Also, the Arctic ice extent is greater on this date than anytime since 2002. CO2 keeps rising and it’s getting colder?
And to think I invested all of that money in carbon credit schemes………..I want a refund.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSR-E_110708.jpg
Max,
What we have in our sights aren’t so much the small emissions of someone living in rural Africa, more the grotesque emissions of those driving V8 powered land cruisers in more affluent countries! I’m not sure if it the same in America, but in Australia there does seem to be a general correlation between the obesity of the driver and size of their vehicles.
Maybe we could start with some forced reduction of carbon emissions, and improve the health of the population at the same time, by having a ‘fat tax’ on high calorie junk food so that these drivers could fit into normal sized vehicles, or even manage to get on to a bike, without buckling the wheels. :-)
I might just point out that energy and carbon emissions are not necessarily the same thing.
Brute,
Re: 2555 Yes an interesting site indeed. But,I would have thought you might want to keep this sort of thing quiet.
Compare the Arctic Ice, at its minimum, early September last year, with the same date in 1980.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=10&fy=1980&sm=09&sd=10&sy=2007
Just explain to me again how world temperatures aren’t really rising but its all due to an ‘Urban Heat Island Effect’.
Brute Reur 2555
“Interesting site…..comparing Arctic sea ice dates/years over the last 30 years.“
What a GREAT site Brute!
1) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comparing Sep 7 2008 with Nov 7 2008, I was amazed at seeing the very high rate of increase in sea-ice and snow, in just 2 months. (mostly perhaps in the latter 6 weeks)
Then, comparing Nov 7 2007, with Nov 7 2008, I affirm that I remain very pleased that I left the UK in 1969 and now live in Oz, ‘cos it looks a lot worse this year for the NH. (Pete would argue that it is BETTER up there for you; whilst he lives snugly and equably in Queensland, Oz)
2) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comparing Sep 7 2007 with Sep 7 2008 and also;
……………Sep 15 2007 with Sep 15 2008; was interesting, in that what is very clearly a regional variation of the Arctic, in comparison to the “published global average T’s” (whilst opposite in sign to Antarctica), has within it significant regional variations between 2007 and 2008. Not only is the “summer” sea-ice larger in 2008, but it is a DIFFERENT SHAPE. For instance, this year, it had the NE passage wide-open, and the NW passage doubtful (?). Last year it favoured the NW passage only (?). (according to my eyeballs)
Thus, if Pete imagines that there is a predictable response to Arctic sea-ice reduction, and “published global average T’s”, then something don’t seem quite right in his thinking!
(Not to remind him of some other related stuff that he has previously ignored or dismissed)
3) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brute Reur 2557
“Also, the Arctic ice extent is greater on this date than anytime since 2002. CO2 keeps rising and it’s getting colder?
And to think I invested all of that money in carbon credit schemes………..I want a refund.”
I can understand you feeling bad and wanting a refund, but we are all free to accept expert advice, good or bad, when making any investments, and I too have some (different) investment regrets. As they say here rather eloquently on bumper stickers etc: Shit Happens!
It all depends on where you tread!
Brute, according to the incriminating graph you cited, to the extent of its record, so far this year, it has been the most rapid NH increase in snow and ice EVER. Yet, it is still Autumn, and there be lots and lots of that yucky cold white stuff up there already!
BUT! Maybe a light at the end of the tunnel in government?
(For Max’s pleasure: BWV 214: Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten!)
Or: (per a Brit translation for that Bach secular cantata title): Resound, ye drums! Ring out, ye trumpets!
My hope:
I imagine Obama will spend some time in Chicago and Washington this winter, maybe even visit Detroit. If you guys up there in USA get much in the way of northerly winds this coming winter, and the aforementioned arctic cooling trends continue, maybe some of you may wonder about AGW. What if for instance various citrus and other crops are destroyed, even down in CA?
Maybe Obama might ponder the situation and ask for expert GW opinion from someone other than Al?
We can but hope.
Meanwhile Brute, make sure your snow-shovel is in good shape, and watch-out for any polar
bears heading south, and getting randy with migrating grizzlies into your back-yard..
Will fishermen be able to drill right through the deeper ice OK on the Great Lakes?…..I despair!
Hi Peter,
Reur #2558. We’re getting into a bit of a philosophical discussion here, but Christy made a good point.
It is the “rich man’s” society that is making all the hullabaloo about CO2 and trying to force the world to reduce its energy consumption.
The leaders of rapidly developing nations like China, India and Brazil are well aware that they need to increase their energy consumption in order to achieve a reasonable standard of living for their populations. As Robin has pointed out, they will not shift their priorities to the “rich man’s” agenda, just because some already affluent politicians, environmental activists and pseudo-scientists tell them they must do so in order to “save the planet from humanity”.
In the very poorest countries it is often the case that those in political power are not really that concerned about the welfare of their populations. Despotic leaders tend to breed impoverished societies and vice versa. The leaders of many of these nations might go along with the “rich man’s” agenda, in the hopes of getting some political or personal advantage out of cooperating. But those leaders who really have the interest of their populations at heart will reject the “rich man’s” agenda of “forcing” a reduction of energy consumption in favor of improving the standard of living of their populations.
We can only improve the standard of living outside the “rich man’s” world by helping these nations build an infrastructure that includes bringing inexpensive energy to their populations. This will mean building electrical power plants and distribution systems, so that indoor firewood burning (which kills 1.6 million people annually) can be replaced with electrical stoves. It will mean installing modern water treatment plants and distribution systems (which require electrical power), so that another 2 million people will no longer need to die from lack of access to clean drinking water.
As Christy concluded, “Energy demand will grow because it makes life less brutal and less short.”
That is the issue here, Peter, not a few million obese individuals driving around in gas-guzzlers in the “rich man’s” world.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ and Brute,
I’m not sure if you both have intellectual disabilities and really can’t understand that you need to look at a long term graph, rather than the change from one year to the next, to answer the question of ‘has global warming stopped’, or if like disruptive schoolchildren you are just pretending to not understand.
Anyway, here is the graph, yet again:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_Figure5.png
I would have thought, even to you two, it can’t make any sense at all to answer the question differently every year: “no it hasn’t, no it hasn’t, yes it has, yes it has, no it hasn’t, etc etc”
Max,
I seem to remember reading that half the current residents of Brisbane were born overseas. The Australian government is still accepting new migrants. If you’d like warmer weather, then surely it is much better to move yourself than indulge in the risky business of changing the world’s climate.
Here is what Brisbanites can expect in the coming week.
http://www.weather.com.au/qld/brisbane
Pete,
Reur 2562, and typically many other posts of yours before it:
Would you kindly, as a mater of common blogo-courtesy, please identify by post number, what it is that you MAY BE responding to. (?) (or otherwise if it might be an original or unrelated statement whatever)
Max,
Yes the living conditions of the poorest in the developing countries should be the issue. It is a touching thought. All those hard core climate sceptics in the western world lying awake at night worrying about those less fortunate than themselves.
“It is not so me that that I’m worried about with all these carbon reduction schemes” they’d be saying to their wives. “I wouldn’t mind switching my Hummer for a Hybrid. I’m sure I could just about fit my gun rack on to one. Gee Honey, I’d even give up Hotrod and Monster truck racing, it wouldn’t worry me. But just think of the effect these schemes will have on those poor people in Africa who have to collect firewood to cook on! It just doesn’t bear thinking about.”
The development of many so-called green alternative schemes do have their most practical applications to rural Afican communities. Often, they are a long way from any electricity grid and their best prospect of aquiring affordable supplies of electricity is by the use of solar panels and wind generators. They have much more to gain than they have to lose in the way that technology will change in the 21st century.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “I might just point out that energy and carbon emissions are not necessarily the same thing.”
Yes, Peter, there are other sources of energy than just fossil fuels. On a localized small scale these include wind and solar for electrical power. Hydroelectric, wave and geothermal power are also available on a geographically limited scale. On an economically viable larger scale there is nuclear power (fission). For motor fuel there is sugar-cane ethanol. There will undoubtedly be other new technologies in the future, as fossil fuel reserves begin to be depleted and they become more expensive.
But there is no question that energy consumption (and with it, CO2 generation) of societies is closely linked to their standards of living or degree of affluence (as expressed in per capita GDP). Poor countries like Malawi or Haiti have a very small “carbon footprint” today (0.1 and 0.2 tons CO2 per year per capita). They will only be able to achieve a significant improvement in their standard of living by increasing their energy consumption and carbon footprint drastically.
What is important is the energy efficiency of societies, i.e. how efficient are these economies in their utilization of energy to generate affluence for their populations.
The table shows the “carbon efficiency” for selected major economies. The nations listed represent around 70% of world population. They generate 92% of world GDP and generate 92% of all human emissions of CO2.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2651295468_76552bcfd6_b.jpg
Of the major economies listed, the Japanese economy has the highest “carbon efficiency”, followed by the EU, Brazil and the USA. Russia, China and other ex-USSR nations have the lowest “carbon efficiency”.
Tiny Switzerland is not shown on this listing of major economies. It has the highest “carbon efficiency” of all nations, roughly 2.5 times that of Japan.
As the global use of energy increases (and it certainly will as both population and per capita GDP increase), the emission of CO2 will also increase.
It is important that the “carbon efficiency” of the world’s economies continue to improve as they grow.
I believe that this will happen naturally, as it has done in the past, without the need for carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that will only cripple the already fragile world economy.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur2562: “I seem to remember reading that half the current residents of Brisbane were born overseas. The Australian government is still accepting new migrants.”
Looks like the projected migration of hordes of humans displaced by global warming at home and moving to cooler climes to avoid being fried is not working quite as predicted.
People are strangely moving from colder locations to warmer ones, despite silly predictions by the AGW crowd.
Regards,
Max
Rather than bringing 2-month old charts, Peter (2562), it would be better if you posted the latest NSIDC chart (end-October):
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Oct/N_10_plot.png
You can see for yourself when Brute talks about a major recovery of Arctic sea ice over the past year he is not kidding.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Has global warming stopped?
If this is the question, then there is no need to look at Arctic (or Antarctic) sea ice, tide gauge levels at Tuvalu, the West Antarctica Ice Sheet or any other doubtful “proxy” indicator.
Just look at the thermometers (even those next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots).
All four records (Hadley, GISS, UAH and RSS) show that it has cooled. The tropospheric (satellite) records (with no thermometers located near AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots) show even more cooling than the two surface records.
Those are the facts, Peter, whether you happen to like them or not.
Regards,
Note to TonyB
Reur 2554 “Have you ever come across the actual original figures that Beck is working from?”
Only the references cited by Beck in his papers.
Regards,
Max
Max 2569
Thanks-being a natural sceptic I would like to see the evidence with my own eyes whether it supports my view or not. I shall send an email to Beck’s site and ask the question-after all he might be as guilty of cherry picking carbon figures as Mr Keeling appears to be
TonyB
No, Pete I don’t keep anything “quiet” (I’m a Brute, remember?). You see, this isn’t Real Climate of Joe Romm’s indoctrination web site where censorship and omission are standard operating procedure.
See: BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE
{http}://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
We don’t “adjust” data when it doesn’t fit what the global warming crystal ball…….(computer models)…….indicate it “should” be…..when it undermines the “official” position and is counter to the global warming faith.
Here: If You Don’t Like History, Change It! {http}://icecap.us/images/uploads/NASATEMPS.pdf
We don’t shift and parse words and use inflammatory buzz-words and rhetoric (propaganda) i.e. “Climate Crisis” to frighten schoolchildren and attempt to justify confiscating earnings and keeping poor people poor.
It’s all right there on the table Pete, for everyone to see. Facts are facts. CO2 is rising and Arctic ice is growing in extent. CO2 is rising and global temperatures are dropping. Antarctic ice is increasing.
Attempting to change the facts, after the fact, is the modus operandi of the Alarmist crowd, not here.
Fortunately, TonyN and his sponsors have provided a free and open exchange of objective information and ideas……something that is sorely lacking in the Alarmist world of group think and delusion.
Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored: IPCC’s Pachauri says “warming is taking place at a much faster rate”
7 11 2008
Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored
{http}://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/uah_msu_sept2008.png
From the Sidney Morning Herald
{http}://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/michael-duffy/truly-inconvenient-truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html?page=fullpage
Did I tell you that I was banned over at Climate Progress? (Truly the epitome of Authoritarianism)…….next they’ll come for me and my family for expressing views that undermine the position of “the State” or “promote disharmony” of the Proletariat.
Yes Pete, my eyes are wide open….open enough to see right through this confindence scheme.
Back in the heady days when Mr. Lynas posted his rebuttal to the Whitehouse post on the precursor to this site, the memory of an unusually large melting of Arctic sea ice in 2007 was still a hot news item, as Peter Martin noted in a post of 30 March 2008:
“Sea ice in the Arctic has, in 2007, reached a recorded low.”
There were comments about an ice-free Northwest Passage (which would threaten the economic viability of the Panama Canal), scientific expeditions to the North Pole in kayaks (that got stuck in the ice and had to get rescued), etc.
But what a difference a few months can make!
Sure, the unusually large sea ice recovery in 2008 is no more a “trend” than the unusually large sea ice melting in 2007. It’s just getting a lot less media attention.
No one is talking about an ice-free Northwest Passage these days, and the owners of the Panama Canal (are these the Chinese yet?) can heave a sigh of relief.
And if 2009 shows a similar rebound as 2008 (and the Arctic sea ice goes back to its 1979-1980 extent in two short years after reaching an all-time low) there will be even less media attention. Even The New York Times (which advertises that it brings “all the news that’s fit to print”) will probably find this news is not “fit to print”.
Max
Max,
Almost there…….
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
On the precursor to this site, a blogger (stargazer?) posted this comment concerning solar influence on our climate:
“Something caused the warm holocene periods and the cool holocene periods.e.g the holocene optimum(s), the Roman warm period, and the modern warm period, and the cool periods in between when the sunspot cycle was low as listed here.
Oort (1010-1050)
Wolf (1280-1340)
Spörer (1415-1534)
Maunder (1645-1715)
Dalton (1790-1840)
A simple linear fit and extrapolation of the start dates reveals that the next “big” minimum should have started around 2005.”
Did it start (a few years late) in late 2007?
Solar cycle 24 is still at a very low level of activity and blank of sunspots, as it has been since January.
What do solar scientists project for the next decades?
Max
Yeah, Brute.
It is discouraging that Dr. Pachauri has to lie openly about the temperature trend of the past decade in order to keep the AGW myth alive.
But, hey, it’s pretty logical that he would do so.
His nice job depends upon it.
Regards,
Max