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. TonyB

    A substitute for a smiley emoticon:

    It’s the “believe me, baby, I’m telling the truth (ho, ho)” smiley:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3346/3176941838_84d86b5d93.jpg
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3346/3176941838_84d86b5d93.jpg

  2. I’m sure you haven’t missed me really.

    Sincerely, I really did miss you. I enjoy the sparring.

    I’ve been meaning to nag you about providing proper references for your graphs.

    Very clever; you’ve caught me. I’ve been cutting and pasting graphs from sources other than my own……(Somehow I thought this would be quite obvious but I suppose it takes longer for some). As far as nagging; get in line behind Mrs. Brute.

  3. There are more questions than answers!

    I’m sorry but I detect some back-peddling here. I thought that “the science was settled” and that “we have reached a consensus”. With all of these “unanswered questions” do you feel that it’s prudent to spend truckloads of money to resolve a problem that we aren’t certain exists….a condition with so many unanswered questions?

  4. Hi Peter,

    Back again (after responding to your last diversionary tactic).

    Your silence has been deafening regarding climate sensitivity and assumed feedbacks.

    You have not yet replied to my 3469, which cites actual physical observations refuting the IPCC feedback assumptions on both clouds (Spencer, Norris) and water vapor (Minschwaner + Dessler).

    Together these observations confirm a 2xCO2 temperature response of 0.6 to 0.7C (as was also observed in the Hadley temperature record from 1850 to today) rather than the totally inflated imaginary figure of 3.2C as assumed by all the models cited by IPCC.

    This has all been presented to you in excruciating detail with all cited references.

    In your response defending IPCC’s 3.2C figure, please try to be specific.

    Awaiting your reply.

    Regards,

    Max

  5. Hi Peter,

    Not to distract you from trying to defend (against all physical observations) the IPCC assumed 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3.2C, but I thought I’d help out with a slight improvement of one of your Q+A paragraphs:

    Q. People have always proclaimed that the ‘end of the world is nigh’ for a variety of reasons. Isn’t the AGW scare just the latest fad?

    A. Yes, it is true that the current “AGW scare” is “the latest fad”. We had a “man-made global cooling” scare a few decades ago that died a silent death when cooling stopped. AGW doesn’t mean the end of the world, but there are some respected climatologists, such as James E. Hansen whose predictions sound pretty close to exactly that when he testifies to the US Congress that we are “close to dangerous climate change, to tipping points of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects”, that “the dangerous level of [atmospheric] CO2 is at most 450 ppm, and it is probably less”, that “additional climate change is in the pipeline” [caused by human CO2 emissions] causing “sea level rise in this century [which] may be measured in meters”, ”extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species” and pleading for urgent actions (i.e. draconian carbon taxes and phase-out of all coal-fired power plants) “needed to preserve the planet for future generations”.

    Does this sound like a “end of the world” prediction? Pretty close.

    But we know from the past that these “the end is near” predictions are always hysterical exaggerations, which never actually happen in real life. This one is no different from the many that have come and gone before it.

    Regards,

    Max

  6. The scare: On 2 January 2009, the Wall Street Journal wrote one of a series of articles apparently co-ordinated throughout the generally alarmist news media throughout the holiday season, trying to overcome the problem posed for “global warming” alarmists by the fact that global mean surface temperatures have been on a downtrend for eight straight years.

    8 Years Cooling

    Eight straight years’ global temperature downtrend: The authoritative SPPI composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies, taking the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets and updated through November 2008, shows a pronounced downtrend for eight full years. Not one of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC had predicted this downturn. The pink region shows the IPCC’s projected rates of temperature increase: the thick red straight line – entirely outside and below the pink region shows the real trend, calculated as the least-squares linear regression on the composite temperature anomalies.

  7. Tony B,

    Can you please clarify what previous patterns you are referring to?

    I’ve posted up this graph before.

    showing the cooling periods we’ve had between the sharp jumps.

    Max,

    It also shows that we’ve had at least 0.5 deg of warming in the last 30 years.

    Maybe you could check that figure out with one of your linear regressions. You seem quite good at doing them.

  8. Hi Brute,

    The sad thing for the AGW alarmists (like Peter) is that the facts are the facts (your 3531).

    These are wonderful when there is warming (as there was from around 1979 to 1998). They offer the opportunity for developing great computer-generated disaster “scenarios” and “storylines”.

    But when things turn around (as they did around 1998 and definitely did in 2001, when the current cooling trend kicked in), the facts no longer support the AGW hypothesis.

    That is when “still in the pipeline”, “warmest years in the record” and other silly suggestions are pulled out of the hat to attempt to distract from the “fact” that it is no longer warming, but cooling instead (despite all-time record human CO2 emissions).

    In his religious fervour to prove the AGW mantra, Peter even pulls out charts, 3532 (with missing data for the latest year) purporting to show warming that the actual record does not show, in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that it stopped warming this century.

    That’s how desperate the AGW supporters have become now that it has stopped warming as they projected.

    I predict that (despite the mega-bucks behind this UN-sponsored scam) the whole AGW hysteria will collapse by 2010 or 2011, when everyone realizes that it is getting colder again.

    Even Peter will realize that this is a “dead duck” (and move on to another impending man-made disaster scenario).

    Regards,

    Max

  9. Even Peter will realize that this is a “dead duck” (and move on to another impending man-made disaster scenario).

    Max,

    May I finish this sentence for you?

    and move on to another fraudulent impending man-made disaster scenario designed to steal money from hard working people.

  10. I wonder if Al Gore has been hanging around this area lately. Seems wherever Al ventures to, it turns bitterly cold and usually snow several feet.

    All Algore’s fault!

    http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/45885

    Minnesota Dog Sled Race Cancelled Due To Excessive Snowfall

    Here’s another entry for the annals of noteworthy winter weather: The dogsled race near Frazee, Minn., has been canceled because there’s too much snow.

    Too much fluffy snow that keeps drifting and therefore made it impossible to maintain a groomed trail.

    That poses a safety risk to the dogs, supercharged canines whose mushers need a groomed trail to drop a hook to stop when necessary.

    “We can’t pack it,” race organizer Eddy Streeper said Monday. “We just can’t get it packed. We had to speak up on behalf of the dogs.”

    The Third Crossing Sled Dog Rendezvous, slated for Jan. 23-24, would have been the ninth annual running of the sprint races, which twice were canceled for lack of snow.

    This winter, as anyone with a driveway knows, has been a season of prodigious snows.
    The Frazee area has received about 3 feet of snow, but winds keep creating drifts of 4 feet or more over the course, which was to host races of four to 14 miles.

    “The drifting aspect is just unbelievable,” said Streeper, a native of Canada who has been involved with dogsled racing for 25 years. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
    The National Weather Service doesn’t tally snow accumulations and moisture content for Frazee. But snowfalls in Fargo, 54 miles to the northwest, have totaled 39.3 inches since October, with 2.37 liquid inches.

    That translates into a moisture content of 6 percent – snow is considered wet at around 30 percent to 35 percent. That dry, fluffy snow is just too deep.

    Cancellation of the dog races is a blow to Frazee, population 1,374. Last year’s two-day event drew 2,000 to 3,000 spectators, and contestants come from as far as Alaska, five Canadian provinces and five or six states.
    “This is the NASCAR of sled-dogging, the sprint ones,” said Gale Kaas, Frazee Sled Dog Club secretary.

    “We’ll try again next year,” Streeper added. “We’ll see what the weather does to us.”

  11. Hi Peter,

    Your chart is out of date. Here is an update.
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/3178449104_075a43a26b_b.jpg

    Hope this helps you see the actual picture a bit more clearly.

    Regards,

    Max

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/3178449104_075a43a26b_b.jpg

  12. This is interesting………I wonder if Al Gore has been hanging around the beaches lately.

    Surprising Return of North Atlantic Circulation Pump

    http://media-newswire.com/release_1083196.html

  13. See Pete, I told you……….

    Keeping Warm

    From Belgium: New twist on the ‘Gore Effect’
    7/01/2009

    Jos, one of WUWT’s readers abroad writes:

    “It is very cold here in Beligium. This is from today’s edition of the flemish newspaper ‘De Standaard’:”

    You can find in online here, page 21 of the paper, and page 33 of the link below:

    http://www.standaard.be/Krant/Beeld/?oDay=07&oMonth=01&oYear=2009

  14. Hi Peter,

    Another little dilemma for you.

    Global warming over the past 150+ years is “unequivocal” (as IPCC likes to tell us).

    Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have also increased over this period, possibly due to increased human CO2 emissions.

    Sounds like a “slam dunk” fit, until one looks into the details a bit.

    Yes, over the entire period temperature has increased by 0.64C. Solar scientists tell us that increased solar activity has caused roughly 0.35C of this warming, so that leaves us with approx. 0.3C for anthropogenic forcing. This checks very well with both the actual record as well as with the greenhouse theory according to IPCC.

    The dilemma arises when one wants to correlate temperature and CO2 over the multi-decadal periods of warming and cooling over this 150+ year period.

    The graph shows that this correlation is not very apparent.
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3178595156_73364827e6_b.jpg

    The black line shows actual temperature change over the multi-decadal periods of warming/cooling.

    The red line shows the actual change in atmospheric CO2 concentration over these multi-decadal periods.

    The blue line shows the theoretical warming from CO2 according to the greenhouse hypothesis over these same periods.

    Even after adjusting the warming for the solar factor it is very difficult to see any real correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature.

    Do you see such a correlation, Peter?

    If so, please explain it to me, so I can see it too.

    Thanks and regards,

    Max

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3178595156_73364827e6_b.jpg

  15. Max ,

    I don’t mind you updating my graph but not when you make a b***s of it all. The black line in the five year running average.

    Here is the actual update. I’ve used your figure of 0.31 Is that correct for this year? I haven’t seen the official confirmation yet.

    PS How are you going with that linear regression for 1978 to 2008 that I put in a special request for?

  16. Max, Reur 3537, you wrote in part to Pete:

    Your chart is out of date. Here is an update.
    Hope this helps you see the actual picture a bit more clearly.

    Well not only is the chart out of date, but it is WRONG anyway. (before and after update). I first tried to educate Pete about this back on page 20 in my 2887, with reference to his 2870, and also my 2915, and some lesser stuff spread throughout that page. However, it is a bit like pouring water on a duck’s back, and he keeps serving-up the same nonsense.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Peter Martin, you wrote in part in your 3532

    I’ve posted up this graph before.

    Yep, you have indeed, despite that it is WRONG. However, please refer to my comments to Max above. The graph that you keep posting is WRONG and misleading in several ways, and you should know that by now!. The most obvious problem is that your 5-year smoothing worm is out of phase with the raw-point data. This problem is more easily seen with the fuller version of YOUR graph in your 2780/20.
    Additionally, you seize on some short down-trends based on very noisy point-data, as argued by using some kind of 5-year smoothing which I suspect is weighted. The data is so noisy that YOUR worm is still also noisy. Notice too, trivially, that the year 2000 point is after the year 2000 vertical grid.

    OK, I don’t know who your favourite AGW prophet is, but dear ol’ Phil Jones must be way up there with Hansen and Gore. Thus you ought respect what Phil publishes, and not brandish your OWN inventive WRONG graphs giving a different story.

    CRU/UEA do not appear to have updated their global average T anomaly graph to take-in the 2008 data yet, (oh to be a fly on their wall as they wring their hands and gnash their teeth), but I have taken the latest available for 2007, and have marked-it-up for 0.3C anomaly for 2008.


    Original source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

    Any comments Pete? For example, do you disagree with messiah Phil’s smoothing methods?

  17. Bob_FJ,

    Its easy to write the word ‘wrong’ in uppercase.

    I’ve given you the reference that I’ve used for the data. If you still aren’t satisfied, have a try at importing it into Excel or another type of spreadsheet and produce your own graphs.

    I’m not sure what you mean about the phase. To get the running five year average I just right click on the trace and choose “add trend line”. Excel does it automatically. The trend line is the average of the five previous values. But of course you can average over any number.

    I’m happy to give you a hand if you like, and hopefully convince you at the same time that the graphs are correct representations of the Hadcrut data.

    I’m not sure of the smoothing methods used by Phil Jones. I prefer the NASA’s method of rolling five year averages.

  18. Hi Peter,

    1979-2008 temperature trends (as cited in post 3524):

    0.151C/decade, 0.44C over period (Hadley – surface)
    0.128C/decade, 0.37C over period (UAH – troposphere)
    0.140C/decade, 0.40C over period (Average of above)

    Regards,

    Max

  19. Hi Bob,

    Like your enhanced Hadley graph.

    The present and 1940s curves do have a striking similarity, but of course we’ll have to wait and see if the current cooling trend continues over a longer period as it did back in the late 1940s.

    Noted the remark:
    “2007 anomaly +0.40°C (8th warmest on record)”

    Sexy!

    I supposed this will now be up-dated with:
    “2008 anomaly +0.30°C (coldest in this millennium)”

    Regards,

    Max

  20. Hi Bob,

    Maybe Hadley will use the note:

    “2008 anomaly +0.30°C (10th warmest on record)”

    Sounds a bit sexier.

    Regards,

    Max

  21. Max,

    I’m not big on predictions or prophecies (referring to Hansen/Gore et. al.); however, where do these guys go next?

    I’m not big on predictions or prophecies (prophecies referring to Hansen/Gore and the Enviro-religionists); however, where do these guys go next?

    If the average temperature continues to drop, do they continue to “adjust” historical temperature data downward and current temperature data upward?

    Do they simply give up on temperature data and begin to shift focus slowly to “adjusting” observed CO2 data downward claiming that the diminished consumption of [insert evil capitalist commodity here] and government stewardship has achieved the desired effect of reducing atmospheric CO2 correlating to the decrease in temperature justifying continued draconian taxation and regulation?

    They’re going to have to change the hysterical propaganda here shortly as people are beginning to get wise to the ruse. “Global Warming” as a catch phrase marketing slogan has already been abandoned for the additionally vague “Climate Change”……Do they simply claim victory and launch the next campaign of “Yes We Did” or “See, It Worked” ad campaign so they can continue to further erode personal liberties?

    My belief is that the goal of the enviro-politicians is to steal as much money from people as possible……wrestling control from individuals as politicians covet personal property and posses an insatiable desire for power…..however, there also are the most extreme Earth Worshippers that advocate population control…..will they begin to assess the “worth” of individuals to determine their burden on the biosphere in some utilitarian fashion? (“Grandma consumes more than she produces, therefore she has lost her “worthiness” in which case we regret to inform you that…….”)

    Frightening prospect I know, but then again, many of the ideas put into practice today would have been quite startling if proposed even 30 years ago…..and look how easily the public has been duped to this point.

    They have to change their strategy somehow to continue their madness……

    (I always try to anticipate my adversary’s next move and it’s far easier to anticipate human actions than it is to predict the weather).

  22. Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for fraud

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha