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.
Mrs. Brute,
I really don’t want to intervene; however, when reviewing documents regarding “Global Warming” presented by American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Royal Society (UK), CSIRO (Australia), etc……it may be a worthwhile exercise to highlight how many times you read words such as “might” cause, “may” cause, “should” cause, “could” cause………….words and quantifiers that really don’t assert anything positively or definitively.
Scientists are very much like the politicians (in some cases they are one in the same) in the phraseology that they use…never actually or completely committing to anything…….much like brother in-law Jimmy.
Dear Mrs. Brute,
Your husband has passed on a bit of good advice regarding the fine meaning of “disclaimer” words. These include the words he listed, of course, but also include such terms as “more likely than not”, “very unlikely”, “likely assessed uncertainty ranges”, “higher level of confidence in…”, “improving understanding of…”, “consistent within uncertainties”, “based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution”, “may have been”, etc.
We have here, as a contributor, someone who has demonstrated great skill on this site in “reading” words for their expressed as well as implied meanings (Robin Guenier), with an uncanny knack for detecting innuendo that might be missed by others lacking this ability.
While I cannot speak for Robin, I’m sure he would not mind helping you interpret some of the more cloudy proclamations by the politically correct leaders of these scientific bodies.
Regards,
Max
Mrs Brute / Max: well, I’d be glad to help. The trouble is there are so many of them I don’t know where to start. Max: any ideas?
PS: I hope that Peter has not overlooked my question at #4170 re his assurance to Mrs Brute that “We aren’t all doomed!”.
Brute,
You asked Peter the “what would happen if…” question.
In their SPM 2007 report, IPCC gives us two quick glimpses at their “what would happen if…” prophesy.
“Continued greenhouse emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed in the 20th century.”
But more alarming:
“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 stabilised.”
Sounds like we’re doomed no matter what we do, but let’s see what Peter’s take is on all this…
Regards,
Max
Max
Much as I like your six extra suggestions, it would somewhat lose the point if it was called the 13 pillars of AGW wisdom :)
According to wiki (which has some uses)
The title comes from the Book of Proverbs, 9:1: “Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars” Prior to the First World War, Lawrence had begun work on a scholarly book about seven great cities of the Middle East,[1] to be titled Seven Pillars of Wisdom.
A line from the dedicatory poem at the start of the book helps explain Lawrence’s interpretation of the Biblical “seven pillars” and their relevance to the Arab Revolt:
“I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands
and wrote my will across the sky in stars
To gain you Freedom, the seven-pillared worthy house,
that your eyes might be shining for me
When I came”
Now the symbolism is that instead of the Arab revolt it is the climate revolt, so seven pillars is a nice synergy for the seven great myths the AGW members have constructed.
Mind you I like your;
“A consensus of 2,500 scientists cannot be wrong” so much that I am willing to drop one of my own seven pillars and insert this one instead. So seven pillars and six steps up to them perhaps? Still more manageable than the 95 theses though…
Anyone like to make their own pitch for alternative pillars?
TonyB
Max/TonyB/Luke: I hesitate to repeat myself but I fear all this talk of debates, trials, 95 theses, 7 pillars etc. demonstrates a worrying naivety about a most serious matter: the simple reality that the MSM would not be remotely interested in anything of this sort. In the phrase that Peter liked so much, it is wholly convinced that sceptical opinion is based on “the nonsensical junk science of the right-wing think tanks and their cadre of scientists for hire.” For example, you’ll recall that, a few days ago, Channel 4 News interviewed Northern Ireland’s sceptical environmental minister (#4090) and treated him with disdain verging on contempt. Then tonight, considering a report that the UK’s actions to “combat climate change” were inadequate, the studio debate was robust: between the view that actions were inadequate and the view that they were most inadequate – no thought of querying the assumption underlying the discussion.
The real question is: how is that assumption to be changed?
Hi Peter,
You mentioned that several scientific bodies have endorsed the IPCC position and projections on AGW in various position statements made by the society leaders.
The Geological Society of America is one of the many scientific bodies that has issued such a “position statement” relative to AGW:
“Position Statement
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.”
While agreeing that “the climate changes are due in part to human activities”, this statement sounds pretty non-committal to me. In fact, I could pretty much endorse it, myself!
But then, one of their members (Dr. Don Easterbrook) recently published a paper in a GSA abstract, which suggests that the global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998 is now over as a result of a shift in the PDO cycle plus similar cooling in the NAO. The study concludes that we have entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades. As a result the IPCC model projections for this decade and century must be considered highly questionable.
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/11/global_cooling.html
“Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.
However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.”
“The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”
This followed a 2005 study by the same authors coming to the same conclusion based on historical data:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_95510.htm
“Climatic modelers have predicted that global temperatures will soar in the next several decades as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. However, evidence from glaciers and the oceans suggest that these predictions may be premature. Advance and retreat of glaciers in the Pacific NW and elsewhere show three distinct oscillations, each having a period of ~25–30 years. Glaciers advanced from about 1890 until the early 1920s (cool cycle), retreated rapidly from ~1930 to ~1950-55 (warm cycle), readvanced from ~1955 to ~1980 (cool cycle), then retreated rapidly from ~1980 to the present (warm cycle). Comparable, cyclical, oscillation patterns occurred in the North Pacific (PDO), the North Atlantic (NAO), Europe, and Greenland. Global temperature curves show a cool reversal from ~1950 to 1980) at a time when large amounts of CO2 were introduced into the atmosphere, inferring that global temperatures then were not driven by atmospheric CO2. During this cool cycle, solar irradiance curves almost exactly match the global temperature curve. Satellite data indicate intensifying solar radiation over the past 24 years, coinciding with the present 25–year warm cycle and suggesting a solar cause for the warming. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the next 25–30 years, followed by renewed global warming in the following 25–30 years.”
So it appears that while the GSA direction gives a more “politically correct” (but still non-committal) policy statement with regard to AGW, some of its members have a decidedly more skeptical view.
This is just one example. Are there others?
But even more to the point, could this be why the Met Office (and Phil Jones) are beginning to “hedge their bets” on the next few decades of global warming?
Regards,
Max
Robin,
You said that ” the 2014 figure would be 0.747C. [the UK Met Office prediction] That’s a lot higher even than the 1998 peak and would mean an increase from today of over 0.3 deg C.”
I guess that’s right. But, the prediction hasn’t come from any of their multimillion pound computer models. All they would have needed was a PC to produce a graph like:
The rolling five year average increased by 0.22 degC in the nineties. After the recent levelling out of temperatures , largely caused by cool ocean conditions, we are due for another similar jump in the next few years.
Probably even if the worst happpens: Metres of Sea levels rise, a global increase in temperatures of several degrees, the human race will somehow survive. It’ll all be pretty ugly though. So, even in that sense, we aren’t all ‘doomed’ as you put it. Are you sure you’re not that Scottish guy out of ‘Dad’s Army’? :-)
But philosophically I’m an optimist, and do believe that humanity collectively has the intelligence to avoid following a path of self destruction and that there will be a bright future.
Robin 4181
You said
“Max/TonyB/Luke: I hesitate to repeat myself but I fear all this talk of debates, trials, 95 theses, 7 pillars etc. demonstrates a worrying naivety about a most serious matter: the simple reality that the MSM would not be remotely interested in anything of this sort.”
Of course we know that Robin. It is still interesting to speculate though:)
tonyB
Robin,
There is no question that the notion exists (at least in some circles) that skeptical opinion is based on “the nonsensical junk science of the right-wing think tanks and their cadre of scientists for hire.”
This is the result of repeated media releases alluding to this claim or making it directly.
So it is clear that “public opinion” has become influenced by a much-repeated big lie.
As Lenin observed, “A lie told often enough becomes truth”.
Hitler remarked, “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”
Goebbels, one of the most talented “hype masters” of all times, combined the two concepts in his own version, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Yet as serious scientific reports by AGW skeptics come to light, there are a number of media outlets that have the courage to bring this information to the general public.
Blog sites cover the whole spectrum from purveyors of the “imminent disaster” myth to sites that deny that there has been any warming at all.
But the good thing about having “instant information” at your fingertips is that ordinary citizens can get a broader viewpoint on what is really going on (provided they have as interest at all) and make up their own minds.
“Wolf cries” basically turn most people off, especially once they become aware that there was no wolf. Hadley has been astute enough to recognize this and has tried to use the Vicki Pope press release to distance themselves from these “wolf cries” (while still sneaking them in surreptitiously).
Where do we stand today?
The political momentum of AGW is still extremely strong.
The financial support for AGW is staggering (one could even say “obscene”).
AGW still enjoys the “moral high ground” in many people’s minds.
AGW activist are skillfully blurring the line between real environmental issues and AGW in promoting a “think green” philosophy that includes AGW.
The “energy crisis” also plays into the hands of AGW promoters, as they combine the two different issues into one.
The Judeo-Christian concepts of “guilt” and “retribution” are being very skillfully used to dupe a public into feeling remorse for its high standard of living.
The idealized view of the redistribution of wealth that would result from proposed AGW “mitigation” policies is attractive to those who have a more socialistic outlook on how the world should be structured.
The anti-industrial undertones of the AGW arguments find resonance among many of these individuals, drawing them into the AGW movement.
And “fear”, the best motivator of all, is being used shamelessly by scientists, activists, politicians, the media, etc. to promote the AGW cause.
But yet, despite all this, opinion polls show that a growing majority of people across the globe do not believe the official AGW mantra. I am convinced that this majority will continue to grow, as the dire AGW predictions do not come true, especially if the current cooling trend continues.
So there is hope, Robin, that reason will again prevail.
After all, those “masters of the repeated big lie” cited above all eventually became victims to the truth.
Regards,
Max
Peter, you “naughty boy”…
In your 4183 you attached a graph of temperature trends and predictions. But you truncated the most recent year 2008 from the record! For shame.
If you put the 2008 actual on the record, you’ll see that it lies pretty close to what you identify as the “climate skeptic’s projection” (at 0.31C). (In fact, my “eyeball” tells me it lies marginally below this line.)
I’d suggest that you up-date your curve with the 2008 actual, Peter, and then repost it, so as not to confuse Robin (and anyone else on this site).
Regards,
Max
Peter’s Updated Graph
Hi Peter,
To save you the trouble, I up-dated your graph (4183) to include 2008.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote to Robin (with your Excel “graph”):
“The rolling five year average increased by 0.22 degC in the nineties. After the recent levelling out of temperatures , largely caused by cool ocean conditions, we are due for another similar jump in the next few years.”
I would respectfully suggest that you should broaden your statement a bit, to make it more inclusive of alternate scientific opinions on oceanic and solar influences on temperature trends. My suggested revised text is below:
The rolling five year average increased by 0.22 degC in the nineties, partly caused by warm ocean conditions (above normal El Niño events). After the recent levelling out of temperatures, largely caused by cool ocean conditions (La Niña periods), Hadley scientists believe that we are due for another similar jump in the next few years. Other scientists, who study the ocean oscillations, believe that the current cooling trend will continue for some time, as La Niña events will become more prevalent. Solar scientists also believe that the current low activity of the sun will continue for several years, which would also result in a net cooling trend. Whether or not there is a connection between ocean oscillations and solar activity is still an open point of discussion.
It is, of course, too early to predict which scientists will eventually be correct.
Can you live with this enhancement of your statement to Robin?
Regards,
Max
Max,
Yes you are right. 2008 was a cool year according to the land/sea temperture anomaly. I drew the graph last year before the result for 2008 was known and it’s been sitting in my flickr folder since.
The point I was making though that the MET office prediction was just the result of a simple linear projection rather than a high tech computer model. You are good at linear projections. Perhaps you could let me know if if one data point makes any difference to the projected temperature for 2014.
I suppose that this might start you all off arguing that the MET office can’t get it right for next weeks weather so how can they be expected to get the climate right for 2014? But, surprising as it may first appear, it is easier to predict climate than weather.
Predicting weather is a bit like predicting the results of individual football matches. Predicting climate is more like predicting the overall league table at the end of the season. To take the example of the English Premier league it wouldn’t have been too hard to predict that Manchester United would finish top and lose maybe 5 or 6 matches over the course of the season. It would have been much harder to predict which matches though.
Reur 4183, they are very nice graphs, and its good to see that the smoothing techniques for 5 and 9 year moving averages look OK this time. Did you do that?
Well anyhow, I prefer the more realistic smoothing applied to year 2008 by none other than the great prophet Phil Jones. Do you know of any higher authority than the leader of UEA CRU?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3413/3277074731_16a0fb9546_o.gif
I thought the oceans were storing heat a few posts back?
Remember the crouching tiger and all that?
Where did that heat move to Peter?
Into the Earth’s crust?
And how do you explain the temperature leveling off/dropping as the CO2 numbers rise?
Brute,
You might want to have a try at answering your own question. “And how do you explain the temperature leveling off/dropping as the CO2 numbers rise?”
You might be more help to your wife if you can!
I’ll just ask you to look at the pink 5 year rolling average in 4183.
Overall its showed a steady rise, but there are timespans where its temporarily fallen. 70-75 for example. How many others can you count?
What possible factors can you think of which might account for these?
Hi Peter,
Thanks for clearing up why you left 2008 off your graph.
You asked me, “Perhaps you could let me know if one data point makes any difference to the projected temperature for 2014.”
I’ve posted your graph with 2008 added, and(once it gets through the screen), you can see that the actual temperature trend to date lies very close to your green line labeled “Climate Sceptic’s Projection”.
So, yes, in that sense if the 2001-2008 trend were to continue it would make a major “difference to the projected temperature for 2014”.
The key word in any prediction, of course, is the word IF.
IF Hadley scientists are correct in their assumption that AGW will again begin to drive 21st century climate (and all other factors will be irrelevant), their 2014 forecast may actually come close.
To be real honest, there are some fairly compelling arguments that this is not likely to happen.
1. 2008 is behind us with an anomaly of 0.31C; Hadley predicts 0.75C for 2014. This means Hadley has six years left to not only reverse a current cooling trend, but to show warming of 0.44C. This extrapolates to a decadal warming rate of 0.73C per decade! While such a 6-year “blip” may not be totally “unprecedented” over the entire record, it is certainly unlikely, as I’m sure you will agree.
2. Ocean scientists tell us that a significant portion of the 1990s warming was caused by unusually high level of El Niño events. All scientists agree that 1998, the all-time record year, was an unusually strong El Niño year. NOAA has told us that around 0.42C of the 1998 sea anomaly was caused by this strong El Niño event (equivalent to roughly 0.25C out of the combined land + sea anomaly of 0.51C). But the ENSO oscillations have reversed (as everyone, including Hadley’s Phil Jones acknowledge). These same ocean scientists tell us that we are in the beginning of a longer-term cooling cycle of more La Niñas, as has happened many times in the past, and that temperatures are likely to cool over the next few decades as a result.
3. Solar scientists tell us that we are in a period of low solar activity, which is expected to continue. This has followed a period of unusually high solar activity, which solar scientists tell us was responsible for at least a part of the 20th century warming. If the current period of low activity should develop into anything like a Dalton minimum, we can expect significantly colder weather. If it is less severe, we can expect moderate cooling. I have seen no studies by solar scientists that predict a return to the very high levels of 20th century solar activity.
So, Peter, by looking at the WHOLE PICTURE (and not just only the CO2 piece), it looks like we are headed for a continuation of the 2001-2008 cooling trend.
But, hey, “IF” is what our bet is all about, right?
Regards,
Max
Pete,
Ahhh…..so we’ve come full circle to the MASSIVE NUCLEAR FURNANCE AT THE MIDDLE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM again. Solar cycles and their influence on the Earth’s climate……eh Pete? The Earth’s temperatures returning to a stage before the Little Ice Age during say the Medieval Warm Period?
The Global Warming Alarmists claim that they now have the ability to control the Earth’s climate just as long as everyone else in the world will simply follow their rules governing our lives.
When the populous realizes that CO2 is not influencing world temperatures will Al Gore and the United Nations next claim the ability to control the Sun’s output through taxation?
Is that the next confidence scheme?
Hit submit too soon…….
Check the statistics Pete. The Sun releases more energy in one second than all of the fossil fuels contained on the Earth.
Hi Peter,
I modified your statement to Robin (4183) slightly to be a bit more inclusive of theories other than just AGW and then asked you a question in 4187: “Can you live with this enhancement of your statement to Robin?”
Have you been able to reflect a bit on this and come up with your answer?
It would be most helpful for our discussion.
Thanks and regards,
Max
Peter (#4183): you say “we aren’t all ‘doomed’ as you put it [my italics]”. No, I was quoting you. And, far from being that Scottish guy, I certainly don’t think we’re all doomed. Maybe you haven’t noticed: I’m an AGW sceptic. You mention your belief “that humanity collectively has the intelligence to avoid following a path of self destruction’. What path do you have in mind? (And see below.)
TonyB (#4184): OK – I’m over serious sometimes (but see below).
Max (#4185): The remarkable thing is that, as you note, polls strongly suggest that public opinion has not “become influenced by a much-repeated big lie.” And, yes, scepticism appears to be growing. Perhaps Lenin, Hitler and Goebbels got it wrong. Or perhaps people are less easily influenced these days; maybe it’s access to “instant information”. And I’m sure you’re right about the Hadley Centre – they’re trying to get their retaliation in first. I don’t think it’s going to work.
I agree with your excellent analysis. And recommend others to read it.
I particularly agree with your conclusion. No, Peter, we’re not going to follow “a path of self destruction” – although the path I’m referring to is that urged on us by believers in the AGW hypothesis. As I asked above, what path of self destruction do you think we should avoid?
Max (#4187): thanks, but I’d prefer your graph without the “Climate Sceptics Projection” – personally, I’d rather wait and see, leaving projections to the alarmists. But I’m not taking bets on the issue : )
Max (#4188): yes, the enhanced statement seems fine – but, as you point out at #4197, it wasn’t me who made the original.
Hi Robin,
Thanks for your 4198.
The Lenin et al. line reminds me of one of my favorite humorous oxymorons. It’s when a politician starts off a sales pitch with the line, “Now let me be perfectly honest…”
This is usually the signal that it’s time to get out the pitch fork.
A classical example was a pre-Bali “op-ed” piece in the International Herald Tribune by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, with a photo op of the SG on the deck of an Antarctic tour ship looking out over icebergs in the distance with a firm jaw and a concerned look.
The article points out that “scientists” had advised the SG that “the entire West Antarctic ice sheet is at risk”.
He then makes a ridiculous comparison between the Larsen Ice Shelf, a chunk of floating ice that broke off from a larger chunk several years ago to much media ballyhoo, and the WAIS, with the sentence “what if this ‘Larsen effect’ were to repeat itself on a vastly greater scale?”
The SG then (mis)informs us, “like Larsen, it [the WAIS] is a continuous sheath of floating ice, comprising nearly one-fifth of the continent. If it broke up, sea levels could rise by six meters. Think of the effect on oastlines and cities: New York, Mumbai and Shanghai, not to mention small island nations. It may not happen for 100 years – or it could happen in 10. We simply do not know. But when [note that this is not “if”] it happens, it could occur quickly, almost overnight.
Hmmm. Yeah it’s big. Nope. It’s not “floating” (or it would have no impact on sea level, as Larsen also did not). But it’s certainly not going to break up or melt in the next 10 or 100 years. The SG’s own organization, the IPCC tells us (in its Summary for Policymakers), “Current global models 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.”
So the premise is BS (break out the pitchfork!). It is the “big lie”.
But the punchline comes later with the lines (believe it or not), “I am not scare-mongering. But I beleve we are nearing a tipping point.”
Not “scare mongering”? Ouch!
Regards,
Max
Robin
Just real quickly to get back to the reasons why the public is not falling for the “much repeated big lie” today as easily as they did in the past.
I do believe it has a lot to do with the availability of “instant information”.
Sure, there is a lot of “instant misinformation” out there as well, and the more naive and gullible among us (such as school children) are being systematically fed this garbage. The AGW-friendly “input screen” at Wikipedia is another example.
But I am convinced that the overall net effect of essentially uncontrolled “instant information” is that it helps the cause of truth more than the cause of “the much repeated big lie”.
And that this is one reason why the polls show the results that they do.
Regards,
Max