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.
TontB: you say that your employer’s view is that “history” relates to data since 2000. Well, here’s a reference to some earlier data. It’s from seattlepi.com 23 years ago and, after reporting the alleged effects of global warming (this was before the days of “climate change”), it says
Well, we’re nearly halfway there – I don’t think it’s proving to have been very prescient.
TonyB,
I’m not sure that its necessary to bring cricket into the argument. Much as I like the game.
The sea level can only rise by 1000mm between now and the end of the century if the annual rate of increase actually accelerates from what it is now.
Maybe you can let us know this rate of acceleration and your comments on the possibility of this actually happening?
Repeat Questions From 4702:
Peter,
Are all people that believe in the theory of Anthromorphic Global Warming Atheists?
Are all Atheists supportive of the theory of Anthromorphic Global Warming?
Is every scientist in the world an Atheist?
Just checking………
Getting back on topic, i’ve just come across this paper relating to the TSI.
Key Statement from the conclusion
“This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.”
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/11/a-new-paper-on-solar-climate-forcing-acrim-gap-and-tsi-trend-issue-resolved-using-a-surface-magnetic-flux-tsi-proxy-model-by-scafetta-et-al-2009/
Any thoughts?
Ok, I admit i’m now going a little OT, but considering some of the earlier postings it’s quite interesting
There’s an article here call “In denial about denial”, well worth a read.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
Given that there are so often claims that AGW scepticism is funded by vested interests, its interesting to browse through the list of sponsors of the Copenhagen climate conference:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/sponsors/
Bear in mind that the construction and export of wind turbines is a very important part of the Danish economy.
Peter,
Ok, it would probably be as well to stay away from cricket analogies, bearing in mind the likely victory of the Aussies this year following our poor form against the Windies.
To answer your question, it is difficult to calculate the ‘rate of acceleration’ because that assumes it is already gathering considerable momentum and further asssumes that -like temperaturs- a global sea level has any rational meaning.
However, let us for the sake of this argument go with the idea of a global level.
This link gives a graphic map showing coastline length.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-longest-coastline-countries-map.html
This gives it textually by individual country
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-countries-by-length-of-coastline
The worlds coastline is some 1 million plus KM in total and virtually each kilometre will be affected by different factors, some real some imagined.
These include melting ice sheets/gravity (the case put forward at the Copenhagen conference) stasis, erosion, tectonics, deposition, building projects, changes of currents, thermal expansion, reliabilty of the monitoring equipment and how that is turned into data are just a few.
It is very difficult to determine where the ‘top’ of the sea is anyway, or its mean height. It’s a bit like trying to hit a constantly moving target and made more difficult when it’s done from space using satellites that have difficulty in reading what is the surface and what is under it. Consequently they have considerable margins of error that is greater than the measurement they are taking.
I am inclined to agree with Professor Morner that sea level is not really doing very much generally (with exceptions either way in some places)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
in this Professor Morner dissects the data and states that a rise by 2100 of 5cm is possible…. plus or minus 15cm!
He stresses (as I do) that observational data contradicts the theoretical interpolated and massaged data that is used by the IPCC.
John Daly also had a good handle on all this.
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
So accelerating is the wrong word Peter, and it depends on what your start date is. Locally, the sea level appeared to reach a peak around 2005 after a ten year rise, and caused great concern until you compared it to records from a century ago (posted previously) when it started to fall. The actual falls over the next few years then placed it at around the figures of 100 years ago and the context of the century long sequence could be seen.
Again, looked at in context, what appears to happen is that levels rise for a few years then drop again with no clear trend overall.
There is simply no sign whatsoever of the dramatic acceleration needed to keep it up with the run rate Peter.
Sea levels-like temperatures-need to be viewed in a historic rather than short term context and then it cah be seen that there are no sea monsters, except in the fevered imaginations of data analysts, computer modellers and green activists.
TonyB
TonyB
As you are a scientist, I can imagine your frustration that the actual facts on sea level rise are being distorted by the alarmists to the point of absurdity (even Joe Romm only claimed 3.4 mm/year).
But I’ve figured out that, even at the absurdly inflated rate of rise of 12 mm/year (compared to an observed 1.8 mm/year) it’s going to take over 21,000 years for the North Sea to back up as far as Basel (at 257 meters elevation), so I am not going to get too upset by theses silly numbers.
I suspect the Dutch are not too worried, either. They have been living below sea level for centuries, just by increasing the height of their dikes from time to time.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
TonyB is obviously more qualified to comment on this than any of the rest of us, but there are major problems with:
1. The IPCC claim that the rate of sea level rise has increased from an average rate of 1.7 to 3.1 mm/year over the latter 20th century, based on the appallingly “bad science” of comparing long term tide gauge records up to 1993 with unreliable and highly inaccurate satellite altimetry figures (which measure a totally different scope) after 1993
2. Joe Romm’s stretching of this to 3.4 mm/year
3. Anyone else’s absurd estimate of 12 mm/year
The Proudman Institute has published a long-term tide gauge record that shows:
1. The rate of sea level rise fluctuates in multi-decadal cycles from a rate of -1.5 mm/year to +5.3 mm/year
2. The average rate over the 20th century was +1.74 mm/year
3. The rate of rise was slightly higher in the first half of the 20th century (+2.03 mm/year on average) than in the second half (+1.45 mm/year).
4. The long-term linear trend shows a slight deceleration in sea level rise (-0.1 mm/year per decade) over the 20th century
So we have anther example (yawn!) where the facts tell us one thing (that is not alarming) while IPCC claims something else (that is alarming).
The people that have come up with 12 mm/year have simply inflated the IPCC exaggeration by another factor of 3.5.
Don’t fall for it, Peter. It will only make you look silly if you swallow this story.
Regards,
Max
John Ashton, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s special representative on climate change, seems to have been one of the star turns at the Copenhagen conference. He trained as a physicist before becoming a diplomat. Here’s what he told journalists:
Could this be an example of a rather elaborate Freudian slip?
The report on his speech in The Times also says:
Sounds as though David Miliband picked the right man.
We have, I think, discussed this before. But I just came across an interesting definition of “cognitive dissonance”:
Hmm – the current flurry of hysterical claims suggests our warmist friends might be beginning to experience a touch of this.
Hi Peter,
In all the recent “background noise” on Conservapedia, Darwin, creationism, blogger polls, etc. we have moved away from a very pertinent point raised by Robin.
Robin asked you very specifically (#4665):
“As there is little if any prospect of China, India, Brazil and other developing economies plus Russia, other ex-Soviet states, the Islamic world and now it seems Europe, Japan, Australia and even the US doing much, if anything, about reducing their GHG emissions (and no possibility within the timescale said to be essential by Hansen, Pachauri, etc.), do you believe that catastrophic ecological damage is inevitable? If not, why not?
He repeated this question in more detail in #4681.
You have “pranced around” this question without answering it by saying:
(#4669): “I’m not sure what you define catastrophe to be. Three degrees of warming and three meters rise in sea levels? No-one wants that but humanity will survive it, even though it’ll all be pretty ugly. It’s never too late to do something though. It will still be worth while trying to prevent six degrees of warming and 6 metre rises in sea levels.”
(#4711): “Suppose that the figures coming out of the Copenhagen conference are correct. Suppose the sea levels do rise by a metre. Are we all doomed? Of course not.
But, should we do our best to avoid it happening? Yes indeed.
If it does happen should we do our best to prevent another metre or more of sea level rise after that? Yes of course
If it still gets worse do we give up then? No, of course not. Never.”
This is not a straight answer, Peter.
The question Robin asked you is not “What SHOULD we do to avoid disaster?”
It was very clear. Do you, Peter Martin, truly believe if no drastic mitigating action is taken by the nations of this world over the next several years to significantly curb human CO2 emissions (as it now appears will be the case), then we will face catastrophic ecological damage as prophesied by James E. Hansen?
I predicted to Robin in #4682: “It is however “extremely unlikely” (<5% chance) that you will get a straight answer from Peter, “as is now evident from increasingly comprehensive observations” of his modus operandi on this blog.”
If Robin agrees, we could simplify this process and make it a “multiple choice” question, where you really only have four answers:
1. Yes. I agree with Hansen and Pachauri that catastrophic ecological damage is inevitable if the world does not take drastic action immediately. As it appears that drastic action is not about to occur, I believe it is inevitable that we are headed for catastrophic ecological damage as predicted by Hansen and Pachauri.
2. Yes. I agree in principle, but do not believe that the result will be anywhere near as catastrophic as predicted by Hansen.
3. Yes. I very much agree, and even fear that the result will be even more disastrous than predicted by Hansen.
4. No. I do not believe this will make any difference in our planet’s future climate.
Take your pick, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To make it easier for you to choose one of the answers to Robin’s question, let me give you my choice:
I would choose #4.
Regards,
Max
New polling shows American’s views on AGW again growing more skeptical.
TonyB,
What you really mean is that you either can’t or won’t answer my question when you say that “it is difficult to calculate the ‘rate of acceleration’”. If you were wanting to set a good example by demonstrating some good science that’s a pretty bad start!
It’s really quite straightforward. To take a starting figure of 3mm per year, (or whatever figure you would have thought appropriate) it wouldn’t take a genius to work out that a rate of increase in sea levels of 0.172mm/yr/yr would be required before sea levels rose by 1 metre between now and the end of the century.
Is that possible? Well yes it is, even though it’s higher than previous estimates.
The second thing you would have needed to do was take a look at some of those previous estimates such as:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_21st.html
This CSIRO study would tend to indicate that sea level rises will be less than the claimed 1 metre figure coming out of Copenhagen, but that this degree of sea level rises has not been entirely discounted.
The mainstream, or consensus, opinion on sea level rises for the 21st century would still be more along the lines of the CSIRO paper. One paper wouldn’t change that.
Nevertheless if the paper were properly written and the research properly conducted, neither would it be dismissed out of hand, without it being read. But obviously, with your great wisdom, ( or should that be pre-conceived notion?) on the subject you don’t need to bother with all that.
Any suggestion of an accelerating rise in sea level needs to be taken pretty seriously. It won’t just stop in the year 2100. Maybe you would like to calculate what sea levels will be in the year 2200 at that rate of acceleration? I think you, or your descendents, might just start to notice something on your harbour tide gauge slightly before then.
Max:
Your suggestion (#4681) that Peter answers a multiple choice question is interesting but, knowing how Peter deals with these things, I’d prefer to keep the issue utterly simple. So let’s put your idea to one side.
Instead, I’ll restate my question – yet again. I’m a patient man.
Peter:
At #4681, I asked you a simple question (see below). Your response (#4711) was:
(You went on to make the other remarks quoted by Max.)
The trouble is that, far from being me, it’s none other than your hero, James Hansen, who’s peddling the line about “global disaster” – supported in similar terms by the good Dr Pachauri and your other globe-trotting hero, Prince Charles. (Incidentally, Charlie was criticised today for “exploiting the gullible” because another of his preoccupations lacked “credible evidence”. Hmm.)
In #4681, I set out in detail the facts about the worldwide indifference to and inaction regarding GHG reduction. I noted the inevitable conclusion that GHG emissions (already considerably higher than envisaged at Kyoto) will continue to rise for the next four years and for the foreseeable future. It’s Hansen’s view that we have only four years left (his “last chance to get things right”). Therefore, if you accept his analysis, you must believe that we will miss that “last chance” and that therefore, as he stated, “global disaster – melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts – awaits mankind”.
My question was – and now is: Is that your view?
On February 19 NSIDC reported that a satellite sensor malfunction had caused around 500,000 square kilometers of Arctic sea ice to be “lost”, resulting in an underestimation of the sea ice extent for December, January and up to mid-February.
Over the past year or so I have been tracking the monthly figures fairly closely. In checking the published NSIDC figures for December 2008 and January 2009, I see that there has been no correction to the originally published figures to date. I can also not tell whether or not the reading for February 2009 has been corrected.
Will these readings be corrected by NSIDC or will we be left with readings that tell us an exaggerated story of Arctic sea ice loss?
Time will tell.
Max
Re sea levels, here’s an amusing analysis of BBC reports since 2000.
Hi Peter,
In a discussion involving one of his areas of expertise, you (like me, a total novice on sea level science) opined to TonyB (4740):
“To take a starting figure of 3mm per year, it wouldn’t take a genius to work out that a rate of increase in sea levels of 0.172mm/yr/yr would be required before sea levels rose by 1 metre between now and the end of the century.”
Let’s do a quickie “reality check” on your statement.
Proudman tells us that the 20th century trend was a deceleration in the rate of sea level rise of 0.1 mm/year per decade, rather than an increase of 17 times this amount. In other words, the annual rate of rise slowed down slightly over the 100-year period, rather than accelerating rapidly. This despite the late 20th century period of rapid warming and record temperatures, which now appears to have reversed.
Latest rate of rise is around 1.6 mm per year (not 3 mm per year).
So let’s re-run your calculation using some realistic starting figures.
With a starting rate of 1.6 mm per year an annual acceleration in sea level increase of 0.205 mm/yr/yr would be required to get 1 meter rise between today and 2100.
By the year 2099 the annual rate of sea level rise would have to be 20 mm/year, or 12.5 times the current rate!
This is an accelerating trend of 20 times the decelerating trend seen in the 20th century!
You’re right. The calculation is easy to make. But it also points out how absurd the assumption is that sea level will rise by 1 meter by year 2100.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
You ask “global disaster – melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts – awaits mankind. My question was – and now is: Is that your view?”
I think Max has often used the phrase “who knows?”
If the problem is tackled seriously then the answer is “No”. If nothing is done, or it is done too late, the answer is “yes”.
And you may well be right. I don’t want to understate the difficulties involved. It is quite possible that it will all be considered just too too hard by all the world’s nations and not enough will be done. The sort of global disaster described by James Hansen will then come about. Probably by the end of this century.
So, should we give up and accept the inevitable as you are suggesting? No. Because there will be even bigger disasters to face in the centuries to come if we do that.
Hi Peter,
As sea level expert, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner put it (see reference cited by TonyB): any prediction for sea level rise by 2100 exceeding 20 cm is “NONSENSE”.
Forget your 1 meter fantasy. It is a virtual, computer-fed illusion.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Don’t go quoting me out of context.
You wrote Robin:
“You ask “global disaster – melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts – awaits mankind. My question was – and now is: Is that your view?”
I think Max has often used the phrase “who knows?”
I have never used the phrase “who knows?” relating to these global disasters caused by human CO2 if emissions are not curbed.
I have clearly stated that I do not believe they will occur as Hansen has warned, regardless of what is done (or not done) to curb CO2 emissions.
Just to clear up this point.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
Just a quick question.
IPCC predicts that sea level will rise by 18 to 59 cm by 2100 (depending on the “storyline” and “scenario” cranked into its models).
Morner has stated that the low estimate is a reasonable upper end of the range, but that the higher estimate is` “NONSENSE”.
Where in the world did you dredge up the ludicrous “1 meter” figure?
(Hope it wasn’t BBC or some other irrelevant source.)
Just curious.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Have you read the paper? Maybe you could post up a pdf so I can take a look.
If not you’re good at doing absurd. Dismissing the paper without even bothering to read it!
SLR and the calculation of the highly non linear atmospheric and ocean parameters is a difficult problem. Just like calculating temperature rise. The mainstream opinion would be that we are probably not going to get six degrees of warming any time soon, but it’s not impossible.
We probably aren’t going to get a one metre sea level rise this century either. But that too is not impossible.
Twenty years ago it would have been dismissed as absurd to talk about AGW increasing the Arctic summer ice that the NW passage would start to open. No-one says that now.
Hi Peter,
Yes, I have read the Proudman paper by Holgate. If this is what you are talking about, I can re-post the link to the abstract (but the full paper costs a few dollars, which I paid). This gives the most comprehensive record for the entire 20th century, based on tide gauge readings.
You’ve also seen TonyB’s reference to the Mörner link.
And I’ve read all the IPCC stuff on sea level, as well (presume you have the link here).
I’ve also read a report by Carl Wunsch et al. that calculated late 20th century sea level rise (1993-2003) at 1.6 mm/year. If you want this link, I can repost.
From all this I conclude that any projected 21st century increase exceeding 20 cm is (as sea-level expert, Mörner put it so eloquently) “NONSENSE” and that an increase in the rate of rise from today’s 1.6 mm/year to a late 21st century level of 20 mm/year (in order to arrive at a 21st century rise of 5x”NONSENSE”) is absurd.
Regards,
Max