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.
manacker (235) — I did read it. All of it.
Did you bother to read the conclusions? Look at the graph?
And by the way, there is now a whole book about the Mideaval Warm Period.
Robin Guenier (231) — As the Stern Report, and many others, point out, all that is required is redirecting about 1–2% of the world’s GNP. GWP?
Which is happening anyway due to peak oil. By the way, David Rutledge has an article hosted by TheOilDrum suggesting peak coal is coming much sooner than expected. He runs his own ‘forecast’ based on that and the result is lower than any of the IPCC projections.
manacker (232) — Climate sensitivty is measured from actual data. As I written to you before. Got it this time?
‘Now’ refers the the temperatures of the past two decades. So radiocaborn datable melt-out events demonstrate than the regional temperature there is much higher ‘now’ than at the time the biological material was buried in the snow which became ice.
Now you did say you preferred data. I’ve given you these facts more than once and you continue to ignore them. So you don’t actually prefer data, do you?
Bob_FJ (228, 229) — Yes, it seems to be, but it doesn’t matter as long as we understand that it belongs to the 2000–2007 CE time interval.
David B. Benson 254,
In response to my repeatedly posed very simple question:
Is the final data point on the Tamino graph, regardless of how he derived it, located at 2005 AD?
You most recently wrote:
Bob_FJ (228, 229) — Yes, it seems to be, but it doesn’t matter as long as we understand that it belongs to the 2000–2007 CE time interval.
David, you are a screamingly funny guy! When faced with an unavoidable fact; why can’t you just admit straight-out that it IS A FACT! Why place conditionals, caveats or attempt to change the subject in your endless diversionary responses? I have been following your art of obfuscation with others, most monumentally with the incredibly patient Max, over a long period, and thought on the side-lines it would be interesting to see if it is possible to get a straight answer from you on just ONE simple statement of fact.
I reissued my graph, (link below), with an added vertical red grid line on the year 2000 AD, which undeniably accurately dissects 50/50 the last ten-year interval on Tamino’s graph. Thus, the last data point, (= a large black dot) IS at 2005 AD. Eventually you responded: “yes it seems to be”! Seems to be you say? Why the conditional? The unavoidably correct answer is: YES, it’s at 2005 AD, but you fog-out yet again!
Then you add a caveat: “…but it doesn’t matter as long as we understand that it belongs to the 2000–2007 CE time interval.”
Why did you have to lob-this-in when I repeatedly phrased my question in the context of “Regardless of how Tamino derived his end-point plot”? Well, I can understand that you feel vulnerable in that the end data point is not based on ten years of real data. However, that is the least of the problems in the Tamino graph. There are other issues to be discussed, if you would listen!
Meanwhile, is it possible that you could agree unconditionally that the end data point on Tamino’s graph IS located at 2005 AD, regardless of any other considerations?
LINK FOR 255
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2617145577_58bdc1fd82_o.jpg
And, let me repeat:
Meanwhile, is it possible that you [DBB] could agree unconditionally that the end data point on Tamino’s graph IS located at 2005 AD, regardless of any other considerations?
LINK For 190
I just tried to post it, but it seems to have got spammed.
Instead, it can be found at #190 above
Sorry, I meant link for July 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am (255)
AAargHhharHh!
David: OK so your position now (252) is that, although the IPCC’s projections are unreliable, it’s quite OK to act on them as it won’t cost very much. Hmm: something wrong with the logic there I think.
But you go on to say that, in any case (according to David Rutledge – see http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004350.html), none of this really matters and we can all relax about global warming scares because fossil fuels will run out before human CO2 emissions can do any serious harm. Well, well.
Here’s a quotation from the article I cite above that should appeal to Brute:
No sooner have we learned, via David Benson (see 252 and 258 above), that can we relax about global warming because fossil fuels will run out before CO2 emissions can do any harm, than we hear that, according to the US Dept of Energy, 97% of CO2 emissions are natural and not manmade; moreover, nature then absorbs more than 98% of such emissions. See: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf
Phew – it’s getting hard to keep up.
Bob_FJ: I may have misunderstood, but it seems to me that your debate with David re decadal analysis might be helped by starting a study in, say, 1858 (or perhaps 1908) and running it so that it ends with the ten years from 1998 to 2007.
Robin,
Yep, you’ve spotted something there. You could also include the projection for 1998 that has been made by Hadley. However, my first step was to get DBB to properly answer a very simple question without obfuscation, that the Tamino graph ends in 2005 AD. (No ifs or buts). If he can finally do this, I would then move-on to a bunch of other issues, such as the consequences of changing that end date a little, towards showing:
1) The Tamino graph is a load of old bollocks, and
2) DBB does not respond to rational questioning in a sensible manner.
I suggest that this Ruth Lea article is essential reading – especially for Brits.
(Nice ‘hotlink’, Robin! I think those of you who have problems with long, pasted links might have better luck if you also hotlinked.)
Apologies for hogging the comments today, but this too is interesting – especially if read in conjunction with the Ruth Lea article (262 above).
(David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis and an associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma.)
Hi David,
You wrote: “manacker (232) — Climate sensitivty is measured from actual data. As I written to you before. Got it this time.”
Guess you are referring to the “actual data” observed and reported by Spencer on clouds, right? This does a good job of confirming a climate sensitivity (2xCO2) of 0.7C.
Glad we can agree on something here, David. Looks like you’re coming around.
Congratulations.
Regards,
Max
Hi David,
You wrote: “And by the way, there is now a whole book about the Mideaval Warm Period.”
Duh! David there are a lot of books confirming the Medieval Warm Period, there are crop records from northern China, from different parts of Europe, Viking sea charts, records of wild grapes found by Vikings in Newfoundland (“Vinland”), records of settlements in Greenland, records of Medieval alpine mines being shut down as the LIA began, etc. Then there is physical evidence being found today of past vegetation and signs of civilization as glaciers recede today, confirming that these glaciers were smaller during medieval times.
Hope all this real information is cited in the “whole book” you mention, and not just phoney “bristlecone pine” reconstructions.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
The link you provided DBB (#247) quotes Ian Willson:
“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 – 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 – 2 C.”
I also gave DBB some links to earlier studies by Willson based on satellite observations, plus a bunch of other studies.
The key “take home” from these studies is that we have a good correlation between solar activity and temperature, when including all aspects (not just the sunspot count or solar cycle) but we do not yet know the specific mechanism for how this works. Total solar irradiance (TSI), which IPCC limits its solar influence to, is only a part of this. IPCC estimate of solar forcing of 0.12 W/m^2 (with an admitted “low level of scientific understanding”) is only a fraction of the total impact of the sun.
The many studies out there confirm that we were in a period of unusually high solar activity 1950-2005 (the highest in 8,000 years by some estimates), but that this has slowed down considerably since early 2008 with the start of solar cycle 24. This high activity is estimated to have caused somewhere between 40 and 60% of the observed late 20th century warming. Willson is not alone in projecting a period of cooling over the next 20-30 years.
Whether the CERN work now underway will validate the Svensmark hypothesis of a cosmic ray / cloud connection or whether other studies will demonstrate a link with UV radiation to ozone, we will certainly know more about all of this as the puzzle is solved.
Again, correlation does not prove causation, so the mechanism must be validated by physically observed data before the hypothesis can be proven.
This is, incidentally, exactly the same dilemma facing the GHG explanation for global warming. It is a hypothesis. There is a good correlation over the period 1976-1998, and not much correlation over earlier warming and cooling periods. So the link for GHGs and global temperature is an even more tenuous correlation than that for the sun. But neither correlation provides evidence for causation.
DBB has a hard time accepting the facts of life, because he “believes” in the AGW hypothesis and in the virtual reality of the CGM outputs that support it. So when he writes (#249) “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” you have to take that with a grain of salt. DBB has no real notion whether Willson’s estimate is “much, much too high” or not.
Even if CERN would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Svensmark’s cosmic ray / cloud theory is 100% validated by observed facts, DBB would still believe in his computer-generated AGW hypothesis.
Regards,
Max
Hi Max,
I am no scientist, and in most things am only as smart as the last guy I read or spoke to, but based on everything I can read, the sun seems like a much more likely culprit than GHG for the warming we’ve seen until recently.
As I wrote to Robin earlier referencing the old movie “Twelve Angry Men”, this debate—for me anyway—is about ‘reasonable doubt’. Here in the States, at least, to prove the accused guilty, the prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused committed the crime. A case that falls short of that standard will exonerate the accused. That DBB and so many others aligned with the “alarmist” side are so quick to recite “the debate is over”, or “it’s not the sun” is enough to make me very suspicious. I feel like the rushed car buyer, with the pushy salesman nearly forcing the pen in my hand to sign the offer sheet. Wait a minute, and let’s make sure we have our facts straight.
If the case for CO2 is so settled, so strong, and so convincing, then why do those who support it avoid further discussion about it? I get the feeling that they know the sun is rising on enlightenment (no pun intended) and they fear too much scrutiny.
The lifestyle the AGWists long for…
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.
JZ Smith (268) — Its the style here. Follow the links which support the conclusion.
But even better read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Review of above:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63
manacker (266) — I haven’t read the book, just seen mention of it. It appearently details drought in North America, Australia and (I think) Africa.
However, its not much to see in the GISP2 ice core; little regional impact in central Greenland at the summit. Of greater interest there is that the last millennium, 850 CE to 1850 CE, is the coldest of the entire Holocene. The previous millennium was the next coldest.
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.
But it gets worse. If climate sensitivity is very small, then once stades (massive ice sheets) form, the ice will never massively melt.
The studies using paleodata get it right. Spencer doesn’t. Got it THIS time?
Robin Guenier (258) — Not many are ready to accept David Rutledge’s peak coal analysis. However, just watching the spot prices for coal suggests that Professor Rutledge may well be correct.
So we need to redirect funds into alternative energy sources. Besides, coal is really, really dirty. Soot, sulfur, mercury, methyl mercury, cadmium, …