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.
Bob_FJ — Read #260. I’d like to see the result.
manacker (267) — I know that Willson’s estimate is much, much too high because I’ve done a rather thorough analysis of the GISP2 temperatures for the Holocene: from the lowest temperature (8.2 kya event) to the highest (about 7000 ya) the total variation is only 3+ K.
Amazingly enough, this agrees with tropical data for the 8.2 kya event, 3- K. So there is simply no way for solar variations to cause a change of half this size.
But the GISP2 data is very good. So tell me just which intrvals of what length to look for temperature depressions of even 1 K. Do it based on Willson’s work. Then I can go to the data and show you just how little the (far) North Atlantic temperature changed during those times.
What I do know is that there are no intervals between a decade and a millennium, inclusive, in which the temperature changed, moving from one interval to the next, by more than a fraction of a Kelvin, except for the 8.2 kya event, of course.
David (275): I’m not surprised that few accept the Rutledge analysis. I have no view one way or the other. You go on to say that
Who do you regard as “we”? Not the Chinese or Indians it seems: both are pouring vast funds into the exploitation of coal. See this and this. Even Australia (a recent Kyoto signatory) is contributing: see this.
There may be a problem with my second and third links above (278). Try this and this.
James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, told the US Congress this week that current levels of man-made CO2 emissions meant that the world had long passed the “dangerous level”; he said that the world must get back to 1988 levels – otherwise we faced mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises. He said, “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path … “This is the last chance.” He commented, “The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants.”
So, in view of what’s happening in China and India (278 and 279 above), it seems we’d better get used to the idea that we’ve all had it.
Or perhaps not: see this.
Robin,
Viewing (and participating) in discussions regarding this topic, I see Alarmists distancing themselves from Hansen and Al Gore. It seems that even proponents of global warming feel that guys like these two (and Romm) have “gone off the deep end”. Do you sense that?
They won’t completly abandon Gore and Hansen but they seem to distance themselves from them and take the tactic of explanation of the crazy aunt in the attic…..Someone that they love but is too far gone to publicly embrace.
An interesting observation, Brute. I haven’t heard an alarmist quoting from (or even mentioning) Gore for a long time. And – I hadn’t noticed it before, but I think you may be right about Hansen. Perceptive.
Gore and Hansen ‘off the deep end’? Say it ain’t so!
Here’s a disturbing report.
“When they say ‘it’s not about the money’, it’s about the money.
I did write somewhere, sometime ago, that Hansen should be prominently exhibited. The more the guy opens his mouth, the more out of touch with reality people realize that he is. Give him enough rope to hang himself.
He really has a screw loose.
An interesting view on AGW.
And check out these comments on the above column. Max you’ll especially like the post by Dr. Heinz Hug (Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:37 am)
Robin Guenier (278) — Yes, I know. :-(
Hi JZSmith
Thanks for link to WSJ article on mass delusion.
Fits.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Yes. It is curious how the AGW believers are afraid of any new information that may show that the sun also plays a major role in Earth’s climate.
They may resort to paleoclimate studies (like DBB prefers) to “prove” their point that the solar guys (like Willson et al.) are “wrong” in their estimates of a significant solar component in 20th century warming.
They may try to ridicule studies (such as those addressing the Svensmark hypothesis linking cosmic rays with cloud formation) as “the deniers’ last stand” (RealClimate).
But they all are in direct conflict with the principles of science: more knowledge is better.
It is arrogant to think that “we know all there is to know about what drives climate” or “the science is settled”.
Even guys (like DBB) who have a high opinion of their own intelligence and level of knowledge would have to admit (if they are honest) that there is still a lot more that we do NOT know about what drives Earth’s climate than we DO know.
IPCC has admitted a “low level of scientific understanding” on solar forcing (which they give an insignificant RF of only 0.12W/m^2, compared to CO2 at 1.66 W/m^2).
The world should be happy if this “low level of scientific understanding” could be improved. But yet the AGW “believers” are afraid they may learn something that shatters their AGW paradigm.
Regards,
Max
Hi David B. Benson,
You wrote (#274): “manacker (265) — Spencer is wrong. That is, if his effect is real (and as large as he claims), then there are no interglacials warmer than this one. Checking the many Antarctic ice cores, this is false.”
There you go again, DBB, trying to refute physically observed data from today’s real world with “paloeclimate” studies of the distant past.
Spencer has observed that clouds provide a strong “negative” feedback to warming, which essentially cancels out any assumed “positive: feedback from water vapor.
That is today’s real world, David.
Regards,
Max
manacker (290) — The paper of Spencer’s is a preprint which may yet fail peer-review. I’ve pointed out what I consider to be a fundamental flaw; it could be his conclusion is the result of improper analysis, but I’m not able to judge that.
But given what I understand him to claim, suddenly the earth no longer conserves energy. Sorry, I won’t go there with you.
By the way, here is a general take on such matter by climatologist Michael Tobis:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html
Great Moments In Alarmism
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html
The Arctic: See for yourself
Still Frozen…………
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2008181/crefl1_143.A2008181053500-2008181053959.4km.jpg
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
The Arctic: See for yourself
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2008181/crefl1_143.A2008181053500-2008181053959.4km.jpg
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
UN IPCC MAN-MADE EMISSIONS GROSSLY OVERSTATED
Reports by the US Dept of Energy (DOE) indicate that 97% of the annual carbon dioxide emissions come from Nature itself. The report also indicates that more than 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed again by Nature.
What does this mean?
It means that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 103ppmv are 97% due to Nature itself, that is to say that only about 3ppmv of that increase is due to man-made emissions. The absorption by Nature of 98.5% of all carbon dioxide also means that of the annual man-made carbon dioxide emissions, only 1.5% stays behind in the atmosphere – 346 million tonnes in 2004, which is the equivalent of just 0.04% of the total annual carbon dioxide emissions by Nature and mankind combined.
Irrespective of its residence time or the absolute quantities, it shows that Nature is not only the main driver of carbon dioxide emissions but also that Nature is perfectly capable of dealing with those emissions, both natural and man-made.
UN IPCC is shown to have grossly overestimated the amount of man-made carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and has also grossly underestimated the amount of carbon dioxide that Nature absorbs and Nature can not distinguish man-made carbon dioxide from the naturally occurring variety. Immediate demands should be made of the UN IPCC to stop its advice to Policymakers for drastic carbon dioxide emission reductions and all carbon trading schemes should be abandoned.
UN IPCC advice is destroying economies around the world for no reason and neither emission reductions nor carbon trading will have any effect whatsoever on the naturally occurring carbon dioxide cycle. The greenhouse hypothesis – what most climatologists call “the basic science” – offers a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. What passes for climate science today is mostly science fiction.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf
Northwest Passage: still impassable
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/northwest-passage-still-impassable/
UAH Global Temperatures, June 2008 still low “unofficially”
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/uah-global-temperatures-june-2008-still-low-unofficially/
David B. Benson 271 wrote:
“Bob_FJ (255) — It’s not that easy for me to tell. Might be above 2004.237 CE FAICT.”
Why don’t you just prepare your own decadal block averages? Then you’ll know just where you put the points.”
Well actually, it is easy for me to tell, (and at least Max), that the Tamino corruption of the Hadley data is crap. Why on earth you would think that I would go to the trouble of futilely plotting the same or similar crap is totally beyond me!
I conclude that our exchange is going nowhere, and thus I rest my case with:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2617145577_58bdc1fd82_o.jpg
I’ll leave it to any passing observers to note that you have not responded sensibly to the issue of the two red dots and the two blue dots on this graphical mark-up, which clearly show that the Tamino graph is deceptive.
Also bear in mind that Hadley/UEA is staffed with famous AGW alarmists whom include most notoriously; Jones, Osborn, and Briffa, and that by clearly proven association, they are in the very SAME club as Mann et al, the perpetrators of the hockey-stick fraud and that unspeakable RealClimate website. Consequently if head UEA poncho Phil Jones can maximise any alarmism in his presentation of T data, it is a given that he will do so. Yet, you reckon that an even greater non-discipline fruitcake Tamino, can go one-step further! Where is your sense of rationality in these matters?
I had similar problems in the late 90’s dealing with a fundamentalist Christadelphian family in Adelaide (Oz), whom for instance, (keeping it brief), were unflinching that the Grand Canyon was the consequence of Noah’s Biblical flood usually dated to about 2,000 BC! No amount of geo-paleo evidence proving otherwise was acceptable to them, because the Bible “proved” that the overwhelming SCIENTIFIC evidence was false!
Incidentally, they also believed that Armageddon would come in 2000 AD, but, although disappointed when it did not eventuate, they remain hopeful that it will come within their near-term existence, last I heard.
I feel that your AGW stance is just as theological, and see no potential for your comprehension of scientific reality by continuing any debate with you. I conclude this, based on my comparative past intercourse with that religiosity in Adelaide. My feeling is also reinforced by your REFUSAL to take-up any of the GOOD NEWS offered by most of the others on this thread here. (For instance, is the huge effort at CERN, good news or bad?)
Furthermore, I do not share the immense patience that Max (especially) has with you!
Hi David B. Benson,
You are waffling again.
Spencer’s study is what it is: physically observed evidence of a strong negative feedback from clouds that cancels out any assumed positive feedback from water vapor.
What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?
Max
David B. Benson 276 wrote:
“Bob_FJ — Read #260. [261] I’d like to see the result.”
Just to terminate our exchange:
Did you NOT notice my immediately following reply to 260 [261]?
It is currently numbered 262!
Check-out # 262
Read # 262
Confoundingly, you want me to plot some other crap-graph, a la Tamino, as if two wrongs might make a right? UH? Wot? Sheez!
You are a really “funny” guy!
I’m beginning to believe you are associated with worm-holes, and parallel universes!
See also my 296