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.
Brute, in your 4370, you ponder the imponderable, and asked me in part:
I really can’t analyse him either, but am truly aware that the human mind can become unfathomably disturbed to the point of being totally baffling (irrational) to those observers that may be in a “more normal” state. I for one, distressingly have a deeply disturbed step-daughter whom was academically brilliant and variously very talented, during her secondary and tertiary education years. However, she had a few disastrous screw-ups in career choices and emotional matters. She was/is also exceptionally beautiful, and paradoxically, it seems that this physical asset stereotypes victims of BPD (Borderline personality Disorder…. Usually female). BPD is considered to be perhaps the most challenging psycho-condition to treat, because for instance the patient tends to distrust and lie to the helper. BPD includes a number of OCD’s, (Obsessive Compulsive Disorders), and it is clear that Pete has such a disorder concerning the ID of Max.
Rather funnily, Pete claimed recently that some of us hide behind a nom de blog, but at the same time, who the heck is Peter Martin anyway? He probably lives in or near Brisbane in Queensland, Oz. However, he is otherwise a mystery, but I suspect that he might be an ex science teacher in a state school. (with no practical knowledge of coalface science)
In addition to his “Max ID”, OCD, he seems to have another condition which is really really weird:
He makes various claims on the blogosphere, but when proven to be wrong, he shamelessly ignores that proof, and waffles to change the subject.
I don’t know how this psycho-condition is described by the medicos!
Teirran Temp
“Really, I’m not Peter! Here is a my photo. I’m sure Peter is much more handsome than me.”
Sorry for my mistake, but I really do hope Peter is more handsome than you-sorry that I suffer from sockism
TonyB
Sockpuppets and Brute:
Over at Gristmill, I’ve commented on the latest exposé from Joseph Romm. I know Brute, that you especially admire his work, so I particularly draw your attention to his latest in the link below.
Upon reflection, I’m actually wondering if Peter Martin is a sock puppet of Joe, or, if you can take a bet each way on such a suspicion, as Pete did in his recent accusation: (if it wasn’t Max’s invention, then it was Bob_FJ). OK; then maybe Joe is a sockpuppet of Pete?
Peter Martin; I take you in at Gristmill at a comment by Jabailo. See how he uses extra textural emphasis?
I think such an enhancement capability, not available here, would be useful in drawing attention to you of things that seem to have escaped your notice.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/24/154937/867#comment3
Bob_FJ,
You are quite right. What some guy like me thinks who happens to work outside of the climate research field who is probably not that important. What is important is that it is generally what climatic experts are saying on the subject too. Such as on the Victorian bushfires:
I’m comfortable and have a reasonably good understanding of what they are saying. But you obviously have a big, big issue with these guys. So, why bother with me? Why not take them on directly, if you are so sure that you have “proof” which is “shamelessly” ignored. Or are you saying that I disagree with you , but the Climate Institute don’t?
I’m asking myself why I bother with you guys. I think the answer is that I don’t think the sort of crap (not to put too fine a point on it all) that you guys try to pass off as science on this site should go totally unchallenged.
PS Not sure what happened in the last post. I was trying to be clever and make “Victorian fires” the link words. Instead it turned out to be the entire last two paragraphs.
Pete, Reur 4379/80(cc TonyN)
if you had been paying attention to an earlier post of mine you may have noted that I encountered the same problem twice. It was fixed in my case by checking the automatic html code, which was incorrectly applied, and by easily inserting some missing spaces in that code.
You need to know the html of course…. Try Google…. html tags.
Peter
My opinion.
Challenging the view of others is a fantastic thing and i personally welcome it. It forces us to examine and critically defend our own arguements and in so doing possibly evolve them or have to drop them altogether. This is the core fundament of science.
Unfortunately this seldom is allowed to happen in the context of the climate change debate. Personally i’ve been flamed off realclimate for daring to question them, i appear to have had my work IP address blocked from Campaign again Climate Change for posting proofs that some of what was being said was either misleading or wrong. And the worst i’ve seen (but not experienced)
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=674
(the abuse took place on a different blog to climate audit).
This sort of attitude only seems to come across on “alarmist” websites. I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions.
In summary, debate and discussion when it happens is great, and done properly is very constructive. Just try to avoid the pointless waffles and tangents.
cheers
Barelysane
Peter Martin, Re 4375
“Kill the Witch” AKA “Burn the Witch” and G May, wrote in part
You may consequently be suspicious that your alleged sockpuppet was invented by me rather than Max (your initial accusation) because he has just used the Oz expression: Dinky-di!
Do not fret over-painfully on this Pete; this sockpuppet seems to have picked-up that Oz-lingo-knowledge from his trip through Darwin, Perth, Freemantle, and Canberra, some years ago, per his Email to me
Barelysane
Never forget that a great deal of what is said about climate change on warmist blogs is ‘whistling in the dark’. It is primarily intended to keep up the spirits of devotees who have doubts rather than advance the debate.
Sceptical blogs focus on questioning what has become the orthodox view on climate change; therefor warmists who post on them are not a threat. They rarely have convincing answers because our understanding of the climate is so rudimentary, and so contaminated by politics, that there are very few certainties.
Warmist blogs attempt to sustain a point of view that is very vulnerable to awkward questions. Of course they get exited if you stray into their territory and say the wrong thing. Its a bit like someone creeping up behind them and shouting ‘Boooo!’
Bob and Peter
The Quicktags buttons work fine, but not if you mess around with the text after you’ve used them, unless you have some grasp of HTML. Do you check the preview before you hit ‘Submit’?
Bob_FJ,
Seriously……
I can relate. My brother’s (ex) wife suffered from this (affliction?). Very frustrating for the family.
Thanks JZ for your link (4366) to the article that said that it would be instructive if elected officials were asked these questions:
The author suggested that the answers would be “very illuminating as to the true agenda they seek to impose”. An interesting idea – the problem is that there’s no prospect any official falling into that trap. Even if any answered at all (unlikely in my view), the answer would be a reiteration of the usual message about the “overwhelming consensus of climate scientists” … etc.
To get back on topic can either Bob or Peter point me towards the stations where the Australian records are claimed to have been broken a few weeks ago. Some of them seem very recent but I want to compare the right stations with the historical information I have unearthed.
Thanks
Tonyb
There is a saying that on the internet no-one knows you are a dog.
I’m not sute that is true. Just like it’s possible to distinguish between one human voice and another, so it is possible with the written word too. Even with no handwriting involved.
Barelysane and Max sound like one and the same person. It takes more than just a deliberate use of the lowercase i to diguise an identity. I’d be please to know how we can establish real identities, rather than have to put up with talking to a collection of sockpuppets.
Maybe via Facebook entries?
Tony B,
The Australian Bureau of Met. is a good palce to start.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/
I noticed that Tamino used some of their station data on his website but I ran into the problem of it only seemingly being available by subscription when I looked. Maybe Tamino will help you if you ask him nicely.
PS And yes I would prefer that Tamino used his real name too. Maybe it is necessary in some cases for an individual to hide their identity but it does p*** me off when a whole collection of different ones are used, backing up what ‘the other’ says, and even start talking to themselves through them .
Given the way the internet works I’m not sure that there is a solution to this. Is ‘Barelysane’ really surprised that a climate scientist would give him short shrift under these circumstances?
Robin,
In more correct and less cliched English, much less loaded and more compact form, and without any of the original meaning being lost, your question should be:
If it is proven that climate change is not man-made, but natural, would you be relieved?
Would you then help to remove all of the previous regulations designed to reduce CO2 emissions?
The answer to the first question would probably be ‘yes’ by any right thinking person. Although it could be argued that a natural change could be just as problematic. I doubt if the dinosaurs would have been “relieved” to know that the asteroid heading their way 65 million years ago was purely natural in origin.
The answer to the second question is not quite as straightforward as you might think. For instance there is the acidification of the oceans to consider. Also we shouldn’t exclude the possibility that at some stage in our future we might have to deliberately control the climate, raising or lowering CO2 levels to offset any natural changes that may be occurring.
Just like we’d almost certainly do what we could to deflect a naturally occurring asteroid which may be threatening us with the same fate as the dinosaurs.
Peter 4389
I have spent around $100 over the past year with your met office researching various items. It is clear that many of the stations used are astonishingly recent and when they say ‘records have been broken’ that sometimes refers to records set as recently as the 1990’s.
I have found what I believe to be the stations used in the recent heat wave but I was hoping that locals might have read the actual locations in their media.
Any help on identfying for certain the stations used would be helpful.
Tonyb
Peter Martin, (cc TonyN) Reur 4389, you wrote in part
And Pete, also in your 4388, you wrote in part
Peter Martin, may I point-out that we do not know you from Arthur or Martha, where you live, whether you are a retired librarian or what…. We would know no less if you called yourself Pineapplepimp.
You may be pleased to know that computers have an ID known as an IP#, in which it is usually possible to identify the approximate physical location of that computer. Webmasters probably have such intelligence, together with Email addresses
If TonyN has the patience, he may be able to relieve your OCD and great personal agony by revealing to you that for instance, Max, me, Burn (or Kill) the Witch, and Barely Sane, and whomever else you suspect, are in fact different people
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, Tamino has been the subject of much comedy elsewhere:
You may enjoy this post of mine concerning just the aspect of his ID
Slightly Off Topic? True, but it’s fun!
There are some interesting exchanges @ http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2897
Concerning the possible ID of Tamino, and his bad habit of banning some posters that try to make inconvenient scientific observations. Here are some comments starting at post #40
Jean S (40), March 20th, 2008
… could you (I’m banned there) ask your master to illustrate (mathematically) the following “conclusion”, which is rather central to the “pro-NC-PCA stance in Tamino’s last post”…
Hu McCulloch (56):
“Open Mind” [Tamino’s weblog] regular [poster] “Dhogaza” repeatedly refers to Tamino as “HB,” which would seem to rule out Grant Foster. Why do Mosh and others think he or she is Foster?
steven mosher (60):
re 56. We figured it out a while back. Then to test the assumption I posted posts to RC with
the name Grant Foster. Something innocuous like, “great post gavin” it was blocked.
I did the same thing at Tamino’s site and at Eli’s site. All blocked.
I changed my IP and tried again, this time putting hints in the text like ” i GRANT you this will FOSTER some lively conversation….” blocked.
So, that confirmed it for me. not 100% but hey…
Kim (118):
He’s quit posting my comments, now, too. Apparently Tamino’s tired of me ‘witnessing my faith’ in the ironic words of Hank Roberts. There is a new term for skeptics; now we can be called sun-worshippers.
Yes, Peter, your redrafting of those questions (4390) is far better. I would suggest that the first would be even better if it referred to “recent climate change” (I think no one is suggesting that climate change has always been man made!). As to possible answers, I still think a politician would take the “I don’t answer hypothetical questions” line – with a possible reference to the “consensus” – rather than get risk getting enmeshed in the trap described by the original author.
However, I loved your dinosaur analogy – although they might derive a little comfort from knowing that it wasn’t after all those wicked capitalist dinosaurs who were the begetters of the asteroid. Of course, a more accurate analogy would have the dinosaurs discovering that there wasn’t an asteroid heading their way after all – and it was all a scare blown up by a devoted clique of “green” dinosaurs with, as some (especially the brutosaurus) suspected, a hidden agenda.
As to your idea that we might wish to raise lower CO2 levels “to offset any natural changes that may be occurring” – well, if it was established that climate change had nothing to do with mankind, it seems unlikely that controlling levels of manmade CO2 would be much help. There may be an economic case for reducing the use of fossil fuels. But that’s another matter entirely.
TonyB, Reur 4387, you wrote:
And further to your F/U in 4391
I admire your efforts, but it is a bit like asking what lies in the bottom of a black-hole. For example, there is some mystery (for me) surrounding where/what/when is published as “Melbourne City” T. It is also relevant to look at Adelaide which is generally hotter than Melbourne though smaller, (maybe arguably?) WRT UHI effect
I too am interested in the detail you enquire, but need more time to explore it, but without much confidence in any ultimate definitive outcome
Melbourne is a very large city with 19 stations per BOM, all with significant T variation, diurnally and seasonally.
Did you see my post showing such variation (on a day of unrealized fire threat) at just three Melbourne locations @
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=115#comment-11735
Melbourne has also changed immensely since 1939 when the published max city T was-way above the back-cast trend of the driving central-Oz T’s according to Pete.
It’s a can of worms, but give me time and I’ll try if I can to find something sensible!
Hi Peter,
Back from a short vacation, so I can respond to your #4329.
You are falling into the same trap as IPCC when you write, “Solar irradiance is what keeps the earth warm! There are no ‘other portions’ as you’ve put it. There isn’t anything else, except maybe the 4 deg K cosmic microwave background!”
The trap is two-fold. First, you assume that you know all there is to know about the theory of how the sun causes our planet’s climate to change. IPCC at least has the atypical modesty to concede that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar climate forcing is “low”. You apparently do not. A pity.
The second pitfall is that you tend to prefer theoretical arguments and model outputs to actual physical observations. This is the same trap that IPCC falls into, for example, when it assumes “strongly positive feedbacks” from clouds with warming, when the actual physical observations show that these are, in fact, strongly negative instead, or when it assumes, as another example, that relative humidity remains constant with warming, when actual physical observations show that it reduces.
In the case of solar climate forcing we are fortunate to have records of solar activity that go back several hundreds of years. We also have temperature records that do the same, both from physical records as well as from various proxy studies. These records tell us that there was an extended period of low solar activity in the 18th century that coincided with an unusually cold period. Solar experts have been able to determine the amount of warming attributable to solar forcing since we have been coming out of this period of unusually low solar activity and unusual cold, and to calculate the empirical relationship between changes in solar activity and global temperature, based on these actual physical observations.
The 20th century saw a period of unusually high solar activity (reported by solar scientists to be the highest in 11,000 years). Using the same empirical relationship between solar activity and global temperature as physically observed based on the recovery from the 18th century minimum, solar scientists have been able to determine that the sun was responsible for around half of the observed 20th century warming.
Whether the balance was caused by increased CO2 (not a factor in the physically observed pre-20th century warming), a UHI distortion to the surface record resulting from 20th century urbanization, an unexplained but observed increase in the frequency and length of late 20th century El Niño events, some other as yet unexplained factor or a combination of the above factors is still open for debate. The CO2/climate connection has not been “proven”, but a theoretical connection exists.
The fact that only around one-third of the observed post-1970 warming can be explained by increased solar activity, leads to the conclusion that there is something else out there, which exerted a strong warming influence on our climate from 1970 to around 2000, causing the other two-thirds of the observed warming over this relatively short segment of the record. Most of the studies by solar scientists have agreed that this is the case, with many conceding that this may have been a result of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
I can accept your view that increased atmospheric CO2 levels may well have played a role here, although an equally strong argument could be made for the unusually high level of as yet unexplained El Niño events as the driving factor. There are also strong arguments for a “sea change” UHI impact in the shutdown of two-thirds of all stations, mostly rural and many in the former USSR, which occurred over this short segment.
However, I cannot accept your premise that solar irradiance alone explains all of the climate forcing impact resulting from changes in solar activity.
There are hypotheses out there, which have not yet been proven, such as the cosmic-ray/cloud connection proposed by Svensmark et al., which is soon to be tested on a large scale with the CLOUD project at CERN.
Will this provide the theoretical explanation for the physically observed solar forcing provided by factors other than solar irradiance alone?
Who knows?
But, Peter, I think it would be foolhardy (and arrogant) to state, “Solar irradiance is what keeps the earth warm! There are no ‘other portions’ as you’ve put it. There isn’t anything else, except maybe the 4 deg K cosmic microwave background!”. In saying this you are saying that several solar scientists who agree that 0.35C of the observed 20th century warming can be attributed to changes in solar activity know less about solar forcing of climate than Peter Martin does.
And I really don’t believe you want to say that, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You recently referred to the cosmic ray / cloud theory as “pseudoscience”.
Peter, this is just as presumptuous and silly as if I were to label the AGW theory as “pseudoscience”.
Both are hypotheses that are still to be proven by experimentation or physical observations.
Neither is “pseudoscience”, although there is a lot of questionable “agenda driven science” out there, primarily to provide scientific support for the multi-billion dollar AGW industry.
The CLOUD experiment at CERN will shed more light on the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al.
It could well be that it will be disproven.
It could equally well be validated.
Who knows?
At any rate, there is still an unsolved piece of the puzzle to explain why the phsically observed solar impact on climate is significantly greater than that portion that can be directly attributed to solar irradiance alone.
I can accept the premise that “science” does not have all the answers yet on how the sun drives our planet’s climate. There are many things that our current level of scientific knowledge cannot yet explain.
We have the physical evidence that there is a greater impact than that, which could be explained by solar irradiance alone, but we do not yet have a “proven” mechanism.
Let’s hope that CERN will help resolve this dilemma and will improve the current “low level of scientific understanding” of solar climate forcing.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Not to butt in on your exchange with Brute on UAH temperature anomaly figures, but…
I plotted the latest up-dated UAH figures directly from the UAH site (these include the corrections made to which you referred).
I get the same curve as that posted by Brute, so it is correct.
UAH reports monthly figures, rather than annual averages, but the conclusions are the same either way:
It warmed from 1988 to 1998.
It cooled from 1998 to 2008.
The first point on the curve (1988) was around 0.1C warmer than the last point (2008).
The linear rate of warming from 1988 to 1998 was greater than the linear rate of cooling from 1998 to 2008.
The cooling trend from 2001 through 2008 was steeper than the trend starting in 1998.
Overall, there was a linear warming trend over the entire period.
If we have two more years like 2008, the overall trend will be flat since 1988.
Hope this helps clear this up.
Regards,
Max
Max, (Or should I say Burn the Witch or Barelysane)
Oh come you should know better than to suggest “First, you assume that you know all there is to know about the theory of how the sun causes our planet’s climate to change.” No-one will ever know “all there is to know” as you put it.
That doesn’t mean that we just accept that we know nothing either. You’ve brought the solar scientists into the discussion. If there is any disagreement it is between you and them. Not me.
You’ve tried to use their arguments to prove a point but only succeeded in drawing attention to their valuable evidence for the climate sensitivity of CO2 being exactly what the IPCC say it is.
Where do they talk about “other portions”. Its just rubbish and you know it. Solar scientists themselves have defined the term Total Solar Irradiance.
Hi Bob_FJ,
It seems that Peter gets all wrapped around the axle trying to identify imaginary “sockpuppets”, alter egos, national identities, etc.
The most logical approach is to assume that everyone is who he/she claims to be rather than trying to find some virtual identity link or conspiracy between individual posters.
Is this an attempt to demonstrate that there is only one person in the entire world who is stupid enough to doubt the word of “2,500 consensus scientists” and, therefore, that all “contrarian” posters are really alter egos of this one misguided individual?
Or is it simply a sidetrack to get away from the real issues (which currently don’t seem to be going in favor of the AGW theory)?
I can accept that Peter is an Australian who lives in or near Brisbane, while you are also Australian, living in or near Melbourne. JZSmith appears to live in SoCal; Brute somewhere further north in the USA, TonyB and Robin both live in the UK. I live in Switzerland, but am currently visiting the USA.
What difference does it all make?
None, I’d say.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You claimed that the solar studies I cited have provided “valuable evidence for the climate sensitivity of CO2 being exactly what the IPCC say it is”. These are solar experts, Peter, so they have not opined much on greenhouse warming per se.
However, if you read the reports you will see that they have concluded (on average) that the unusually high level of activity of the sun was responsible for around 0.35C of the total warming experienced over the 20th century (which was 0.65C, according to Hadley). Sorry, Peter, but this is not “rubbish”, as you claim.
Your favorite source, the University of Leeds, puts this a bit lower at 0.26C, but still in the same ballpark.
I have no “disagreement” with these solar scientists, as you suggest. In fact, I have cited them.
I also do not disagree that the “climate sensitivity of CO2” is as IPCC claims, according to the greenhouse theory (Myhre et al.). This works out to a 20th century warming from CO2 of around 0.3C, which again checks closely with a solar impact of 0.35C.
It all fits together, Peter. You just have to open your eyes to the facts out there.
And while you are at it, forget all the assumed “positive feedback” model stuff that defies actual physical observations. That is true “rubbish”.
Regards,
Max