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.
TonyN,
RE: 3820
I’m really having difficulty describing these windmills….we viewed them from an adjacent ridgeline….. I would suppose 3-5 miles away as the crow flies and they were enormous……..Queer, absurd, “unnatural”, monoliths and……..motionless. They had to be the 500’ tall variety as they dwarfed the mountain.
As you’ve written, photographs of the site don’t even begin to show the immensity……..just completely out of place. I’m wondering which politician got kickbacks from which windmill company to allow these monstrosities to be built.
Any thoughts on this?
Brute
Can you explain to me why “greenies” despise the sight of “mule head” oil well pumps nodding away or high tension power transmission lines despoiling the landscape, but get ecstatic when these turbine windmill monstrosities are scattered all over the natural scenery?
Is this hypocrisy or is there a “double standard” at work here?
Max
Windmills really enhance the natural beauty of the desert here in southern California.
Hi JZ, Reur 3827 on Antarctic warming.
I wonder about the measurement accuracy, and how the Ozone hole argument is applied. (is it getting bigger or smaller?)
Also some important factors are not discussed, and it seems a bit agenda driven to me.
For instance:
Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35,
By coincidence, earlier today I posted at Gristmill some geology stuff about West Antarctica, which appears to be “hotter” as a consequence of tectonic activity. (it is certainly a regional-specific consideration which I have not seen rebutted)
JZSmith
The “warming Antarctica” blurb sounds more like hype than a serious scientific report.
A September 2007 report states that according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent
A recent report shows data that support the conclusion that the slight long-term cooling trend has continued through 2008.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/2008-update-on-antarctic-temperatures-rss/
The mean summer temperature is –15 to –35C
The mean winter temperature is –40 to –70C
Not much water melts at these temperatures
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml
As far as the threat of melting Antarctic ice is concerned, a long-term study published in 2006 (based on 10+ years of satellite measurements) has shown that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing on average.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/38315t2244r5w3m4/
A quote from this study: “Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.” A net mass growth of 27 Gt/year is reported.
The relatively small Arctic Peninsula (0.8% of Antarctic ice sheet) has warmed, but ice mass has grown, due to increased snowfall, which exceeded the loss of glacial ice to the ocean.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (10.0%) appears to have receded, not due to melting, but due to the net flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, exceeding the mass gain from snowfall; this has apparently occurred even though temperatures have remained stable.
The much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet (89.2%) has cooled and is growing, due to increased snowfall.
Even IPCC states, “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
But hype “sells” a lot better than facts.
Max
Bob-FJ and Max,
Thanks for your replies. My science expertise does not stack up to either of you and I appreciate your input. I agree that based on my understanding, the AA ice sheet is indeed growing. Furthermore, don’t all the major temp anomaly tracking organization’s data agree that any recent decade warming has occurred in the northern hemisphere only.
JZ,
Reur pretty photo of windmills.
So after all that effort, that amounts to just part of the renewables in pale blue below.
Wiki’ Electricity generation (USA)
Pete,
I thought the oceans were storing heat? Has NASA now entered the realm of the
Pete,
I thought the oceans were storing heat? Has NASA now entered the realm of the “denialists”?
Oceans are cooling according to NASA
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
Max,
I’ve not much time at the moment. Will come back with some graphs etc later.
Meanwhile, if Lindzen “knows his stuff”, as you suggest, maybe you could tell me why he thinks we are 75% of the way to 2xC02 rather than the 45% figure we both agree on?
A lot of people would agree with you when you say that “worrying about what might theoretically happen outside that range is a waste of time”. But then again, these are people who don’t know any better. I’m surprised at you for suggesting that. It’s right to be sceptical of both mathematical equations and computer models. One good check is to look at what the models or equations predict under very extreme conditions. If they give obviously the wrong answer then doubts may well be justified.
Brute,
(TonyN: Snip – sorry Peter, too political)
Brute,
The ‘Examiner’ on-line journal you credit with showing that the oceans are cooling seem to be getting a little out of their depth. But, I suppose that you could argue that since they spew forth rubbish about this sort of thing:
“Bonnie Vent is The Spirit Advocate?. She is the ‘active voice for spirits on the other side’ who delivers messages from those spirits….”
http://www.examiner.com/x-1814-Paranormal-Examiner
so they are just as entitled to print rubbish about climate science too. Perhaps you’d like to tell them 1934 wasn’t the warmest year globally. Just in America. Some Americans might think that the world ends at their Atlantic and Pacific coastlines but a quick check on Google earth should be enough to demonstrate otherwise.
Hi Peter,
Reur 3836: I sense a waffle here, Peter. Are you truly concerned in a practical sense about hypothetical atmospheric CO2 concentrations under 280 ppm or over 1120 ppm? If so, why?
These are levels that we will never see, so why fret about them?
Your statement that only “people who don’t know any better” would not fret about these hypothetical levels (outside the practical range) is a bit bizzare. On what do you base this strange statement, and why?
If one believes in the validity of the greenhouse theory, the logarithmic relation (as shown on the curve I posted) gives a good correlation within these practical limits.
Regards,
Max
Gee Pete, In my 3799, I complemented you with:
However, when I look at your 3836 and 3837, I wonder if my praise for you may have “gone to your head”
Please put brain in gear before opening mouth again.
Hey Pete (2),
Further my 3839, let me please give you some more unpaid education, and try to improve your thinking processes. You posted the following appalling image with reference to CO2 emissions.
Ok, let me try and tutor you, (free), yet more. The human eye has evolved to utilise the most powerful CENTRAL PART of the SOLAR spectrum of light, (= light from the sun), which is appropriately called visible light. Your photo was also clearly snapped in the same area of visible light rather than say in the infra-red or ultra violet wavelengths which are not visible to the human eye. What is agreed in science is that CO2 is transparent to visible light, but opaque to some longer frequencies in the infra-red light wavelengths, (Re-emitted from the cooler surface of the Earth, relative to the hot Sun source), which is the basis behind the theory of the greenhouse effect.
To put it perhaps in simple words, all that stuff that you can SEE issuing from those stacks is NOT CO2, quite simply because CO2 is not visible to the human eye. (or any camera using visible light)
I hope you can understand this tutorial OK Pete, if not, please do not hesitate to make enquiries!
Hi Peter,
In combing through your 3836 I found a “nugget of wisdom”. You wrote, “It’s right to be sceptical of both mathematical equations and computer models.”
This skepticism of theoretical “mathematical equations and computer models” as opposed to actual physical observations gets to the heart of our long exchange.
Let’s see if we can summarize where we stand on our discussion.
Leaving out little side excursions to Arctic/Antarctic sea ice, sea level trends, CO2 emissions by country, long-term versus short-term prediction ability, 2,500 consensus scientists can’t be wrong, plus various OT political discussions stretching TonyN’s patience almost to the breaking point, we basically covered the key points below, all essentially relating to the weakness of theoretical “mathematical equations and computer models” as compared to actual physical observations:
We have shown that once the total physically observed warming is adjusted to include the warming from increased solar activity, AGW has resulted in approximately 0.3C warming from 1850 to today, representing around 1% of the total greenhouse effect today.
Based on actual recent physical observations (primarily on the previously “uncertain” impact of clouds) we have “shot down” the theoretical climate model feedback assumptions leading to a 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” of 3.2C; we have shown that this is closer to 0.6 to 0.8C in actual fact.
We have demonstrated that the hypothetical suggestion of future warming “hidden in the pipeline” from “ocean heat uptake” to be released as added atmospheric warming some time in the future is not credible.
Based on all this we have concluded that the theoretical computer-projected greenhouse warming from today to year 2100 is likely to be no more than 0.4C (not as much as 6C, as conjured up by some alarmist circles).
I believe that this summarizes fairly succinctly where we stand with our long discussion.
If you have any specific arguments or data to demonstrate that the above conclusions are invalid, please bring them now.
Otherwise, let’s see if we can now agree to the above and move on to new topics, rather than rehashing everything all over again.
Regards,
Max
If anyone wants to waste time on this latest piece of Antarctic nonsense they just need to know that in the report;
“deduced, interpolated and Michael Mann” were mentioned in the same sentence. I am sure Dr Mann is working on the principle that ‘antarctic ice is an outdated concept’, just as he believed with the MWP.
Also this quote from WUWT who are running a thread
” Scientists involved in this field have to toe the line for the sake of their careers. An article in the http://www.cato.org web site (Vol.15, No.2, Spring 1992) notes that one scientist lost funding from the National Science Foundation (who also funded the study above) because of:
quote;
“…data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity.”
*end quote*
TonyB
Re: #3829, JZ
Given that these turbines are sighted on low and intermediate ground in relation to the mountains it would be interesting to know what their load factor is. Turbines do not perform well where there is turbulence and wind sheer. I would guess that in this case it would be a very low fugure, certainly for less than 30%.
Re: #2826,Brute
If you have a scheme like the Renewables Obligation you can get the subsidies straight from the consumer to the producer. No big figures in government accounts to explain, and it is almost impossible to find out just what the total extent of the subsidies are.
So far as the planning process is concerned, these schemes invariably produce massive local opposition which is overruled by central government because, you see, the planet is in danger; we must all make sacrifices. And so far as the government is concerned, they know that four-fifths of the population live in urban areas, so they won’t have to look at the turbines every day and won’t care.
TonyN re your 3843:
The area where these windmills are located is in a canyon cut by the San Andreas fault through the San Bernadino mountains. A major interstate freeway runs through it from LA to the west through San Bernadino and Palm Springs on its way to Phoenix, Arizona. The mountains on either side are something like 8,000ft.
Google Maps has this image that if you zoom in on you can see the towers and their shadows on the ground below them.
Due to the terrain, most of the time the wind blows west to east quite strongly, and during Santa Ana conditions, even more strongly from east to west. The canyon is a tight passageway through which the gathering wind must pass, generating a significant venturi effect, thereby amplifying the velocity of the wind. It is actually quite a good place for wind mills, except for the scar on the landscape. Driving by they are actually kind of fascinating to see, but after 20 minutes of driving through the windmill forest it gets old.
There is another much smaller wind farm just east of San Diego about an hour’s drive. I hope they don’t expand it to the extent of the farm above.
Is the Ocean (Really, Really) Cooling or Warming?
Hi Peter,
In your 3837 to Brute referring to the observed recent cooling of the ocean, you wrote: “The ‘Examiner’ on-line journal you credit with showing that the oceans are cooling seem to be getting a little out of their depth. But, I suppose that you could argue that since they spew forth rubbish about this sort of thing [reference to a totally unrelated article by another author] they are just as entitled to print rubbish about climate science too.”
You apparently missed the point, Peter
The article by Justin Berk in the “Weather Examiner” entitled, “Oceans are cooling according to NASA” tells the story of how the world’s oceans have been losing heat since 2003, based on the data coming from the new state-of-the-art Argus robots.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
A longer article by Rebecca Lindsey on NASA’s Earth Observatory site describes in detail how scientists were baffled by the cooling trend and then selected those data that correlated better with their model-based expectations of what should have been observed, namely a warming instead of a cooling, rejecting the “too cold” data coming from the new Argus robots in favor of the “too warm” data coming from the older, less reliable measurement devices.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
A blogger named “BobC” summarized it the best:
“The article is a perfect example of a “scientist” who keeps manipulating his data until it gives him the “right” answer. Look at these excerpts [my comments in brackets]:
“It wasn’t until that next year of data came in that the cooling in the Atlantic became so large and so widespread that Willis accepted the cooling trend for what is was: an unambiguous sign that something in the observations was “clearly not right.”
[i.e., it didn’t agree with the models, so had to be “adjusted”.]
“First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”
[Yep: Data selection is the easiest way to “adjust” “bad” data. Notice that the only criteria used is that the rejected float data is in the direction he doesn’t want. Wonder if he looked for any warm “outliers”?…]
“The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm.”
“The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others. But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went way.”
Problem solved! Just throw away the really embarrassing data (from your state-of-the-art sensors), then add in some data from a 40 year old technique suspected to be biased the other way, and Voila! Dangerous (to his funding, anyway) ocean cooling has disappeared!
Had the Argo float data showed the oceans warming, Willis wouldn’t have given it a second look — just published another “confirmation” of AGW.
I’ve worked as an engineer for 30 years — adjusting data to fit preconceived beliefs is never a good way to reach accurate conclusions. Willis’ methods are bogus, and he will get good results only by accident, if at all.
January 21, 8:01 PM
In a follow-up post BobC writes:
The completely bogus “science” in this article is no better summed up than by Willis’ rejecting colder Argus floats because “…they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period.” — while eagerly accepting old XBT data BECAUSE “Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm.”
Obviously, data exclusion and inclusion selection was done for the SOLE PURPOSE of getting rid of the embarassing cooling signal.
This is called “fudging” or “cheating” — it is NOT science! The fact that these “scientists” will actually publish this stuff shows an incredible ignorance of what science is. They obviously see their job as providing support for the Enhanced AGW theory.
Of course, when you select for bias, that is what you get. Scientists who actually do their job of exploring the data and theories without prejudice are selected out by the funding process, which is firmly in the control of the alarmists.
January 22, 12:17 PM
BobC has stated very clearly why we can no longer believe reports of warming or other climate disasters from many climate researchers: the data are being manipulated to “sell” the alarming AGW story and data points that do not support the theory are discarded as “outliers”; those scientists who do not go along with this process are cut off from funding.
Peter, you have to dig a bit deeper, rather than just brushing off articles that do not happen to agree with your own personal viewpoint. A closer examination of this whole boondoggle shows clearly that it is not the authors of the “Examiner” article that “seem to be getting a little out of their depth”, it is the so-called “scientists” that are manipulating data to “sell” us a fictitious story of alarming AGW.
Brute was right to draw attention to this (yet another) example of “bad science” being used to sell a bill of goods.
Regards,
Max
This looks very interesting. I’d love to read some critiques.
TonyB, your 3842:
You are right, Micheal Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” was one of the lead authors of this “scientific study”.
Latest AGW laugh
Latest results with the new state-of-the-art Argus temperature sensor robots show that the ocean has been cooling since they have been put into operation in 2003 (see Brute 3835).
NASA has tried to hide this fact by throwing out the Argus data points that show cooling, but this approach is a bit too transparent. So what to do?
The latest “fad” in AGW “pseudoscience” is to blame the observed cooling of the ocean on melting Greenland and Antarctic ice, which (as every schoolchild knows) is caused by AGW (see quote by one of the “scientists” in Brute’s report).
In other words AGW is causing temperatures to rise, causing ice sheets to melt, causing the ocean temperature to cool. A wonderful hypothesis. The average guy out there will swallow this at face value because it came from a “scientist”.
But let’s do a quick “sanity check”.
The most pessimistic of all the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet studies tell us that each location is losing about 150 Gt/year of ice. This is not all due to melting, however, since a major part of the loss comes from glacial ice flow into the ocean. But let’s ignore that and assume it’s all from melting.
The Arctic and Antarctic sea ice both melt in summer and refreeze in winter. On a combined global basis there is no net melting of ice, so this can be ignored.
300 Gt of melting ice remove around 1×10^17 joules, or 100,000,000 Gigajoules/year.
The mass of the upper ocean (top 700 meters) is around 250,000,000 Gt.
The specific heat of sea water is around 4,000 Gigajoules/Gt°C
This means that the melting ice will cool the upper ocean by:
(100,000,000) / (250,000,000 * 4,000) = 0.0001°C per year
Ouch! The postulation does not pass the “sanity test”.
It’s just another AGW boondoggle.
Max
JZSmith 3848
Would you trust this exposed sleight-of-hand artist with your bristlecone pine?
After his hockeystick fiasco he should be banned from publishing “scientific” studies.
Max