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.
Pete,
Candidly, I really don’t believe that you’ve thought this entire thing through. Your devotion to, (what you believe will be) a pristine, “untouched by mankind”, paradise……… or “Garden of Eden” isn’t going to happen. I know that you’d like to believe that it will come to pass, if we all work real hard, hold hands, close our eyes and click our heals together………but you’re going to have to get realistic.
Carbon Cap and Trade will cause the price of electricity, gas and oil to rise……I can afford it. Not everyone can.
“Green” electricity, (wind, solar, hydroelectric, whatever) costs more per watt than coal, oil, gas, or nuclear; that’s another fact that you’re going to have to get realistic about. Higher electrical costs will be passed down to the consumer. That means that everything from the cost of an orange to the cost of a hospital visit will rise also….. and not just here in the United States, but all over the globe…..it means rationing. We’ll pay more, but so will everyone else…..including the people on the lowest economic tier in Sub-Saharan Africa and India.
It’s cold here……damn cold. People living on limited budgets cannot afford to buy “green” energy. They can either pay the higher costs or go without……those are the choices. Widows, the elderly and children will suffer…..not just rich, greedy, militaristic, fat, Americans. As a matter of fact, the rich, greedy, militaristic, fat, Americans will probably be the last to suffer.
After corresponding with you for the past year, I can say with confidence that you are a compassionate man; however, unless you sincerely consider what you’re advocating, people will suffer……the very people that you profess to care for most.
Pete,
Re Brute’s 3301,
Despite that I don’t like him owning a military arsenal and a gas-guzzler, and some of the shit that happens in the USA, I really do agree with Brute in many things, including what he has just sensitivly written. I hope you can reflect on what he wrote.
Sincerely Pete, it’s the festive season….. relax, and think positive, and thank your cotton-socks that you live not in some unfortunate energy deprived place like say Somalia, but in Brisbane-Oz!
Imagine the numbers if the rest of the world were included……
95,000 Excess U.S. Deaths during the Cold Months Each Year
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/22/95000-excess-us-deaths-during-the-cold-months-each-year/
Brute
Your post is somewhat ironic bearing in mind that my report on my ski trip quoted my ‘actuary’ as saying that the current warmer winters are better than cold ones of the recent past! See-and you all thought she was mythical!
Max et al
I also made a foray to wuwt and this comment interested me; Max in particular has done a lot of work on co2 sinks and sources so interested to hear how this fits into the overall package.
“You can forget the entire AGW theory, runaway warming or not, because the cut-back of the rainforests alone account for far more CO2 in the air (from loss of photosynthesis) than all our CO2 emissions.
“Carbon emissions due to fossil fuel combustion represent less than 20% of the total human impact on atmospheric carbon levels. Deforestation not only contributes a relatively minor one off carbon emission of some 2.3 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere, but an ongoing loss of photosynthetic carbon sequestration to around 38 gigatons per annum that is growing at the rate of 500 megatons every year. It is clear from the fact that this amount dwarfs the present 7.8 gigaton fossil fuel combustion contribution, that the cessation of fossil fuel combustion will not halt the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide because the loss of photosynthesising biota and the corresponding fall in photosynthesis is so much greater.”
( http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/ )
Look forward to any comments
TonyB
Bob
There still seems to be a lack of response to your various posts on Gristmill other than support from someone called ‘Brute.’ Not a very likely name-probably belongs to a closet warmist…
Will keep looking to see if there is anything I can respond to
TonyB
OK, I know I said (3294) that I wouldn’t be posting again before Christmas but this story makes me angry: according to a World Bank report, biofuel production is responsible for three quarters of the increases in grain prices bringing misery to the Third World. So, while we in the (for the time being) rich West are arguing about the minutiae of what may or may not cause climate change and are obsessed with the alleged need to reduce “global warming” (in any case, a waste of time for the reasons I addressed to Peter in the last paragraph of 3294) , the world’s poorest people are starving as, at the behest of the US government and the EU, we fill our cars with the grain it would take to feed a man for nine months. What a appalling commentary on this whole AGW absurdity.
Hi Bob,
Reur 3292 Sea Levels and Joe Romm
TonyB may have some more input on this, based on his own studies, but let me give you my slant on this. (I have linked most of the cited studies in earlier blogs with Peter, and I have plotted the actual sea level data, both as absolute rise over 20th century in mm and as average decadal rate of rise in mm/year.)
There are several problems with JR’s statement that “Sea levels are still rising more than 50 percent faster now than pre-1990.”
The first problem is that it is not supported by the tide gauge records, which go back many decades. These show that current rate of sea level rise is slightly lower than the average rate over the entire 20th century.
They also show major decadal fluctuations in the rate of change, from rapidly rising over some time periods to actually receding in others.
The highest decadal rate was over 5 mm/year (1975-1984).
The lowest decadal rate was –1.3 mm/year (1984-1993).
The average for the 20th century was 1.74 mm/year.
The first half of the 20th century (1904-1953) had a higher rate of increase at 2.03 mm/year than the second half (1954-2003) at 1.45 mm/year.
These data come from two reports by Simon Holgate of the Proudman Institute (2004, 2007).
Another report by White et al. (2005) examines coastal and global averaged sea level rise for 1950 to 2000, concluding, “no significant increase in the rate of sea level rise during this 51-year period,” i.e., over the last half of the 20th century, including the last two decades.
A report by Nils-Axel Mörner of INQUA (2004) concludes, “The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade.” “there is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
So it is very clear that the tide gauge record shows no recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, as JR claims.
JR is an expert at bogus statistics, so his proclamations can most likely be written off as wrong simply because they came from JR. But let’s first give him the benefit of the doubt and analyze his statement.
He bases his bogus numbers on satellite altimetry (which he then compares with earlier numbers coming from tide gauges, in claiming that “Sea levels are still rising more than 50 percent faster now than pre-1990”).
Let’s check this bit of “smoke and mirrors” more closely.
JR is comparing satellite altimetry numbers (apples) with tide gauge numbers (oranges) here.
These do not measure the same thing, to start off with: Satellite altimetry measures the entire ocean (with the exception of areas near coastlines and polar areas outside the satellite ranges), while tide gauges measure a more pertinent parameter (for us land dwellers), i.e. sea level at various coastlines.
So good ol’ Joe is telling us that “apples” are larger than “oranges”. Duh!
Then good ol’ Joe is conveniently ignoring the fact that the satellite record is suspect for several reasons.
First of all, it is highly inaccurate. A technology that has worked fairly well for measuring glacial changes has not worked that well as yet for measuring heaving oceans; with a stated accuracy of ±5 cm, we are trying to capture sea level changes in mm/year.
Carl Wunsch, who has concluded that the 1993-2003 rate of sea level increase was 1.6 mm/year (or less than half of Joe’s 3.4 mm/year number) states: “systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change” and the [satellite] “database is insufficient to compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming”.
R. Scharroo and E. Miller, two of the scientists in the NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, have reported (2004): ”every few years we learn about mishaps or drifts in the altimeter instruments, errors in the data processing or instabilities in the ancillary data that result in rates of change that easily exceed the formal error estimate, if not the rate estimate itself.” “It seems that the more missions are added to the melting pot, the more uncertain the altimetric sea level change results become.”
Another report by Cazenave et al. (2003) tells us, “”satellite altimetry and in situ data have their own uncertainties and it is still difficult to affirm with certainty that sea level rise is indeed accelerating.”
Then there are the “correction factors” introduced to the satellite numbers in order to create a “trend” as reported by Nils-Axel Mörner (2007): “It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!”
So the whole thing reeks of a boondoggle based on highly suspect numbers.
And there is the “short term” vs. “long term” trend in a record that has major decadal oscillations resembling a sine curve with a slight upward trend. You can “cherry pick” periods to prove almost anything.
And adding JR’s low level of credibility to all this, I’d say his statement of accelerating sea level rise is totally worthless and not worth spending too much time discussing.
The more accurate statement for good ol’ Joe to have made would have been, “Observations show large oscillations in the rate of sea level rise, with an underlying trend of -1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr over the 20th century and a slight reduction in the rate of rise in the latter 20th century as compared to earlier periods. New satellite altimetry measurements promise another source of data, but this methodology is still in its infancy for sea level measurement, and unable to provide accurate trend data today.”
But then again, good ol’ Joe is not known for making accurate or true statements…
Just my thoughts on all this, Bob, but I wouldn’t spend too much time exchanging views with JR. The guy is a certified nut case who will bend the data to fit whatever story he is trying to sell.
Regards,
Max
PS Note to Bob_FJ
If you want to copy my analysis on the sea level story verbatim to JR, that’s fine with me. I have a problem getting into the site (maybe they “black-balled” me).
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Christmas is coming, but before switching to “holiday mode” I did check the Guardian report you cited, which links mandated bio-fuels to increasing world grain prices and higher levels of world poverty.
This report shows another example how the “guilt-driven rich man’s home-made pseudo-problem of global warming” totally ignores the needs and problems of the “not so rich” world around us.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the poorest among us will directly bear the greatest brunt of any proposed “mitigation” steps, with a few already wealthy and powerful individuals in the “rich man’s world” reaping the greatest benefits.
Well-meaning (left-leaning) individuals such as Peter tend to ignore this fact (or simply stick their heads in the sand).
I have never read a rational argument by these individuals, which explains succinctly how the “poorest” will not also be the “hardest hit” by increased costs for energy and food resulting from “mitigation”.
Regards,
Max
Bob
I exchanged a great deal of information with Max on mythical sea level ‘rises’ and I think he has distilled the information very well above.
In the past he has used the word ‘fraudulent’ in connection with some other piece of IPCC chicanery-I hesitated to go that far on that particular subject, but on sea level rise if you are wilfully manipulating information some might say it is a perfectly apt phrase.
What Joe Romm is asserting is simply not true. To measure something that is not true (3.5mm rise per year) by using something that has an error factor at least 15 times greater than the figure being measured (Satellites with a margin of error of at least 5cm) then applying a ‘correction factor’ which basically is any number that produces a satisfactory trend, is going to produce a nonsensical answer that goes against proper measurements by real Scientists such as at Proudman, Morner, and the data I see every day through my work with the UK environment agency.
This section of Max’s reply hits all the targets;
“Another report by Cazenave et al. (2003) tells us, “”satellite altimetry and in situ data have their own uncertainties and it is still difficult to affirm with certainty that sea level rise is indeed accelerating.”
Then there are the “correction factors” introduced to the satellite numbers in order to create a “trend” as reported by Nils-Axel Mörner (2007): “It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!”
So the whole thing reeks of a boondoggle based on highly suspect numbers.”
Just because Joe Romms philosophy wants sea levels to rise because of man doesn’t mean to say they will oblige. Silly nonsense. Unscientific. Incorrect.
TonyB
Another angle that happened to occur to me today…….At one specific project that I’m involved with, I was able to cut the electrical consumption by 2/3rds, (Peter would be proud). However, by doing so, the electric bill for this property was slashed also resulting in less revenue to the local utility which in turn results in less tax revenue to the Local/State/Federal jurisdictions.
Multiplying this number along with other like minded consumers following suit, the tax revenue shortfall to these government entities will have to be recompensed somehow.
Does anyone have any comments regarding my assertion?
To everyone:
You’ll find Christmas greetings here.
God Bless All And Merry Christmas
One Solitary Life
Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself…
While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.
I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.
I understand that this is the original essay by Dr James Allan Francis in “The Real Jesus and Other Sermons” © 1926 by the Judson Press of Philadelphia (pp 123-124 titled “Arise Sir Knight!”).
Hi Brute,
“the tax revenue shortfall to these government entities will have to be recompensed somehow”.
Well, now the US banks and Congress figured that one out (bailout #1 for the financial institutions – with no real strings attached).
The car industry (and UAW) has also figured it out (another “bailout” to keep the union contracts intact), also with no real “strings attached” – let’s see what really happens.
So we “gotta save millions of (high paid union) jobs” and a few top “management bonuses” by digging deeper into the taxpayers’ pockets, rather than letting Chrysler and GM (plus possibly Ford) go into Chapter 11 and restructure (as the airlines have done).
Do you really think the US taxpayer should “bail out” Chrysler and GM (so they can honor their UAW union obligations) or force them to restructure to get rid of this “load”?
Regards,
Max
Absolutely not. Congress shouldn’t bail out the corner drug store. The business model is poor and the UAW is a parasite attached to the necks of these companies. They should simply let these companies rot on the vine……I should say, allow them to file Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, get out of their Union contracts and reorganize as did United Airlines.
The impact on the economy if the “Big Three” fail has been overblown…..I’m not certain if by the Bush Administration, Congress, the Media or all three.
Congressional Democrats and the Media in particular are beholden to Unions. The Unions are ruining the work ethic and the business structure of this country; I’ve been saying that for 25 years.
Yes, when the public utilities begin to fail due to lost revenue the Liberals will simply throw money, (our money) at them also. It’s a house of cards……similar to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme.
TonyN:
Christmas is coming
The goose is getting fat
Brute is OT
What’s new about that?
Max, Reur 3307 & TonyB’s 3310 (Sea-level worms)
Wow, the IPCC, Romm and a few others have been very naughty again, even criminal?
With Max reminding me that he may have been blocked from Gristmill, I’ve decided to ease-off over there, and am holding off on a follow-up post to my last one, already drafted, for that reason.
I’m very pleased with my two new topic recent posts over there but I doubt if Romm will/would be!
Neither he or the usual suspects have responded, and perhaps when they see my blogo-name in the recent comments list, they have decided to ignore.
Brute, thanks your post over there, the more the merrier.
Just a point max, in your 3307, when Nils-Axel Mörner of INQUA (2004) concludes; “…Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade.” That was before the “corrections” he refers to 2007, presumably.
It would be interesting if before and after graphs could be compared
Max, Reur can’t log-in on Gristmill.
I had the same problem some-time back, and I tried changing my Email, name, and password to no avail, so I then changed my computer IP, still no-go, whilst a different computer was OK.
Eventually, I fixed it by re-loading Outlook Express, actually going from version 6 to 7.
Everyone, this could be my last for a while. Have a great time all!
Hardy, Har, Har……..Sorry, I got carried away. In my defense, I was postulating about the effects that all of these “green” initiatives will have on our economies and the bottom line; sort of on topic in a round about way.
BobFJ,
I was summarily dismissed, (banned), from Romm’s page, (Socialist Progress), a few months back……I’m so ashamed. Do you think he’s forgotten?
Max
I’m hoping that it will be your New Years resolution not to get drawn into discussions using ‘global temperatures back to 1850.’
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?Itemid=32&id=26&option=com_content&task=view
The above link leads to a good article describing the problems. There were 100 weather stations in 1850. In 1938 Callendar recorded 280 when compiling his graphs relating rising co2 to rising global temperatures. Of these some 45 were considered highly suspect and most of the rest had breaks in their data. The vast majority of the stations were clustered in Europe and North America with stations thousands of miles apart in Africa, India, and Australia.
Stations did not exist in any meaningful way on the 70% of the globe that is water nor deserts, forests, and other inhospitable areas.
The link below is a map of global stations showing date of establishment and how continuous their data is. Due to station replacement or actual loss of stations even modern global surface station records can not be used with any certainty-which is why I prefer to use the data from individual countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png
Have a good Christmas. The actuary might want to contact you regarding your interesting ideas of linking life expectancy to our changing climate.
TonyB
Hard Facts and Innumeracy: Coal Use Grows Despite Global Warming Warnings
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1039
Brute, Reur 3318:
“I was summarily dismissed, (banned), from Romm’s page, (Socialist Progress), a few months back……I’m so ashamed. Do you think he’s forgotten?”
I hope he has neither forgotten or forgiven you, but I doubt if he can cut-you-off so easily at Gristmill, where they seem to have a very tolerant editorial policy. Opportunity for fun for you over there if you like. He has quite a few threads going over there.
TonyB, Reur 3319, and your link to article by Vinvent Gray.
I’m a great admirer of this venerable scientist, whom is one of the most prolific Expert Reviewers, of the TAR 2007, a real thorn in the side of the IPCC. (available on-line).
I thought I might add that the “temperature stations” in early Oz, I recall from somewhere, have reportedly included thermometers hanging under verandas, or even inside homesteads on a fairly casual basis.
Then there is the old joke; a man with one foot in a bucket of cold water, and the other in hot water, has an average T of?
Brute especially, and others:
I was browsing around Gristmill, and noted that a certain cynic whom I admire ‘Jabailo’ had posted @ the following, so I took a peekaboo .
And here is Jabailo’s response:
If you go to his link on Agraria, I’m sure that you will be entertained.
That does not exclude others of course, like I was fascinated, but I definitely thought of you Brute…. And a dear friend of mine in Dearborn (Detroit), WRT this Jabailo link.
Bob
Yes I like Vincent as well-he keeps to the facts in a measured way.
As a present for Peter I contacted the Oz Met office a month or so ago in order to utilise some figures to rebut one of his comments.
Unfortunately the data was either incomplete or did not date back far enough to make a useful comparison-some were as recent as the 1950’s and even the 1970’s. I was specifically warned about the reliability for the very reasons you have cited!
Thats the trouble with a considerable proportion of global data sets-in particular I think we need to go back 150 years in order to pick up any sort of ‘cycle’ if indeed they exist in chaotic weather systems.
TonyB
Hi Bob,
Your: “Then there is the old joke; a man with one foot in a bucket of cold water, and the other in hot water, has an average T of?” reminded me of a hazing “torture” for “slimy pollywogs”, the name given to neophyte sailors first crossing the equator on a ship to become “trusty shellbacks”. Believe this one was called the “thermocouple”.
The neophyte (blindfolded) has to lie on his back with his legs pointed straight up. Then hot (not quite scalding) water is poured down one pant-leg and ice water down the other.
What is the average temperature where the two currents meet?
Another riddle that always puzzled me. Since you guys in Oz are already south of the equator, I wondered at the time if you were born “shellbacks” (or whether you had to also earn this title the hard way headed north). Ah, the mysteries of life…
Regards,
Max