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.
James Hansen, making his 20-year anniversary presentation to the US Congress (see 280 above) restated the urgency of the global warming crisis, warning (again) of tipping points and calling for energy executives to be put “on trial for crimes against humanity and nature”.
Wattsupwiththat publishes today the global temperature data sets for UAH (University of Alabama) (link) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) (link) with 20-year time-lines. It comments:
Bob_FJ (296) — You are wrong regarding Tamino’s ‘ending with the 2006 high’. The last point is the average of 2000–2007 CE.
Here it is as five year averages. The last point is the average of 2005–2007:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/5yrave.jpg
manacker (297) — The facts are simple: the climate has cycled in and out of ice ages several times. For this to occur requires a moderately high climate sensitivity to orbital forcings and hence to all radiative forcings. Roy Spencer completely ignores these facts and the associated measurements.
So whatever he has this time, even if actually correct (which Spencer/Christie was not), can only produce at most a modest effect on climate. Possibly the ‘effect’, if real, is then further offset by something else. Dunno.
I become rather tired of these attempts at reductionism, when it is possible to use the ice core paleodata to set some limits on equilibriium climate sensitivity. Gues what? These largely agree with IPCC AR4. So climatology, at least about this matter, is internally consistent.
I won’t, as you seem only too willing to do, give up any of the fundamental or dervied laws of physics. AGW is a consequence, a ‘theorem’ if you will, of physical law. Learn to deal with it.
Further to my post 299 yesterday, here’s the UAH chart again (also from Wattsupwiththat) showing two “best fit” curves – one “5th order” and the other “1st order”. The first no doubt pleasing the sceptics and the latter the alarmists; it seems it’s almost possible to make what you will of temperature data.
David: your Tamino chart (300) is interesting – not least because it shows clearly the very substantial 1906/1940 warming. I hesitate to raise this again, but I’ve yet to see a satisfactory answer to what seems to me to be a fundamental question: given that, according to the IPCC’s figures, about 60% of all global temperature increase since 1850 occurred before CO2 concentrations increased significantly (your Tamino chart starts immediately after the particularly steep 1860/1879 warming), why is that that earlier increase is not at the heart of serious consideration of the reasons for global warming? For example, references in the 2007 IPCC Report are meagre: for example, it refers to “uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming” (WG1, chapter 9) but, so far as I can determine, to nothing of real substance. That is surely a significant omission. I cannot see how the IPCC can be confident that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver of global warming if it is unable (1) to set out unambiguously the causes of the first two warming periods and (2) to show clearly why they must be ruled out as causes of the third. Yet IPCC AR4 appears unable to satisfy even item (1) – thus, it seems, undermining its own most basic conclusion.
I thought I might say hello again. The debate doesn’t seem to have progressed much, if any, during my absence, I’ve been away in the UK, and it doesn’t look as if David Benson has had any more success in shifting the anti-science attitudes of the “antis’ than I had.
Rather than keep on trying, it might be more fruitful to try to find some common ground. It seems to me that there is a genuine fear for the future, which can lead to a denialist mentality, and which I certainly found to be more prevalent in the UK than in Australia. The price of petrol there is just reaching UKP1.20 per litre, and the price of gas is forecast to rise by 50% or more in the coming winter. And it’s likely to keep on going up for the foreseeable future.
House prices are in free-fall and there seems to be a widespread acceptance that the wheels have fallen off the economy and that hard times are ahead.
The technology to change much of this “doom and gloom”, at least in energy costs, already exists. I was very impressed with the electric train services between London and Manchester. Most of the commuter lines around London , including the underground, are all electric too. If the electricity was generated by renewable sources or nuclear power, which is arguably a renewable too, the the UK could be moving millions daily with minimal CO2 emissions and no reliance on expensive middle eastern oil or Russian gas. I’m pleased to see that nuclear power is back in favour there. It would be good if everyone followed the lead of the UK and, particularly, the French.
The Chinese, too, have come in for a fair bit of criticism, in this and the NS blog, even though their emissions are a fraction of those in the USA and Australia. They must know that they can’t follow the American example and build their 21st century economy around the ICE.
This is probably the shape of 21st century motoring : PHVs and EVs I don’t expect that motorists will consciously choose these kind of cars out of concern for the environment. They’ll choose for financial reasons.
It is interesting that the solutions to the two main problems of our time: AGW and energy supply and independence, do coincide in the way they do. And so it doesn’t really matter if manacker, and others, have a problem with the idea of a 3 degree climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the way forward will be defined mainly on economic terms.
Robin:
Sorry to go back into ancient history, but I have been away. Could you have a second look at your Deming link at #265, which seems to be broken? If this is of the same order of interest as the Ruth Lea article (#263), I would very much like to read it.
A couple of months ago I suggested that the political landscape was changing and that the fertile ground which has nurtured AGW hysteria during the last few years may be vanishing. Catching up on the last fifty or so comments on this thread (and the links that go with them) I suspect that a trend may now be becoming discernible. Interestingly, this week’s Sunday Telegraph devoted pages to ridiculing the government’s green energy policy and the very murky policy decisions that underpin the plans to build ecotowns in the countryside. I suspect that within the next couple of months we will be beginning to see the media publishing articles by the likes of Bob Carter and Christopher Monckton again, but this time there will be something quite different in the way that these are received. Whereas sceptics were fighting a rearguard action a year ago, and for a while it seemed that all was lost, now they may find that they are leading the charge.
Brute #281:
A very astute observation indeed! I hadn’t noticed that either but, now that you have mentioned it, there would seem to be no doubt that this is true. Their views just aren’t sexy any more, and the media seem to have sensed this. More evidence of a radical change in the public’s attitude to the debate?
Peter Martin:
Welcome back!
I suggest that this is very dangerous ground for advocates of AGW to fight on. See here.
TonyN: here’s the Deming link.
I too am delighted to see you back here Peter – you should redress the imbalance. And thanks for your thoughtful post. I’ll try to find time for a comment tomorrow, although you’ll note that the Deming article (above) relevant. Incidentally, although I agree with its overall message, I think the comment about “fanatical environmentalism based on emotion, fraud and deceit” is OTT.
BTW your comment that China’s CO2 emissions “are a fraction of those in the USA” is wrong: see this. Perhaps you meant emissions per capita.
Hi Peter,
First of all, glad you are back.
Now to your comment: “I thought I might say hello again. The debate doesn’t seem to have progressed much, if any, during my absence, I’ve been away in the UK, and it doesn’t look as if David Benson has had any more success in shifting the anti-science attitudes of the “antis’ than I had. “
“Anti-science attitudes of the ‘antis’?” Wow!
Peter, for DBB it is not a matter of shifting “anti-science attitudes”, it is a matter of excluding any science that does not directly support his “belief” of alarming AGW. This is DBB’s problem in a nutshell, as any casual observer can glean from his comments on this site.
In his mind, if it supports his view on AGW it is “science”; if it does not it is not “science”.
To your next point: “Rather than keep on trying, it might be more fruitful to try to find some common ground. It seems to me that there is a genuine fear for the future, which can lead to a denialist mentality.”
Agree on the “common ground” part. There are probably many things that you, Robin, Brute, Black Wallaby, David B. Benson and I all can agree upon.
The need for energy conservation, elimination of waste, energy self-sufficiency, reduction of real pollution, renewable energy sources, expanded nuclear power generation, “clean coal” technology, automotive biofuels, improved electrical batteries and hybrid technology, etc.; these are probably all areas we can agree are important. Let’s discuss these and see where the nuanced differences of opinions lie (probably not many real differences).
As far as the “genuine fear for the future” goes, I question whether or not this is universal or any different today than it ever has been. The media have undoubtedly played a negative role in this regard with all their “imminent disaster” scare stories, as have some of the alarmist activists (such as James E. Hansen). I personally do not have any “fear for the future”, because I have learned to take these exaggerations (by media and activists) with a grain of salt.
Now to the “denialist mentality”: since I do not have this “fear for the future” (that you say many others feel) I do not need to resort to a “denialist mentality”. As a matter of fact, I have a strong positive outlook on what the future will bring on balance.
I believe that most of the other posters on this site share my generally positive outlook that the problems of tomorrow will get solved by solutions of tomorrow (from their comments on this site I have to admit that I have detected no “fear for the future”). So this is anything but a “denialist” attitude.
To your comment that “the Chinese, too, have come in for a fair bit of criticism,” I can only add that they are facing the monumental task of bring the standard of living of a significant portion of a 1.6 billion population up from the poverty level to a level of modest prosperity. They appear to be succeeding in this daunting task.
I cannot “criticize” the Chinese for doing this, even if it incidentally makes China the number one emitter of CO2 worldwide (which I personally do not view as a problem). I think their leaders (for all their poor record on human rights and treatment of dissidents) are doing the right thing for the Chinese people in concentrating on increasing their overall standard of living.
If affluent Westerners now apply “fuzzy-logic” reasoning to criticize the Chinese for bootstrapping their economy and average standard of living, I think this criticism is misplaced.
BTW your link to the automotive press release was interesting. Being the leader in plug-in hybrid development won’t hurt the Chinese economy, either.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Forgot to respond to your last point, that appears to have been at least partly directed at me: “And so it doesn’t really matter if manacker, and others, have a problem with the idea of a 3 degree climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the way forward will be defined mainly on economic terms.”
I agree. The way forward will not be defined by alarmist predictions of imminent disaster (based on assumed “3 degree climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentrations”) but will, as you say, “be defined mainly on economic terms”.
And that is a good thing, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin 303
You wrote in part, my emphasis added:
Was that a freudian slip?
Hey Peter, welcome back. I hope that you and your family are well.
Side note: I attended a local Independence Day celebration this afternoon. One of the speakers was Fred Singer. I caught up with him later in the day. I couldn’t engage him in a substantive conversation, (doesn’t seem to be the talkative type and it was warm today). Not a big deal, just thought it was sort of coincidental
Robin Guenier (302) — Up to natural climate variability, all the warming from about 1750 CE on is due to CO2 (and other global warming agents). Here are the emissions of CO2 since that date:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
which gives rise to the Keeling curve of growing CO2
in the air:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
and since CO2 is a global warming (so-called greenhouse)
gas, the world warms. Here are the decadal averages
from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg
I’ll just point out to all here that I am not willing to give up the laws of physics (and chemistry), whereas poster manacker is obviously ready to toss these out the window.
Also, I’m willing to look at all the data, whereas poster manacker is only willing to consider that data which fits his preconceptions.
Whatever poster manacker thinks he is doing, its not science.
Hi David,
You wrote: “I’ll just point out to all here that I am not willing to give up the laws of physics (and chemistry), whereas poster manacker is obviously ready to toss these out the window.”
Duh!
Please explain this rather silly statement.
Then you continued with: “Also, I’m willing to look at all the data, whereas poster manacker is only willing to consider that data which fits his preconceptions.”
Duh, again. Are you willing to look at the Spencer study that validated the Lindzen hypothesis on a major negative feedback from clouds? How about all the many solar studies I cited with links, which confirm a significant solar component to recent warming?
Of course you are “willing to look at all the data”, provided the data confirm your own views on AGW.
Your final blurb: “Whatever poster manacker thinks he is doing, its not science.”
Duh!
Of course not. Neither you nor I are “doing science” on this blog site. We are discussing the various aspects of the far-from-settled “science”, “pseudoscience”, “hype”, “political posturing” and “sensationalist alarmism” related to the on-going AGW debate.
That’s all.
Don’t take yourself so seriously, David.
Regards,
Max
Peter/Mr. Benson,
How do you account for the Fact that the global temperature is below where it was in 1998? See Robin’s post 299 and this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/what-a-difference-20-years-makes/
My apologies.
Should have written below 1988.
It also looks like there is about a million square km more ice than on July 4th last year in the Arctic. Does this mean the polar bears will be alright?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Hello again,
Yes I should have said ‘per capita’ in relative CO2 emissions. It’s the only sensible way to do it when countries of different populations such as the the Uk, China, USA and Australia are being discussed.
There is no conflict between arguments for climate mitigation and economics, except perhaps, in only the very short term. If it was much cheaper to do nothing, then of course it would make some sense to do nothing. The Australian government has just released an interim report under Prof Garnaud which argues along the same lines:
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2285
I’ve been keeping my eye on the NSDIC data for Arctic ice coverage too. The extent of the minimum observed in 2007 took everyone by surprise. Even the most ‘alarmist’, as some might say, hadn’t foreseen the situation being quite so bad. It may well be that 2008 will be slightly better, but it will be bad enough, and from the graph that Brute showed it doesn’t look like there will be much of an improvement.
Pete,
How about this?
Northwest Passage: still….. Impassable
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/northwest-passage-still-impassable/
A note of thanks to TonyN
Thanks for re-activating the Whitehouse/Lynas site just when Newstatesman was starting to see that the tide had turned against the arguments of the AGW supporters and, therefore, shut down further comment.
The NW passage was impassable at this time last year too, but became open for several weeks, for the first time in recorded history to conventional shipping, starting in late August.
see http://www.wunderground.com/climate/NorthernPassages.asp
It looks like the same thing will happen again this year.
The NW passage was still impassable at this time last year too, but became open to conventional shipping for the firts time in recorded history from late August for several weeks.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/NorthernPassages.asp
It looks like the same thing will happen this year too.
Unfortunately for manacker, in fact unfortunately for us all, the earth will not listen to a democratic vote of NS bloggers that the science of AGW warming is all wrong!
Hi Peter,
As to Arctic sea ice extent, you’ll be extremely pleased to note that the increase of the past winter has put the latest June extent well beyond earlier June levels. Together with earlier (February) estimates that confirmed increased thickness of Arctic sea ice, this should make us all relieved that there really is not a problem up there for the polar bears and their prey, the seals.
On top of all this, we can be pleased that the penguins down south are also enjoying continued increased Antarctic sea ice extent.
Good news for everyone, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hey Brute,
Great WattsUp links from you…..I (and I would recommend also to the naive DBB & PM) should spend more time over there!
That photo of two US and one British submarine floating on WATER at the North Pole in 1987 is a bit fishy though maybe? Yes, no?
http://www.john-daly.com/NP1987.jpg
Sounds like a bit of a conspiracy to me. It would take a bit of planning to get three subs there all at the same time without them bumping into each other! Wasn’t there a case some decades ago when a US sub exchanged barnacles with a Russian one off Norway or some-such-place up that way?
I reckon Pete will be hot-for-trot on this though, with all sorts of AGW hypothesese. For instance, at first pant, what about three lots of anthro-nuclear reactors all sitting under the ice at the same time? No wonder the ice melted; jeez, even though it was still only May; not yet summer!
Still, Maybe RC will have a better AGW explanation, that Pete can find and then scold us with….you know; something SCIENTIFIC!
Watch this space! I’m sure that he will have an anti-anti-scientific explanation that will leave us flapping around like a grounded mullet on its last few gasps, waiting to be de-gutted and filleted.