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,
Its somewhat pathetic that you’re unable to explain all this and have to hide behind ‘expert opinion’. Since when did hardened climate sceptics defer to expert opinion?
To make it even more pathetic you are exaggerating what the solar scientists are saying. Maybe you should wait until you’ve changed personality again and see if any of the others have any better arguments!
You’ve quoted Wilson who claims that the TSI has changed by 1.65W/m^2 over the course of the last century.
This is 0.29W/m2 of climate forcing.
They use 0.85K/W/m2 to get 0.25 deg C of warming. Not 0.35degC
But I’d have to say that the figure of 0.85K/W/m2 is a little on the high side.
Instead of arguing what the correct value might be lets just compare climate forcings.
0.29W/m2 for solar
1.65W/m2 for CO2
which I’ve calculated as 45% of your value of 3.7W/m2 for a doubling of CO2. It also agrees with IPCC figures.
So that’s it. 0.29W/m^2 is what the solar scientists are saying. 1.65W/m^2 is the figure you yourself have used for 20th climate forcing due to CO2.
It shouldn’t really be about winning or losing. It should be about learning what is happening.
But if you do claim you have ‘won’ , then lets see you get out of this first!
No corrolation Pete?
Peter, READ the studies I cited. They conclude on average that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity resulted in around 0.35C of the total 20th century warming (which Hadley reported to be 0.65C). “Let’s see you get out of that”, Peter.
The University of Leeds puts this at the lower end of the range, at 0.26C.
All of your wiggling and squirming around the subject with silly calculations does not change a thing.
You, Peter Martin, do not know more about the solar influence on our planet’s climate than all these experts who have been studying this for years.
I am certainly not going to “learn what is happening” on solar forcing from Peter Martin, who doesn’t have a clue himself, so forget that silly remark. I’ll get my info from the experts, thank you.
Sorry, Peter, but that’s the way it is. The evidence shows that you are wrong, even if you are not man enough to admit it.
Throw a tantrum, if you will, but I’m through with this discussion, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
And “You, Max , do not know more about the CO2 influence on our planet’s climate than all these experts who have been studying this for years.”
But you’re not man enough to admit it. If fact I should probably use the plural ‘men’.
Or maybe that should be ‘persons’. Are your sockpuppets male or female?
Peter Martin,
I have some considerable experience with people suffering from “disturbances of the mind“;
a) A step daughter with BPD (Borderline personality disorder).
b) An older screwed-up step daughter, with an acutely brain damaged now young adult son from her aged 15 pregnancy, whom originally was not expected to live beyond about the age of four. She does not have BPD, but some loud-dominant-aggressive behaviour and exerts unilateral excommunication from her mother. (claiming mother favoured the other kids etc.)
c) A step-son whom is morose and sometimes over-reactive, but relatively OK
d) The kids in a) and c) detest their blood-father
e) The mother of these three, is in deep clinical depression, and as an ex, I continue, (after ~13 years) to try and help them out.
f) Some involvement with a family of Christadelphians, some of whom were in a bizarre Christo-Judaic sect of virtual imprisonment of some of their issue, which was excessive. I got to help one women, mother of eight, of whom six have come-out, but of course are “withdrawn from“.
g) My first wife who became addicted to stolen morphine as a nurse, but then turned to alcohol, with bizarre consequences, and whom died from its effects, oddly. On our son’s fifteenth birthday.
h) My son……..
Pete, from what I’ve seen of your behaviour, I firmly believe that you should seek medical help, and undergo CBT; (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy)
It is a total puzzle how you could think you have any credibility here, and why you have no feelings of embarassment
Brute,
As regards your “No corrolation Pete?” comment, sure there is a correlation between two tempetarure measurements. It’s not a correlation between temperature and the sun as might appear at first glance. And yes the solar cycle does have a small cyclical effect on temperature. No one is saying it doesn’t.
The scale on the left is in what? deg C ? If so it shows that in some years, before about 1965, the earth cooled and in some years it warmed. Since then it has just warmed. The rate of change of land sea warming has been about 0.17degC per decade since then or 0.017 deg C per year. Pretty much what your graph says it has averaged.
Max won’t be too pleased with you posting this. He’s been banging on about the earth cooling since 1998. The lines on your graph show that there is still an annual warming. It’s still a positive number.
Bob_FJ,
Are you the same Bob_FJ who was saying relatively nice things about me recently on another blog?
Hi Peter,
You have rambled again in your 4429, when you shift from solar impact on warming to CO2 impact and then get into a totally meaningless rather psychoneurotic sounding diatribe on sockpuppets and alter identities.
But getting back to our topic of solar impact, here is my dilemma:
On one side I have the following solar scientists who tell me based on long-term observations of pre-industrial warming and solar activity that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity was responsible on average for a global warming over this long-term period of around 0.35C:
S. Baliunas
J. Beer
C. Bianchi
R. Bradley
C. Fröhlich
B. Geerts
K. Georgieva
J.C. Gérard
D.A. Hauglustaine
D. Hoyt
B. Kirov
B. Kromer
T. Landscheidt
J. Lean
E. Linacre
M. Lockwood
E. Postmeister
N. Scafetta
K. Schatten
M. Schlüssler
N. Shaviv
S.K. Solanki
W. Soon
R. Stamper
I.G. Usoskin
J. Veizer
B.J. West
On the other side I have Peter Martin, amateur anthropogenic global warming enthusiast from Brisbane, Australia, backed by the IPCC, experts on anthropogenic warming who concede lamely that they have a “low level of scientific understanding” of solar climate forcing, both telling me that the impact of solar forcing was negligible.
Whom should I believe?
I think you know the answer, Peter, even if you hate to admit it.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Let me be perfectly clear here.
I am no longer going to waste my time discussing with you the solar impact on 20th century warming.
I have presented the evidence that this was in the range of 0.35C, or about one-half of the observed totaol warming.
You have been unable to refute this evidence.
Instead, you have resorted to all kinds of evasionary tactics to fog up the issue, including silly back-of-the-envelope “calculations” and unfounded “sockpuppet” accusations.
Our discussion on this topic is over, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Now that our discussion on 20th century solar warming is finally concluded (whew!), we’ll now talk about recent cooling trends, where you erroneously wrote to Bob_FJ that I’ve “been banging on about the earth cooling since 1998”.
Your statement is not correct. Actually, I have said that the earth has been cooling since 2001, according to all of the temperature records. I have posted a graph showing this. The cooling rate is around 0.1C per decade on average (while IPCC erroneously predicted a warming of 0.2C per decade). And these guys are going to tell us what the temperature will be in the year 2100? Can you see how utterly absurd this is?
The satellite records do, indeed, indicated that it has been cooling since 1998.
The original Hadley record also showed cooling since 1998, but (in a classic “move the goalposts” gambit) the record got “corrected” after the fact to show slight warming from 1998 to 2008. But if 2009 continues in the same way as 2008, Hadley will have to make another “ex post facto correction” to avoid a cooling trend since 1998.
All records agree that the 21st century has been one of cooling so far.
Who knows what will happen in the near future?
Not you. Not me. Not Hadley. Not IPCC. Certainly not James E. Hansen or Al Gore.
You and I have a friendly wager on this development up to the year 2011, so we’ll see than who was right.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, Reur 4424, I’ll come to your earlier alleged sock puppets and absence of logic in your fertile imagination later, but firstly, I see that you have now freshly accused Max of being the same person as Binjaminimum, based on what seems to be a one-time post as comment 12/p4 in your link, some NINE months ago. I’ve read it through and my strong impression is that the style of writing, and the topics covered are unlike anything I’ve ever seen from Max. Also, the following is not a criticism of Binjaminimum, but rather, to show that unlike Max, I notice that there are a lot of spelling mistakes in his long text, so I imagine that he typed directly into the comments block, whereas most of us here seem to paste it from a word processor. (or make very few typos or spelling mistakes) There are also a few other clues that Binjaminimum is not Max!
BTW, I also noticed that Randomtox and Barelysane also appear much more often on that same thread, which means that according to your declared fertile imagination, on this particular thread there are THREE sock puppets of Max. HOWEVER, Max “their alleged inventor” apparently has not appeared anywhere either on this thread or anywhere else on this not well known website. (per my Google search) Thus, if Max is trying to ghost-up support for his own views, how does this policy work when he does not actually participate? Your fantasy suggests that you have a strong neurosis in this rather any credible logical thought processes!
I also found these comments from Barelysane on page 4 to be rather interesting. Did you notice them? Did you thoughtfully consider their significance?
#16Submitted by Barelysane on 29 January, 2009 – 13:15.
Would anyone care to explain why my last comment was deleted.
I have to admit i initially suspected Jo again, but an admitted cursory look at the tracker page shows Osin to have been the last to delete a comment (apologies if i’m wrong Osin).
#17Submitted by Barelysane on 5 February, 2009 – 10:22.
Apparently not it seems
I guess someone has been taking Gavin lessons over at RealClimate.
Pete, I also noticed that on page 5, you wrote this utter wank:
Pete, I repeat something from my earlier post:: From what I’ve seen of your behaviour, I firmly believe that you should seek medical help, and undergo CBT; (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy)
However, it can only be effective if you cooperate with the therapist
Here’s an extract from a most interesting statement by Professor William Happer (Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University and Director of Energy Research, Department of Energy, 1990-93) to the US Senate on February 25, 2009:
The statement provides (at least for me) a new perspective on our earlier discussion about Darwin. Writing about the unreliability of models, Happer mentions a dispute between the physicist William Thompson (now better known as Lord Kelvin) and Darwin:
Another example, it seems, of a consensus being wrong. As Happer comments, “what is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations”. Amen to that.
Peter Martin, Reur 4431, you wrote in part to me:
Without anything definitive from you, I guess that you are referring to the following link:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/2/141733/2007/#comment49
If that is what you mean, then the answer is YES, on a comparative basis.
There are a bunch of Romm/Dessler and ilk groupies over at Gristmill, that do not in any way contribute to debate on “climate science”. Instead they slang and rant, off topic. Both Max and I have compared you more favourably to these fruitcakes, in that you do actually debate the issues, even if we rationalists mostly disagree with you.
It is even good in some ways if we rationalists are challenged by “devil’s advocate” views like yours, since it helps to hone our own understandings!
However, my reference to you as a debater versus those Grist-fruitcakes, was a comparative statement.
You may feel that I have been nasty to you, but I would truly like to help you over your trauma in this world. For one thing you seem to have a deep sincerity in your beliefs.
Pete, I repeat something from my earlier post:: From what I’ve seen of your behaviour, I firmly believe that you should seek medical help, and undergo CBT; (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy)
However, it can only be effective if you cooperate with the therapist.
Max,
Yes, yes, yes you do keep saying that you arne’t going to waste your time discussing the solar impact on 20th century warming any more , don’t you? Like a politician who also might say “Let me be perfectly clear here” I just know that you don’t mean what you say!
So let me just try to explain it again in even simpler terms. Both Lean and Wilson, who you (not me) introduced into the discussion, have worked out figures of about 0.25 degC for the solar contribution to 20th century warming. Ok that is towards the upper end of the IPCC range but not outside it. All they can really do is calculate or measure the solar forcing in terms of W/m^2. To convert that into a temperature rise takes them inevitably into the realms of climate science.
The solar scientists need to make assumptions about feedback mechanisms just like any other climate scientist. You know that as well as I do. You also know that they have assumed positive feedbacks. You don’t want to admit that though or explain why its OK for them but no-one else.
If you apply the same rules to the one as to the other there is really very little disagreement between the two scientific fields. Its just not possible for climate sceptics to agree with one but not the other. As I have previously shown the figures on solar climate sensitivity and CO2 climate sensitivity are consistent. They show that a doubling of CO2 levels will result in a rise in temperatures of 3.2 degK just like the IPCC say too.
Peter
If you’d bothered to check thouroughly instead of throwing wild accusations around, on another thread on CaCC i’m asked for and give my real name, Keith (i live in the UK).
I use Barelysane as while lots of people are called Keith in the world (making getting usernames on boards annoying) not many people use Barelysane, which is an in-joke for people that know me very well.
Hope that clears things up, and we can get back to the real discussion.
Robin, Reur 4436 linking to Professor William Happer’s commentary to the US Senate on February 25, 2009:
Now that was a well written presentation in very clear lay-terms. It was so logical in evident science that hopefully open minded policy-makers might hesitate and think on it, rather than follow the hype of “mainstream climate scientists” (and extreme activists like Hansen et al)
Lucidity like this is such a pleasure to read!
Speaking of lucidity, just came across this presentation, nice and easy to follow
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork08/PowerPoint/Monday/daleo.ppt#443,1,Slide 1
TonyB, Geez, I thought it was a bit chilly this morning; had to put more bedclothes on in the early hours. I live close to Viewbank:
Here are today’s minimum to max T’s, for just four stations of nineteen for Melbourne:
Viewbank: 13.7 – 27.6 C
Melbourne City: 15.3 – 25.6C
Melbourne Airport: 14.0 – 26.5C
Coldstream: 9.9 – 30.0C
Re: http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV60900.shtml
This is moving data @ ~11:40 PM local time Monday, 2 March.
Are you confused? I am!
Sorry, Barelysane, but I didn’t find the presentation to which you linked at all easy to follow – although doubtless there’s a lot of interesting material in there. However, I see it comes from the dreaded Heartland Institute and everyone knows they’re just a front for “big oil”.
For lucidity and accessibility, I’d prefer to stay with Professor Happer.
Robin
Yes, i believe they once accepted a cheese roll from Exxon, indeed they are truely Satans right hand men :)
Just read the Happer one, ok, yes, that one wins hands down for straightford and easy to read. I was just enjoying having all that info in one place.
Robin,
Sorry, but I’m having a difficult time following this line of reasoning. Doesn’t every “institute” have an ax to grind? Doesn’t Climate Progress or some such other organization have a “special interest” that they represent? The World Wildlife Federation or Greenpeace or [Insert Environmental Organization Here] have constituents whose interests they are bound to protect?
Was your comment tongue in cheek?
I simply refuse to accept that any organization on either side of the argument is not looking out for the interests of their clients and is pure as the driven snow. General Electric produces wind turbines…..do they have an ulterior motive in ringing the Global Warming alarm bell? Bio-fuels are big business……Does agribusiness have a lobbying group? You bet they do, and they benefit immensely from the global warming fad.
Would you elaborate please?
Yep, Brute – my tongue was firmly in my cheek. Sorry it wasn’t clearer: your cheese roll quip did a better job. (BTW – how about my “brutosaurus” at 4393?)
Back to Happer. He really is a star. How about these quotes?
Having said that an obsession with climate change can get a bit out of hand, he cites the Aztec state
Elsewhere, having noted that “many of the IPCC chapters are quite good” (I agree), he comments that it
There’s a lot more. Those who haven’t done so should read it – here.
Brute,
I suspect it was a little “tongue in cheek, lets get this comment in first before someone else does” type of thing. I was certainly expecting something along those lines to turn up.
Everyone is always looking to protect their interests one way or another. Interesting article on ICECAP along these lines.
Feb 25, 2009
Proponents of Man-Made Climate Fears Enjoy Monumental Funding Advantage over Skeptics
Totally OT
In the spirit of accurate reporting, i’ve just been able to access CaCC again, so if i was blocked it was just a temporary issue.
Peter, as i said there (and won’t again) please confine the mudslinging to just one blog, preferably none.
Here’s more interesting testimony to a US government body. This time it’s the House of Representatives subcommittee on Energy and Environment and it’s by Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute. His subject is the validity or otherwise of computer models with regard to the implications of climate change for national security, economic development and public health. Here’s an extract:
His conclusion:
As I said in another context – given these comments from Happer and Michaels, is Obama listening?
Wow Max…..they posted a comment that you made on a WUWT thread over @ Ice Cap (halfway down the first page).
You’re a celebrity.