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.
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
Bob Clive, you wrote in part in your 3143:
And also in your 3146
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
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
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!
Last night the BBC (PM news bulletin) offered the following sound-bite from Ban Ki-moon’s address to the Poznan conference:
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.
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
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 !
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
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 ?
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
)
Here’s an extract from an article by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian today:
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.
Robin, your 3167:
[I hope Tony won’t bleep me]
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?
Yes, JZ, I fear you’re right. And (just about OT) here’s another quotation from the lovely Polly’s article:
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
From BBC News today:
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.