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.
Peter (although anyone is welcome to answer)
Along our part of the South Coast of England we have just endured the coldest night since 1962/63. Somewhere close to London has apparently had its coldest night since 1926. On our local bit of sea there is ice-very unusual for this part of the world.
Therefore this seems a good time for Peter to answer a question that has been puzzling me.
Let us assume that co2 levels and resultant temperatures have a very close correlation as we are told.
Let us also assume that prior to mans activities the co2 ‘thermostat’ had been set at a steady 280ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Man then gave it an accidental ‘nudge’ and since 1900 it has got out of control and now reached its current setting of 380ppm- with consequent temperature increases to ‘very hot’.
Now Peter, you have said in the past that Dr Mann has somewhat understated the MWP. By inference therefore you will accept that the Roman warm periods and the various Holocene optimums were also understated.
Therefore over the last 5000 years- and despite the co2 thermostat being stuck firmly at 280ppm- we have still experienced temperatures much colder than todays AND much wartmer than today-so co2 wasn’t the culprit.
Could you therefore explain what was the mechanism that has caused hundreds of temperature changes over thousands of years?
A few of the more recent temperature changes are caught in this short snapshot back to 1660.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/menken_hobgoblin.jpg
Alterations in planetary orbit might account for one or two of the years but it can’t be solar activity as I understand from the IPcc that this is relatively unimportant. So prior to our vandalism of the co2 thermostat what caused our climatic changes?
TonyB
Hi Brute,
Actually, I’m not big on predictions either, especially when it comes to the weather or the stock market, but your post got me to thinking.
Yogi Berra probably summed it up best when he said, “It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
The whole AGW hoax is based on “predicting the future”. None of the so-called “disasters” have happened to our planet as yet from the human CO2 that’s being added to the atmosphere. It’s a “virtual” computer-generated future crisis.
You’re right that during the 1980s and 1990s things were going well for the AGW crowd. CO2 was going up (at Mauna Loa, anyway) and so was the “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (whatever that is).
From 1979 to 2000 this hypothetical figure went up by around 0.3°C (at a rate of 0.13°C per decade), according to the Hadley record. From this and a bunch of assumed “feedback” estimates, the wizards feeding IPCC model forecasts conjured up a prediction (or “projection”, as they prefer to call it) that this index would rise by 0.2°C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century.
This was sold to the gullible public as the consensus of “2,500 scientists”, so it obviously had to be accurate, right?
The problem was that all those thermometers out there (even the ones next to asphalt parking lots and AC exhausts) did not go along with the projection.
In fact, despite desperate attempts to jiggle the “anomaly” number upward by the “dedicated” pro-AGW “scientists”, it started going down instead of up, confirming another quote by Berra, “The future ain’t what it used to be”.
So what will the prophets of doom do?
Your guess is as good as mine, but I do not believe that they are ready to capitulate and admit that it was all a hoax. They have too much invested.
Can you imagine Al Gore admitting that the whole AGW story was a fraud? Can you imagine him returning his Nobel Peace Prize or his Oscar for his “AIT” sci-fi flick? Can you imagine him stepping down from the pedestal as the “savior of the Earth”?
Can you imagine James E. Hansen admitting that his “tipping point” testimony before the U.S. Congress or all his other “wolf” cries were based on bad science? Can you imagine him admitting that the “dangerous” level of atmospheric CO2 is not 450 ppmv, as he claimed, but some level in the many thousands of ppmv (which is physically impossible to ever reach from human emissions, even if all the fossil fuels in the world were burned up)?
I cannot imagine these things happening.
So I believe these guys (and all the others that are riding on the AGW gravy train) will, as you say, “continue to ‘adjust’ historical temperature data downward and current temperature data upward”.
They will create new “imaginary hobgoblins”, such as the absurd suggestion that the global warming is hidden deep in the ocean (where all those thermometers out there can’t see it), but it will come back and haunt us with a vengeance some day in the future. They call this “AGW still in the pipeline”.
IPCC even tells us (SPM 2007), “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized”.
But wait! It’s not only the “hidden” warmth that will miraculously come jumping at us out of the ocean to warm us up even more. There will also be more CO2 coming out of the ocean as it warms, creating even more warming.
IPCC gives this imaginary “positive feedback” a scientific-sounding name and warns us, “Climate-carbon cycle coupling is expected to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the climate system warms, but the magnitude of this feedback is uncertain”.
These “smoke and mirrors” tricks will probably work for a short while.
The AGW bandwagon has plenty of political, financial and media momentum at the present, but time is not on the side of the AGW doomsayers.
If temperatures across our globe continue to get colder, as they are now doing, people will notice this, despite what the climatologists are telling them about the “anomaly”.
There is already a fairly substantial “groundswell” of scientists, meteorologists, engineers and others, who have seen through the AGW hoax. This groundswell is growing and getting more vociferous, despite the AGW promoters’ unsubstantiated claims of overwhelming “mainstream scientific consensus”. These claims are just “whistling in the dark”.
Of the AGW crowd you wrote: “They’re going to have to change the hysterical propaganda here shortly as people are beginning to get wise to the ruse.”
The switch from “anthropogenic global warming” to “anthropogenic climate change” was a clever “just in case” change of the AGW “brand name” to buy some time in case of a prolonged period of cooler weather, and to be able to include any weather extremes (hot, cold, wet or dry) in the Pandora’s box of human-caused disasters.
But I am convinced, as Roy Spencer has already predicted, that the AGW hysteria will eventually die a quiet death, without much fanfare or loss of face for the doomsayers.
I believe this because I am a rational optimist. I believe that freedom of speech can temporarily be muzzled by the media and politicians in favor of a “politically correct” issue, such as AGW has become, but in our democratic society it cannot be silenced forever. Roy Spencer, for one, has shown us very clearly that “the science is not settled”, with his study on cloud feedbacks.
In addition, the current real economic crisis will divert a lot of attention (and funding) away from the imaginary AGW crisis.
Eventually the hoax will be exposed for what it is and the average citizen will see that he/she has been duped. Politicians will quickly note the change of wind direction and public funding for AGW research will dry up, the media will move on to a new “imminent disaster scare” and the “media darlings” and Hollywood celebrities will jump onto a new “sexy” bandwagon to feed their insatiable egos.
It’s just a matter of time.
If it continues to cool significantly, the time will be very short. If not, it may take a bit longer.
But I agree with Yogi Berra.
Regards,
Max
“Astronauts threatened by cosmic rays as sun becomes less active”
Max/JZ,
Maybe the Alarmists can gradually switch the apocalypse to this, (attachment), creating some imaginary causation from mankind that needs to be addressed “immediately” before we all turn into cannibalistic troglodytes justifying increasing taxes and government control of businesses………
Earth’s Magnetic Field Reversals Illuminated By Lava Flows Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926105021.htm
Postscript: I heard another Yogi Berra yesterday:
“That restaurant is so crowded nobody goes there anymore” – Yogi Berra
Pete Reur 3545, you wrote in part:
[1] Sorry, but the average of ‘n’ previous values is not sensible. To explain, yet again, if say you have a time series ending at 2008 and use a 5-year moving average, the last target year that can be properly averaged is 2006, and the average is of 2004 through 2008, if it is unweighted. Alternatively, if weighted, the values for 2004 & 2008 may be reduced by a factor x, and for 2005 and 2007 by factor y. (depending on how much smoothing is desired)
If Excel does what you say it does, then you should abandon its use, and stop posting graphs which are WRONG.
[2] You wrote that you prefer the GISS method to that of Phil Jones. You have also claimed that the GISS method is the same as yours. Well, whatever, your outcome is different to that of GISS.
Original source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
BTW, is there any good reason why you prefer Hansen et al to Phil Jones et al smoothing methods?
Brute
There’s another good Yogi Berra quote that Peter should heed, when he ponders the disastrous IPCC climate projections based on the greenhouse theory:
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
Kinda tells it all.
Regards,
Max
Uh oh… AGW (or rather the lack of it) victimizes a new horror film based on AGW that ain’t.
Brute/JZSmith
Hey, I like the potential “magnetic reversal” prediction (throw away your Boy Scout compass). This has some real pizzazz (and could well replace the current hysteria surrounding AGW): “Right now, historic records show that the strength of the magnetic field is declining very rapidly. From a quick back-of-the-envelope prediction, in 1,500 years the field will be as weak as it’s ever been and we could go into a state of polarity reversal,” says Singer.
1,500 years? Back-of-the-envelope?
This Singer guy is much too honest to get any serious funding from politicians (especially in these troubled economic times).
Here’s a more practical (and pragmatic) reword:
“Historic records and computer simulations show that the strength of the magnetic field is extremely likely (>95% probability) to be declining very dramatically. Computer model projections show unequivocally that the field will be at its weakest ever since at least the pre-Cambrian geological time (>600 million years B.P.) and that it is very likely (>90% probability) that we will go into a state of polarity reversal with disastrous consequences for humanity and for most plant and animal species on our planet within a period of 100 to 1,500 years. To which extent this is directly related to human greenhouse gas emissions is still unclear, but computer simulations indicate that it is likely (>66% probability) that there is a robust correlation, based on model-based projections. Additional work is urgently required to confirm these preliminary findings and to develop appropriate mitigation strategies should these findings be confirmed.”
Regards,
Max
PS to Brute/JZSmith: Maybe I should have replaced, “To which extent this is directly related to human greenhouse gas emissions is still unclear” with “To which extent this is directly related to human use of electrical power and resultant perturbations of our planet’s magnetic field is still unclear”…
Bob_FJ,
I think I suggested to before that if you had a problem with the way Excel adds its 5 year running averaged trend lines that you should have a word with Bill Gates. I bet he told you what to do with your tiniest of quibbles didn’t he!
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Microsoft will organise a general recall of their product and millions of users will have to redo all their graphs :-)
Max, you missed your calling. You should be writing press releases! Great quote from Yogi as well!
The AGW spin machine is is in high gear!
Peter Martin Reur 3560, you wrote in response to my 3555:
[1] I don’t have an active (subscribed) version of Excel, have not checked it out, and do not have a problem with it. Thus I have not approached Bill Gates. It is you that has the problem, not me.
[2] Whatever it is that you have done, you have published various graphs that are WRONG. It is not trivial if your running average is only from previous values, and excludes the forward values! However, In this situation. you could sort-of correct the graph by having two different x axes, one for the raw data, and one for the smoothed data, but that would be confusing and very silly.
[3] If it is stated in Excel, that the moving average is of the previous ‘n’ years, then there is no need for a recall. It becomes a case of “user beware”. BTW, are you sure that there are no options? Certainly GISS and Hadley, (and others), do NOT use this method, because it is WRONG.
Will you comment on the various points I raised in my 3560?
You seem to be a very unwilling student, even evasive!
That’s it!
Mankind’s excessive use of electricity has grown exponentially in the modern area and has disrupted Earth’s ‘natural” magnetic field! Animals will become disoriented (Whales and Dolphins) and will forget how to procreate….
Dogs will circle bedding in the opposite direction resulting in sleep deprivation and undue “stressors”……Wow, we could make million from this “theory”. The possibilities are endless!
The human body functions through electrical impulses……Oh boy, we could create an entirely new industry……
Boy this magnetic field thing has my creative juices flowing……a wonderful idea…can’t really be proven and the timeline is open ended…..just like “global warming” and “climate change”……like nailing jello to the wall…..very slippery.
We need a catchy moniker; a “hook”……something that will fit on a bumper sticker.
Stop destroying Earth’s magnetic field!!!!
We’d have to really push the “animal exploitation” angle. “Bat radar will become ineffective and disrupt their feeding habits causing high incidents of bat mortality which will cripple the guano industry” ……“Pestilence will run rampant as insect populations explode due to the bat shortage”.
We need to offer a completely new line of products to sell…
A revolutionary new lighting illumination “system”, (my cousin makes candles). I’m thinking of doing this anyway and advertising in Mother Jones Magazine.
We could replace people’s furnaces with empty sheet metal boxes painted flat black. We could place labels on the boxes ………“caution, hot surfaces”. If people complain that their houses are cold in winter after selling them the empty sheet metal boxes, we’ll just explain that temperature is simply a matter of “perception” and we can (with 95% certainty) guarantee that they might “feel” warmer at some point in the future (in the same vein as JZ’s article in post #3561) as our computer simulations predict.
We could sell an entirely new line of “magnetism free” blankets and long underwear………..convincing people to do away with their refrigerators and replacing them with “anti-magnetism ice boxes and coolers”. We could start our own service revitalizing the ice delivery industry…..
Wow. Thanks Max. You are truly inspirational.
I’ve also designed and developed an entirely new “waste disposal system”……”magnetism free” of course.
Pete, further my 3562, I thought I might investigate why you use this funny Excel smoothing method, and hey I went to Wikipedia and found that there IS an application for it in assessing stuff like stock movements over prior running periods. Since this is not an emotive or controversial subject, I have not checked it out further; it actually makes sense!
The smoothing of a time series of data such as we have been discussing is something else. In this field, Wiki’ calls it: “Central moving average”, that being precisely what I have repeatedly described to you. (and as used e.g. by Hadley and GISS)
Here is an interesting discussion about the CSIRO fudging stuff about the Murray-Darling basin, and it includes a graph of Oz rainfall that has an eleven-point (year) smoothing. Notice that the black worm starts and stops 5.5 years short of each end of the data. Now why would that be Pete?
I repeat an earlier question; Does Excel offer any other smoothing options? (to that which you wrongly accepted…. Wrong application)
Brute Reur 3565,
Don’t get too excited about your new waste disposal unit. Aussies are usually quick to see an opportunity, and I would think that the locally popular “thunder box” was patented globally by them, long ago!
Sorry to disappoint you. (unless I’m wrong…. might be worth checking out)
SORRY, The link in my 3566 for
Fudging Figures on Murray River Salinity: More Shame on CSIRO
Should be:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001387.html
Re JZ’s 3553
“Astronauts threatened by cosmic rays as sun becomes less active”
Is this not just another wonderful demonstration of Gaia?
The Earth’s magnetic field is also reportedly steadily reducing, which is obviously intended as a correction for the excessive growth in the human population: Less people; less farting and stuff.
But hang-on, that’s also leading to less consumption of electricity…. Leading to a magnetic correction the other way!
Sheez, ain’t Gaia wonderful.
And that’s without discussion about the imponderable wonders of water, and clouds and oceans and photosynthesis and stuff!
JZ: yes, that AGW spin machine is really humming.
JZ: more spinning.
A quotation::
Hi JZSmith,
Reur 3561, great spin article; I particularly liked the sentence:
“Cold snaps are routinely seized upon by a dwindling rearguard of climate skeptics as “proof” that climate change is exaggerated or an outright fabrication, Jouzel said.”
“Dwindling rearguard of climate skeptics” who doubt that AGW is a serious problem?
How about more than three-fourths of the population of our planet?
Don’t know what “Jouzel” is smoking, snorting or shooting, but it’s definitely blurring his vision.
Max
Hi Bob,
From your article (3569), “A report in New Scientist magazine said in a new inactive [solar] phase, ‘those most likely to be affected would be astronauts’.”
Too bad. I have always admired the NASA (and other) “worker bees” who actually go out into space.
It’s a shame that the increased cosmic rays will affect these heroes the most but won’t zap NASA’s desk-flying, computer-massaging “drones”.
Life just ain’t fair…
Max
JZSmith
Your 3571: “A specially-commissioned Met Office report has found that the weather could become so hot in the coming years that the poor and elderly could need help paying bills to keep their homes air-conditioned.”
The Met Office never was too good at “timing” (almost as bad as it has been on weather/climate “predictions”).
To come out with this kind of silly report during a record cold wave in Europe, with Gazprom plus the Ukrainians shutting off the natural gas supply to many European countries (thereby putting many of the “poor and elderly” there in real danger of freezing to death) is just plain stupid.
Who in the world “commissioned” this report? Whose money paid for it? Who needs to be fired?
Max
Max
Whilst I am eagerly awaiting a reply from Peter on my 3551 -repeated below-perhaps you can have a go at giving me a reply?
Basically I am curious as to what the drivers were for temperature change in the past- as it apparently wasnt co2 as it remained at a constant 280ppm.
Perhaps you and Peter can also explain why co2 levels didn’t change from the pre historic level of 280ppm despite wildly fluctuating temperatures in the past?
“3551
Peter (although anyone is welcome to answer)
Along our part of the South Coast of England we have just endured the coldest night since 1962/63. Somewhere close to London has apparently had its coldest night since 1926. On our local bit of sea there is ice-very unusual for this part of the world.
Therefore this seems a good time for Peter to answer a question that has been puzzling me.
Let us assume that co2 levels and resultant temperatures have a very close correlation as we are told.
Let us also assume that prior to mans activities the co2 ‘thermostat’ had been set at a steady 280ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Man then gave it an accidental ‘nudge’ and since 1900 it has got out of control and now reached its current setting of 380ppm- with consequent temperature increases to ‘very hot’.
Now Peter, you have said in the past that Dr Mann has somewhat understated the MWP. By inference therefore you will accept that the Roman warm periods and the various Holocene optimums were also understated.
Therefore over the last 5000 years- and despite the co2 thermostat being stuck firmly at 280ppm- we have still experienced temperatures much colder than todays AND much wartmer than today-so co2 wasn’t the culprit.
Could you therefore explain what was the mechanism that has caused hundreds of temperature changes over thousands of years?
A few of the more recent temperature changes are caught in this short snapshot back to 1660.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/menken_hobgoblin.jpg
Alterations in planetary orbit might account for one or two of the years but it can’t be solar activity as I understand from the IPcc that this is relatively unimportant. So prior to our vandalism of the co2 thermostat what caused our climatic changes?”
TonyB