Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Let’s see; it snowed in New Orleans today. It snowed in Jackson Mississippi today. Houston Texas recorded the earliest snowfall ever recorded yesterday, (these are southern U.S cities Pete, and they hardly ever see snow).

    I know that this must mean that Al Gore was correct all along. It’s obviously getting globally warmer and the snow and freezing cold temperatures are a hallucination because Hansen says so.

    Sleet, snow tail off in New Orleans

    http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/the_new_orleans_area_is.html

  2. Bob Clive, you wrote in part in your 3143:

    Remember the convergence problem with Mann`s Hockey stick…
    …Despite this, overall growth [Greek firs] has accelerated, particularly since 1990

    And also in your 3146

    …Late 20th-Century Acceleration in the Growth of Greek Fir Trees.
    CO2 science 3rd Dec 2008
    In a study recently published in Dendrochronologia, Koutavas (2008) writes that “tree rings are the primary archive used in annually resolved climate reconstructions spanning recent centuries to millennia, and as such their response to non-climatic factors requires careful evaluation.

    One of the things that really-really gives me the irrits in all this dendro-stuff, is that most of the sampling has been done at high latitudes and or altitudes in the NH, where it is ASSUMED that for starters, for millennia the seasonal cycle of snowfall and melt has been uniform. Consequently, the data is VERY REGIONAL, and does not reflect where most people in the NH actually live. (let alone the Globe), But then of course there are other millennial-spatial-temporal things to consider such as constancy of cloud-cover, mists, density of tree spacing, disease, gobbly insects, predators of the insects, mammalian bark eaters, summer rains, and and….will that do?

    There is a letter to Nature somewhere that I can’t find at the moment from either Bradley or Hughes (of MBH fame) in 1998 or 9, that waffles that the divergence problem was probably caused by increased snowfall in recent decades. (caused by human activity) This is one of the most gob-smacking “scientific” statements that I have ever seen. I’m sure that Jan Esper, (Swiss-Dendro), oh and some Russians, whom seem to be a bit more sincere than the main dendro-church, would not have been greatly impressed by that letter, and that I need not elaborate why here! Talk about DUMB!

    Quite apart from the Dendro-regionality issue, which marvellously was used by MBH and others to “prove” that the MWP was but a REGIONAL (Euro-Atlantic?) event, and that other hot-spots around the World were not precisely coordinated, (not relevant), there is also the problem of diurnal and seasonality factors, a la dendro:

    As far as I am aware, trees only grow as a consequence of photosynthesis with feedstock CO2, under a multitude of various conditions which modify response, during periods of daylight. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, they do not grow at night. Furthermore, the snow-climate-based trees generally used by Dendro’s, don’t do much during winter. I thus ask the question: Should these dendro reconstructions in atypical regions of SUMMER-DAYTIME tree-growth in the NH be compared with the GLOBAL DAY-NIGHT 24/7/356 temperature data?

    I would imagine that if the dendro-church from Overpeck through Briffa and MBH and more, were to sincerely take-in the HUGE REGIONAL difference between the Greek Firs and their own prior regional preferences, they might ponder the maunder.
    Never mind; I’m sure that they will still secure future funding!

    I’m not sure now where the data came from….. Overpeck….. Briffa…. Dunno, ‘twas a while ago, but you might be entertained by this thingy I did, illustrating how MBH99 might have ended if they had NOT CHOSEN to omit embarrassing available data on divergent tree-ring growth:


    If no image, click URL
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3101368307_c841f2fb2b_o.gif

  3. Max 3144

    What a kind suggestion but I was joking-if youre in a generous mood however if you’d just like to give your address and all at Harmless sky will all be over to your place for a few days ski-ing just before Christmas…

    Seriously, I will see if the book can be obtained through our library-unlikely as it’s is such an expensive one but I will ask the question of them today

    TonyB

  4. TonyB, Reur 3142,
    Hey look; I feel for you in your disturbing experiences in exploring Cambridge for your son, but would point-out that clusters of shit DO HAPPEN, without YOU necessarily being the culprit!
    Nevertheless, shit does tend to stick!

    For instance, up in Brisbane Oz, (Pete-land), in the studios of the ABC (TV/radio) there was a big cluster of breast cancers in the staff. Although various investigations could find no causative factors, the centre was closed down, and the staff were, (and will continue to be), relocated, when a new centre will be built on lovely South-bank. (unless protestors succeed to stop it)

    I VERY MUCH doubt that you are being targeted by some higher authority above!

  5. Last night the BBC (PM news bulletin) offered the following sound-bite from Ban Ki-moon’s address to the Poznan conference:

    The economic crisis is serious, yet when it comes to climate change, the stakes are even far [sic] higher. The climate crisis affects our potential prosperity and our peoples lives both now and in the future.

    Half way through, he hesitated with a rather puzzled note in his voice, as though he was seeing the words in front of him for the first time and couldn’t believe his eyes. Perhaps he was wondering how a statement that might seem convincing to 11,000 devotees at a climate conference would go down outside the hall.

  6. Hi Peter,

    Glad you agree (3150) with my assessment of Solanki’s estimate of solar warming over the long-term period. You will recall that his was the “low ball” estimate among all the studies I cited, and that the average for all studies over the entire period was 0.35C warming from increased solar activity.

    Now to your, “However, if you are going to make a distinction, between the pre and post 1970 periods you should take a separate linear regression for each one.”

    I really do not believe it makes much sense to make this distinction by chopping up a long-term record into smaller pieces. You have seen how doing this shows a very poor correlation between CO2 and temperature, with only one 30-year period (late 20th century) really showing a correlation.

    So let’s stay with the long-term record (rather than making separate linear regressions for pieces of the record). The long-term record shows 0.65C total warming, 0.35C solar warming and the difference, 0.3C, anthropogenic warming.

    Regards,

    Max

  7. Max,

    If the chart in my posting number 3150 were by your hospital bed, you’d expect the doctor, on his rounds, to take a quick look and say somehing like “Yes Mr Manacker it looks like you temperature has gone up by 0.8 deg C.” If he started to type up all the data into his laptop and start fiddling around in Excel with linear regressions, and saying ” Well its really not quite so bad. The linear regression shows it has only risen by 0.65deg C”, you’d think he was bonkers.

    I should take a leaf out of your book. I’m getting a bit worried that my weight is increasing. The graph of my weight plotted against time probably looks a bit like a hockey stick, and a linear regression would be the perfect slimming tool. Instead of a weight gain of 10 kg it should be quite straightforward to show it is really half that. Problem solved !

  8. Hi Peter,

    You were curious (3128) about the theoretical logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, according to the greenhouse hypothesis.

    This curve has been around a few years, but it shows this relationship fairly clearly.
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/3102481730_782feea7bd_b.jpg

    The curve shows what would theoretically happen according to the hypothesis under different assumptions if atmospheric CO2 were to increase to 4x its “pre-industrial” concentration of 280 ppmv (presumably due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions). This is a theoretical exercise, since there are not enough fossil fuels on our planet to ever actually reach this atmospheric CO2 level.

    This shows a theoretical 4xCO2 warming of:
    1.29C Lindzen
    1.75C Kondratjew
    2.92C Charnock + Shine

    For the period 1850-2008 we know that the observed warming was 0.65C. Solar experts tell us that increased solar activity was responsible for 0.35C of this, so that leaves us 0.3C for anthropogenic factors (primarily CO2).

    For this period the curves show theoretical warming from increased CO2:
    0.30C Lindzen
    0.40C Kondratjew
    0.67C Charnock + Shine

    It looks like Lindzen is closest to being “on target”, with Kondratjew a bit on the high side and Charnock + Shine off by more than two times.

    Regards,

    Max

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/3102481730_782feea7bd_b.jpg

  9. HELP!

    Has anyone got access to the current edition of the New Scientist, either paper or on-screen, as referred to by Alex Cull here ?

  10. Hi Peter,

    Your “doctor chart” analogy is so silly, I won’t spend much time responding to it.

    IPCC uses linear regression trends for long-term periods (1901-2000 in TAR; 1906-2005 in AR4).

    To questions from both Robin and myself regarding the lack of correlation between CO2 and linear temperature trends over shorter-term periods, YOU have argued that short-term periods do not tell the story.

    Forget it, Peter.

    You are in the hole on this one, so stop digging.

    Instead, tell me: have you now agreed that Hadley shows a linear warming of 0.65C over its entire record (1850-2008)? If not, what do you believe this warming to be and on what basis?

    Solar experts tell us that the long-term warming effect of increased solar activity was 0.35C. What do you believe and on what basis?

    This leaves 0.3C for anthropogenic warming.

    The 0.3C anthropogenic warming is confirmed by IPCC radiative forcing estimates (Myhre et al.) for all anthropogenic factors, i.e. 1.6 W/m^2. Do you believe IPCC has got tghis wrong, Peter, and if so, what is the correct value and how has it been determined?

    If you do not agree with the above, please tell me which part you feel is in error and what your own personal opinion is of the correct numbers.

    No more waffling (or silly diversionary analogies), Peter.

    Regards,

    Max

  11. Hi TonyB,

    “if you’d just like to give your address and all at Harmless sky will all be over to your place for a few days ski-ing just before Christmas…”

    Great!. I’ve got a big snow shovel, but can get a few more, so all can join in the “winter fun”.

    Regards,

    Max

  12. Hi TonyB,

    Re snow shovels, I actually once had a gasoline-powered snow machine. Very efficient, with snow flying in all directions. Lots of fun, too.

    Then I read how the CO2 emissions from this machine could endanger our planet due to greenhouse warming and I changed back to the manual (snow-shovel) removal process.

    But after studying AR4 more closely I saw that in a few short years my snow machine could have caused the snow to melt due to AGW, so I told my wife I was going to buy another snow machine and attack the problem both mechanically and meteorologically.

    She has also followed IPCC, so she told me, “Don’t be silly, dear, once your snow machine has melted all the snow due to AGW, you won’t be running it anymore, and the reduced CO2 emissions from your now-idle snow machine will cause a reversal of the warming (once global climate-carbon cycle coupling equilibrium has been reached), bringing even more snow. But by then your long-idled snow machine (that has been taking up space in the garage) will be rusty and useless, so you’ll have to use the shovel again. It’s better you save the money and buy me a nice Christmas present with it. Here are some ideas…)

    Female logic wins every time.

    Regards,

    Max

  13. Max

    Your wife said;

    Don’t be silly, dear, once your snow machine has melted all the snow due to AGW, you won’t be running it anymore, and the reduced CO2 emissions from your now-idle snow machine will cause a reversal of the warming (once global climate-carbon cycle coupling equilibrium has been reached), bringing even more snow. But by then your long-idled snow machine (that has been taking up space in the garage) will be rusty and useless, so you’ll have to use the shovel again. It’s better you save the money and buy me a nice Christmas present with it. Here are some ideas…)’

    Surely you countered that with ‘most of the really good expensive stuff I’d like to buy you comes from China these days so if I dont buy you anything it will save a lot of carbon emissions and Peter will be pleased with me.’

    It’s been really cold even in the south west of England but we very rarely get the snow to compensate. Still the thought of shovelling all that snow from your driveway after skiing all day is keeping us all going. I think the Harmless sky numbers are up to around 30 or so for our forthcoming trip. Is Zurich the nearest airport?

    Will let you know later today if the library can get hold of the Viking book. In the meantime can I thoroughly recommend ‘Air and Water’ by R Smith to which I posted a link last week and can be read on line. Its full of the history of co2 and numerous historic readings. Back in 1872 they seemed to know a lot more about the gas and its properties than they do these days

    TonyB

  14. Hi TonyB,

    Good advice. Will try the “China carbon footprint gambit” with my wife (but I secretly suspect that what she has in mind as an “appropriate” Christmas present does not come from China).

    “I think the Harmless sky numbers are up to around 30 or so for our forthcoming trip. Is Zurich the nearest airport?”

    Yes. We’re about 90 km SE of Zurich.

    The nearest ski-mountain is called “Pizol”, but for real expert skiing it’s not far to Flims-Laax or Klosters-Davos.

    Bring woollies.

    Regards,

    Max

    PS Will check link to ‘Air and Water’ by R. Smith.

  15. Max 3164

    A Christmas present idea! I think I’ve greatly overestimated the number of scientists at the IPCC so we probably have some spare caps from the consignment you have ordered from China-give one to your wife and tell her the ‘D’ stands for ‘dear’. No point in wasting money at a time like this…

    Here is a copy of the link to the Air and Water book together with my original comments to put it in context.

    “For anyone interested in reading of the REAL history of co2 readings, have a browse through this remarkable 1872 book by renowned British Chemist R Smith.

    http://www.archive.org/stream/airrainbeginning00smitiala

    Numerous readings were taken ranging from 330 to 400ppm and the methods as to how they were taken is analysed.

    I have also been reading through the archives of GS Callendar containing thousands of his notes and correspondance to such as Charles Keeling. He is guilty of chery picking to support his hypotheses about AGW and Charles Keeling had too little knowledge in 1955 to do anything other than agree with the others poorly researched history of past co2 measurements.

    In adition I have just been sent the latest work of Ernst Beck which is a very interesting read.

    It is nonsense to believe that our forefathers weren’t capable of taking thousands of very reliable co2 readings, many of which averaged over 350ppm. I think the ice core readings are far more suspect than the numerous old readings from reliable sources.”

    TonyB

  16. I saw this article today in the Hawaii Reporter citing a report detailing 650 skeptical scientists.

    The report is long and detailed, but here are quotes from some of the 650 scientists:

    Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner
    for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I
    can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the
    claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based
    almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the
    air-surface system” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the
    world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more
    than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last
    100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
    know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
    4
    Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
    chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t
    have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on
    scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist
    Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
    International Year of the Planet.

    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future
    warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
    University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
    member.

    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
    fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our
    time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in
    Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based
    on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for
    example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
    scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
    Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
    NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little
    impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the
    worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department
    of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics
    to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M.
    Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
    Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor
    of Monthly Weather Review.

    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that
    triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A
    large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid
    vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased,
    and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian
    geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
    5

    “Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less
    moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary
    balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr.
    Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni
    was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the
    planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr.
    David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological
    Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala
    University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself
    solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining
    climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries
    have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr.
    Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
    refereed publications.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting
    warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric
    physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in
    Pittsburgh.

    “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give
    some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead” –
    Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major
    businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” –
    Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
    Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
    knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is
    something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of
    the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
    Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the
    climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V.
    Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University
    in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed
    publications.

    “But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by
    human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly
    inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored
    more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

    “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government
    control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the
    Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

    “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” –
    Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
    at the University of Colorado.

    “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone
    man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data
    refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G
    LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full
    quotes of the scientists are later in this report

    )

  17. Here’s an extract from an article by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian today:

    … other pressing global issues demand big government answers – above all, climate change, where every country needs to control its carbon emissions. That demands ever-tighter state control of business and private citizens’ behaviour. No-one dares admit it yet, but the big question is whether democracies are strong enough to impose the kind of emissions controls necessary to save the planet

    Coming from someone often close to UK goverment thinking, that’s a seriously chilling statement: if democracy threatens to come up with the wrong answer, State Control becomes necessary.

  18. Robin, your 3167:

    [I hope Tony won’t bleep me]

    No-one dares admit it yet, but the big question is whether democracies are strong enough to impose the kind of emissions controls necessary to save the planet.

    Unfortunately, those in—or close to, as you write—power in so many countries around the world lean left politically. My experience is that to many of those on the left, ‘the ends justify the means.’ They are far too willing to suspend liberty and institute control over society if it means that the results meet their goals than any sane person should be comfortable with. Consider the millions who died during Stalin’s regime. At least 5 million from starvation alone. All in the name of the ‘greater good’ and what was ‘best’ for the future of socialism and USSR.

    So what if those in power have to seize state control for the ‘greater good’ of the planet?

  19. Yes, JZ, I fear you’re right. And (just about OT) here’s another quotation from the lovely Polly’s article:

    Only the state can create new jobs in green industries to reduce the numbers of unemployed

    As you and I know, the reality is that the state’s speciality is running huge and hopelessly inefficient projects. If it has a part to play (and sometimes it does) it’s in encouraging small business start-ups; that way we might see progress towards the development of useful green technology.

  20. I agree, Robin, especially with your view that “the state’s speciality is running huge and hopelessly inefficient projects.” While I am a limited-government, free-market adherent, I do believe government has and can have a positive role, but as you suggest it is best if a limited, regulatory role. Goal setting and the creation of an economic and regulatory environment that fosters private enterprise to take risks, solicit and expend capital, employ workers, create wealth, and pursue profits.

    If government assumes this role, I agree we can be successful at encouraging greener energy technologies and a better world for us all.

  21. Perhaps someone could comment on this,

    Between 1982 and 1999, 25 percent of the Earth’s vegetated area experienced increasing plant productivity—a total increase of about 6 percent,” says Ramakrishna Nemani, the study’s lead scientist. “That increase occurred mainly in the tropics, and secondarily in high northern latitudes. What’s interesting about our results is that they show how the increase in each of these regions is due to a different climate factor. “In the tropics, Nemani and his colleagues discovered that the increase in productivity was caused by lack of clouds and increased Sun exposure, while in the northern latitudes, it was mainly due to increased temperatures and to a lesser extent, water availability.

    It appears Nemani finds CO2 caused plants to grow better—up to a point. He concluded that plants in the southern hemisphere increased their growth with lack of clouds and increased Sun exposure, in other words they grow better with more sun and less water.

    I wonder why only 25% saw increased growth.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/

  22. I see that Al Gore speaking at the UN climate conference at Poznan today said that “the ‘sclerotic’ politics of today had to change”.

    His speech was met with rapturous applause by thousands of delegates.

  23. JZ Smith says

    My experience is that to many of those on the left, ‘the ends justify the means.’ They are far too willing to suspend liberty and institute control over society if it means that the results meet their goals, Consider the millions who died during Stalin’s regime.

    The thing is JZ the US an`t Russia and there are still free elections every 4 years I believe.

  24. Bobclive, your 3173:

    Yes, we do. However, I fear for the future and what politicians might do “for the good of the planet”. The momentum, despite the growing “skeptical movement” remains strongly in favor of restricting liberty and increasing central control & planning, aka socialism.

    I think I have written in this space before what my late father used to tell me: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

    That is what I fear from the warmist movement.

  25. From BBC News today:

    A sleigh used by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert has gone on display for the first time at Windsor Castle.

    Painted red and gold and lined with red velvet, the two-seater carriage was used by the Royal Family during their Christmas holidays.

    They often enjoyed winter rides around the castle and the prince would drive the sleigh pulled by two horses.

    So apparently, snow in latitudes as low as London (Windsor is due west of London, I believe??) were common enough in Victoria’s day that she had and apparently used with some frequency a horse-drawn sleigh!

    How often would she be able to use it today? I guess this qualifies as more proof of AGW, unless it snowed less in London in the latter part of the 19th century. Couldn’t have been from CO2 if so.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha