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.
Max,
Yes you are right when you say that “This (the extent of the arctic sea ice) has recovered somewhat since then”
Crikey! I do feel that you are understating the case. As
‘wattsupwiththat’ themslelves say its a whoppping 9.4%
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/16/artic-sea-ice-melt-season-officially-over-up-over-9-from-last-year/
I’ve shown this on this graph:
9.4% !! That’s a huge increase. On this projection we’ll see Arctic sea ice levels restored to pre 1978 levels in the next few years. Lets see what those AGW alarmists have to say then !
PS Sorry. I know that you did advise that I should just let the readers look at the graphs for themselves and maybe I am exhibiting the zeal of the convert but, still, the graph, using NSDIC data, does speak for itself.
Max
It would need whole lorry loads of salt for me to accept these figures-not a solitary grain. Unfortunately we are out of salt due to the huge snow falls nationally and locally (extremely unusual locally)
http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/
Several stories on this site about the local snow fall.Ironically the lack of salt is due to the forecast for winter by the Met office (15 miles away) which said it would be very mild. This was believed by the councils who did not order the salt and have nothing in their budgets for it. The huge amount of snow mentioned in the video illustrates the worthlessnes of the concept of trying to produce a global climate through global temperatures-most of the world has micro climates.
As an example right on the coast where I am we had barely a flake yet go inland a mile and start rising 50 feet and the snow fall was so bad that drivers were stranded overnight. This was not forecast by the met office even two hourse beforehand! The max height of the local hills is 250 metres and the temp difference between our house was plus 4C and on the hilltops -2C
So I have a problem with the concept of Global temperatures as well as the collection of data. Add in UHI and micro climates and the worth of these concepts is further diminished.
The very serious point of all this is that we are being asked to dismantle our economy to meet the worlds most stringent co2 levels and to date our directly related green taxes are some £1000 per year predicted to treble in three years.
In addition it seems likely we will have a carbon card that will severely restrict our flying. In the meantime China open a new coal fired power station every week and we hurtle to the edge of the abyss of an energy crisis as we refuse to build ANYTHING that will deliver any worthwhile energy supplies but persist in believing that a few toy windmills will provide the energy we need.
Sheer madness that is based on a nonsensical set of temperatures supposed to prove that a trivial trace gas is causing the world such huge problems.
When all is said and done, rubbish figures are rubbish figures and making nonsensical adjustments makes them worse not better.
TonyB
Max
WUWT is dealing with weather stations at present in this thread. This partticlar station moved 10 times in 80 years
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/07/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-81-roofing-the-past-in-columbia/#more-5465
I tracked one that moved 17 times in 60 years from 1870 then I lost interest around 1970…
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You wrote in 4076 (speaking of September 2008 NSIDC data), “9.4% !! [growth per year] That’s a huge increase. On this projection we’ll see Arctic sea ice levels restored to pre 1978 levels in the next few years.” Then you added the “tongue-in-cheek” commentary, “Lets see what those AGW alarmists have to say then !”
Let’s put your statement into perspective (leaving out the commentary part):
The record started in 1978 with 1979 the first full year of data, so “pre-1978 levels” is a meaningless concept. Does it refer to the levels of sea ice extent in the 1930s and 1940s, which were much lower than the latest September low of 2007? Does it refer to the even lower levels during the MWP?
It makes more sense to limit the discussion to the short-term period for which we have consistent satellite data, conceding that this is just a small “blip” in the record, but that it’s all we have.
The end September sea ice extent in millions of km^2 was:
2008: 4.67
2007: 4.28
For an annual increase of 0.39 million km^2
The linear average rate of decline (since 1979) is 0.78 million km^2 per decade (11% below baseline), so this 2008/2007 growth is equal to 5 years average net decrease.
But is it a “big deal”?
The maximum September year-to-year increase occurred between 1995 and 1996:
1995: 6.13
1996: 7.88
For an annual increase of 1.75 million km^2.
The maximum (and much bally-hooed) September year-to-year decrease occurred between 2006 and 2007:
2006: 5.89
2007: 4.28
For an annual decrease of 1.61 million km^2.
So the latest change was not really unusual.
If the same rate of growth were to continue, it would take 7 years to get back to the “1979-2000 mean” end September extent and 7.5 years to get back to the 1979 extent.
Who knows what will really happen? Not me. Not you. Not the NSIDC.
Regards,
Max
PS BTW you quoted WUWT stating that the 2008/2007 increase was a “whopping 9.4%!”. I couldn’t find the word “whopping”. Did you just make that up?
Hi Peter,
Here are some non-anthropogenic things to think about.
As you know from our earlier exchange, several solar studies have concluded that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity has been responsible for around 0.35C warming over the long-term record.
More recently we have seen a reversal of this trend; solar cycle 24 has started off with an unusually inactive sun.
Will there be a prolonged slowdown in solar activity as predicted in this recent study published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics?
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-jastp-71-239.pdf
Will this “moderate-to-low activity” cycle last for “at least one Geissberg cycle (60-100 years)? Will it have a similar cooling impact on our planet as the Dalton cycle of the late 18th and early 19th century?
Is “global warming over”, as John Casey, the Director of the Space and Science Research Center has reiterated? Is the sun entering a prolonged period of “solar hibernation” as the study cited above suggests? Will this period of global cooling cause massive crop failures, food shortages and famines as the one starting in the late 18th century did (when there were only 1 billion humans on Earth, rather than almost 7 billion, as there are today)?
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
“The global warming of the past decades was caused by the Sun. It is now over. It will not return based upon the SSRC’s research, for at least thirty years. It will then return only because the Sun’s repeating cycles of activity are scheduled to pick up again at that time.”
Just some “non-anthropogenic” climate predictions to think about.
Will they turn out to be right? Who knows?
I would guess that they probably have at least as good a chance as the anthropogenic warming predictions made by IPCC.
What do you think of all this?
Regards,
Max
TonyB
Reur 4078 on weather stations.
I have tried posting this attachment to my 4070 twice, but it keeps getting thrown out by the spam filter.
It shows very clearly the impact of urbanization and poor station siting on the temperature record. The official GISS data for the two nearby sites (near Sacramento, CA) came from WUWT.
Two fairly closely located weather stations showed totally different long-term temperature trends (over past 70 years, when most of the “urbanization” effects took place).
Orland, CA (the well-sited station with little urban encroachment) showed a long-term warming trend of around 0.06C per decade.
Marysville, CA (the station with major urban encroachment and poor siting) showed a long-term warming trend of around 0.26C per decade.
The spurious difference between the two stations is 0.2C per decade, much greater than the “global” increase over this same period of 0.069C per decade (according to the GISS record).
Over the 70-year period, Marysville warmed by 1.4C more than nearby Orland!
I’ll try posting the graphic again.
Regards,
Max
Note to TonyN
Can you see why this attachment keeps getting thrown out and fix the problem? Thanks!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/3257199940_44e746bf6a_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Here’s the graph that keeps getting rejected.
Max
Hi Peter,
The conclusions reached in 4079 re September Arctic Sea Ice comparisons (usually the point of highest summer melt) are just as valid when comparing August values, as you did.
The only difference is that it would take less time to reach 1979 sea ice extent if 2008/2007 advance rate were to continue into the future.
Your curve shows the “red line” moving upward rapidly. 1979 level would be surpassed by 2012, or four years from now.
But will it really happen that way?
Or will the 2008/2007 “blip” reverse itself?
Who knows?
Anyway, your analysis is “spot on”.
Regards,
Max
TonyB
“I tracked one [weather station] that moved 17 times in 60 years from 1870 then I lost interest around 1970.”
Why don’t they just mount them on trucks (believe you call these “lorries”), or (better yet) on small, automobile drawn, flat bed trailers just behind the automobiles’ exhaust pipes?
Just a thought.
Regards,
Max
Max 4081
Two good examples demonstrating the UHI that apparently the IPCC believes is so trivial as to be barely measurable
Tonyb
Sun., Feb. 8, 2009
JACKSON, WY – Sulfur dioxide emitted from volcanoes and from burning fossil fuel is the primary initiator of global climate change, according to Dr. Peter L. Ward, a retired U.S. Geological Survey scientist who continues to study the earth and its environment through his own company, Teton Tectonics. “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas compounding global warming, but it is not the initiator of climate change,” according to Ward
Northern Ireland’s Enviro Minister bans AGW “propaganda”.
JZSmith
Glad to hear that the Northern Ireland enviro minister has seen that the AGW scare is a hoax. Let’s see if the Brits are astute enough to follow…
The Irish (North or South) have gotten an undeserved label of being a bit behind the times, but this is clear evidence that this is false today. Hats off to the Irish!
Thomas Cahill credits them with “saving western civilization”, back in the dark days of St. Patrick, immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire.
Who knows? Are they going to be the ones that brings the “western world” back to sanity on the “global warming” scare?
Regards,
Max
PS In my post #3976 I tried to estimate the impact of deforestation on the human CO2 emissions to date (and the resulting theoretical greenhouse warming). I came up with around 30% of the total since around 1850. This would be much higher if one calculated the total deforestation impact over history, but there are no available data here. What do you think of this estimate?
When Sammy Wilson, the Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister referred to by JZ above, was interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News last night he was treated with disdain. I imagine that Mr Wilson is getting used to it, but suspect that many AGW sceptics don’t yet appreciate the huge obstacles they face in getting anything close to a fair hearing from a MSM that is wholly in thrall to the current orthodoxy.
A further thought on my post 4090 above.
The “killer’ argument put forward by the MSM (e.g. by Jon Snow yesterday) is that “the overwhelming majority of climate scientists” believe that AGW is a most serious problem requiring urgent action. Until sceptics find a telling “sound bite” response, they’ll get nowhere.
Robin,
How about:
‘The overwhelming majority of climate scientists rely on climate alarmism for their job security. As a journalist, would you expect them to hold entirely objective views on the subject?’
Robin
You pointed out that the AGW killer argument is “the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that AGW is a most serious problem requiring urgent action”.
This may be true today, but two things can shoot holes into this “killer argument”.
First, as more and more serious climate scientists see that this is a hoax, they will speak out (as they are already starting to do), sowing the seeds of doubt in the general public.
A significant shift in the actual “pro/con headcount” will start to erode this “killer argument”.
Second, if temperatures continue to fall (as they are now doing) the general public will gradually become aware that global warming is over and there is no future “catastrophe” to be expected from AGW.
I’d say that the biggest scientific “killer argument” against alarming AGW to date lies in the physical observations of Spencer et al. on cloud feedbacks. These show that there is no “disastrous” warming to be expected by year 2100 from human CO2 emissions, as projected by the so-called “consensus” of “2,500 climate scientists”.
Spencer (and others) are doing their best to get this message out there to the general public, despite some reluctance from the media to go against the currently PC AGW mantra.
You may be right that a “telling ‘sound bite’ response” will be required to counter the AGW killer argument, and I have no answer on what this should be.
But, Robin, I do believe that “the times they are a’changin” on AGW. Maybe I’m just an optimist…
Regards,
Max
I’m sorry Tony and Max but neither of you really get it. I know from hard experience how hard it is to establish any sort of ascendancy in a TV interview. Remember you’d be up against a dismissive statement on these lines:
You have to find a simple response. I’d start perhaps with this:
Having established that you’re a serious person, the objective would be to shift the discussion to the real issues. So, depending on the interviewer’s response, I’d be ready with something on these lines:
Thereafter you’d have to play it by ear – remembering that the interviewer probably doesn’t know much about the subject.
There is increasing evidence that the symbiotic relationship between climate research and politicians is likely to end in tears. New post here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=155
Well, Tony, it may “end in tears”. But there’s no sign of those tears yet – although some politicians are edging away from serious action. Hence Poznan. And meanwhile the MSM continues to accept the AGW hypothesis without question. The odd thing is that, despite all the propaganda, most people seem not to buy it.
Robin
Surely the ‘killer’ arguement-and one that is of much more daily relevance, is to allude to the fact that far greater numbers of highly qualified ‘experts’ were involved in finance than in climate change-but that still didn’t stop them being disastrously wrong because they misinterpreted complex information.
Further, that the prime skills behind the failed financial sector – mathematicians computer modellers and statisticians- are the same as those being used by the climate theorists to endorse their own complex and unproven assertions.
TonyB
TonyB: yes – very good points.
Robin,
I think I get your point (4094).
A “scientific” killer argument will not do the trick.
In fact, any logical argument based on the facts will not suffice.
It needs to be something more polemic and catchier, something that evokes a visceral reaction, like the picture of a swimming, desperate-looking polar bear struggling to find a piece of solid ice.
Rachel Carson had a masterful two-worder with “Silent Spring”. Those two words told it all.
One of the moral and ethical soft spots of the AGW cause (a “rich man’s” movement, based on collective “guilt” and fueled by “fear” plus “greed”) is that it intends to block the poorest nations of this world from approaching our level of standard of living by depriving them of inexpensive, reliable electrical power, exactly that ingredient that helped us to become affluent, and secondly that AGW mitigation expenditures directly take away funding that could otherwise be used to help the poorest nations move away from poverty and disease.
So there is a “double whammy” for the populations of these nations from the “rich man’s” AGW craze.
This logical argument has been made by Bjorn Lomborg and others. But we need more than just a “logical argument”.
A starving child in Africa with the sub-title, “My supper went to finance a climate researcher”?
I’m sure that a good PR firm could come up with something catchy that plays on this moral and ethical soft spot.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
You mention the dynamics of TV interviews.
I watched the CNN debate between Bjorn Lomborg and Jeffrey Sachs.
The moderator did his best to be neutral, so there was no built-in bias from that side.
The argumentation used by both sides was interesting.
Lomborg was cool and factual, agreeing at one point that there is global warming and that it may well be at least partially a result of human greenhouse gas emissions.
Sachs was more professorial, at times bordering on arrogant, verbally “patting Lomborg on the head” for having “changed his view” and coming around to accept AGW.
Lomborg quietly countered this by stating that his view on AGW had not changed.
Lomborg’s points were well reasoned and presented. His main point was that massive CO2 mitigation expenditures will achieve less for the good of our planet and society than expenditures for many other important causes.
Sachs seemed to have run out of logical arguments so he resorted to belittling Lomborg for his lack of understanding of the gravity of the climate crisis.
Finally, when the discussion got a bit stickier for Sachs, he became emotional (an act?) and evoked the “grandchildren” card (if we do not act immediately we will leave our grandchildren a very hostile planet).
So Sachs replaced logic and reasoning with hyperbole and fear-mongering while Lomborg remained calm and factual.
What would a casual and impartial viewer “take home” from this debate?
Is an “appeal to the emotions” more convincing than an “appeal to logic”?
Regards,
Max