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.
Barelysane,
I apologize. Yes, I was probably pondering sock puppets or the origins of the universe at the time.
TonyN,
You are quite right. I’m thinking of Rasmussen who used dogs.
Amundsen didn’t use dogs. However it took him 3 years to force his way through from east to west. I suppose it must have a been a world record at the time.
If the NW passage was navigable, why did it take him so long? Maybe he was just trying to kill time and wasn’t in any real hurry? Maybe Mrs Amundsen was a bit of a nag and he actually preferred two winters stuck in the Arctic ice to being back home?
Peter: “sceptical” means “having doubts or reservations” i.e. being doubtful. So what’s your point?
Otherwise, your post 4775 is yet another hopeless failure to answer an important question. I suspect it’s making you feel uncomfortable. I’ll be returning to it (from a different angle) later today – watch this space.
Just came across this thank to a post at climateaudit, any thoughts?
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N20/C1.php
Here’s something remarkable: a sensible, balanced article on climate change from the BBC. As I hinted to Peter, it reads across to my (still unanswered) question to him. The author, Martin Livermore, starts with this:
This suggests to me that he probably accepts the AGW hypothesis. He goes on to say:
IMO that’s an excellent summary of what’s happening in Europe. And, of course as I’ve pointed out to Peter, in most of the rest of the world – especially the newly developing economies (which include three of the top five CO2 emitters) – they’re barely even saying “the right things”, let alone acting on them.
Livermore’s summary of why this is happening is likewise excellent: 1. despite the weather not following the IPCC projections, there are too many scary “even worse than we thought” headlines; 2. taxpayers are not prepared to pay the inevitable costs; and 3. no one, business or country, wants to be first to act. The result?
What hope is there of action being taken in other major economies when the so-called leader, Europe (we’re still waiting for America), is all rhetoric and no real action especially when – unlike Europe and the USA – most of them don’t really even care? So what hope of worldwide action within four years which James Hansen believes is all we have left “to get things right”? I suggest the answer is obvious.
Most of the comments are equally good. Needless to say, any criticisms are almost all ad hominem.
Robin and Tony N
Robin, I am afraid your currrently good opinion of the BBC will nose dive if you listen to a repeat of;
‘getting to zero’ that has just finished in the BBC Radio 4 2.15 drama slot.
Do please go and hunt it out on Iplayer or whatever. It is the most sinister and scary piece of Soviet style propaganda about the urgent need to get to zero carbon I have ever heard, which featured George Monbiot no less..
TonyN
You know your way round the BBC, can you give me a link as to the precise editor I should complain to-it dwarfs the splicegate episode by its sheer blatant propaganda loosely dressed up as science, that inhabited a slot supposed to be for drama. Please try and find the means to listen to it. I am (almost!!) speechless that the BBC can resort to this.
TonyB
TontB: perhaps having Monbiot in the drama slot was the BBC’s way of admitting that what he had to say was fiction.
In that case Robin he should have been a guest star on Doctor Who so everyone was aware it was actually science fantasy…
TonyB
I don’t suppose this (evidence that IPCC data contains serious UHI contamination) will do much to persuade those uncooperative Chinese to reverse their massive and increasing CO2 emissions. (Reads across to my (unanswered) question to Peter.)
Peter,
You think we are paranoid about the slanted view taken by the media, whereby real information is inverted.
This concerns my nearish neighbour Pen Hadows expedition to the arctic to measure the ice thickness. It has become highly political.
This is from the Guardian-a well known eco activist newspaper in the UK
“Explorer Pen Hadow’s mission to reach the North pole on foot and collect data on the sea ice has got off to a bumpy start.
Hadow cracked a tooth while biting into a piece of frozen chocolate (it is -26C out there, which apparently is unseasonably mild). Ironically, it was left over from his birthday celebrations that happened before the team left from their base in Resolute in northern Canada. Hadow will survive though.”
Pen obviously doesn’t realise it is unseasonably mild…This is from Pen Hadows own web site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7897392.stm
He is making no progress and had to hole up in his tent for a day as the weather was so severe.
TonyB
Barleysane
An interesting study.
I seem to remember that Max and I did a fair bit of work on UHI when I posted some temperature records for Zurich, which showed a very considerable UHI effect. I believe the actual official amount that is taken into effect to compensate for UHI is a fraction of a degree (where it is taken into account)This was much lower than a number of studies we cited (and according to wiki as well)and far less than the observational data we hear and see every day from the Met office who will cheerfully admit on a weather forecast that it will be ‘4 degrees warmer in built up areas.
Perhaps Max has kept a record of the studies.
Tonyb
TonyB
I’ve downloaded the Afternoon Play, but haven’t had a chance to listen to it yet.
There are several threads on this blog that describe the BBC’s complaints procedure in excruciating detail, including copies of correspondence. In its simplest form it is easy to do, but it does not involve anything as obvious as emailing an editor.
Hi Peter,
Reur 4777, Amundsen is only one of twelve recorded crossings in wooden ships of the NW Passage.
Check the site which I cited for details and pictures.
This is pretty good evidence that the NW passage has been open many times before satellites started measuring Arctic ice extent.
Regards,
Max
PS BTW I am still waiting for NSIDC to correct the December 2008 and January/February 2009 sea ice extent readings to include the 500,000 square kilometers that were “lost” due to satellite sensor malfunction; so far they are still reporting the same old numbers they reported before the error was found.
Max,
How are you doing with your survey? Can we get the final numbers in. I’d just like to clarify the issue of so called Intelligent Design and other shades of creationism. I gather that some proponents would accept that some evolution has taken place after ‘the creation’. If that is what people mean then they should say so.
Brute,
You seem a bit coy about answering. I must admit that I had never heard of ‘Dr’ Adrian Rogers, but if you are quoting his musings with approval my suspicions are pretty close to being confirmed..
He’s been accused of saying that “I believe slavery is a much maligned institution”. Is there any truth in this do you know? Apparently, during his lifetime, he was very concerned that certain sections of society were receiving money for doing nothing.
If so, I’m wondering, if he were still alive, he would be sharing my current concern over the Bernie Madoff affair. He’s been treated far too harshly. He was teaching us all a very valuable lesson that you can’t expect to get something for nothing. Its a principle that should apply to all. Not just the poor in society. Just because you’re lucky enough to have a spare few million dollars, why should you expect that to become a spare few million + 10% the following year? Without any risk at all?
Bernie hasn’t killed anyone. Yet the prosecuting counsel is calling for 150 year for a seventy year old. A life sentence.
Free Bernie Madoff now!
Robin,
I have answered your question in an honest fashion. There is no evasion. But I’m sure you’ll agree that I can’t foretell the future. Even though I did predict the current financial collapse five years ago!
So how about you write two or three different possible scenarios? I can then let you know what I think the outcomes will be.
Barelysane and TonyB
The Zhou et al. study on the UHI distortion on the temperature record in China which Barelysane posted is interesting. The authors have gathered temperature trends for agglomerations of different sizes and calculated the impact on the entire temperature record, as well: “the contribution of urban warming to total annual mean surface air temperature change as estimated with the national basic/reference dataset reaches 37.9%.”
There are scores of other studies showing similar results from all over the world. The conclusion of these many reports is that the UHI effect is responsible for somewhere between 0.3 and 0.5°C of the overall increase of the globally and annually averaged land temperature anomaly over the 20th century (this was 0.7°C, according to the Hadley record).
One of the best explanations for the sudden apparent increase in temperature between 1980 and the early 1990s is that around two-thirds of the weather stations, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993. This coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving credence for a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record. There is good reason to believe that, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, these remote Siberian locations systematically reported lower than actual temperatures, in order to qualify for added subsidies from the central government, which were tied to low temperatures, so as this distorted record was removed, it resulted in a spurious warming trend. For a graph showing this correlation see:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Some examples of the many other studies confirming a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record:
An earlier study made in China for Beijing and Wuhan concluded, “annual urban warming accounting for about 65-80% of the overall warming in 1961-2000 and about 40-61% of the overall warming in 1981-2000” [equals 0.4 to 0.5°C].
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007…/2006GL027927.shtml
Another study by Zhou et al. for southeastern China concludes, “Our estimated warming of mean surface temperature of 0.05°C per decade attributable to urbanization is much larger than previous estimates for other periods and locations.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/26/9540.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=zhou&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&firstpage=9540&resourcetype
A study for India concludes, ““Urban heat islands are areas significantly warmer, by 2 degrees Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius in summer, than their surrounding countryside.”
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=229978
Yet another study for Japan concludes, “The ratios of surface warming due to urbanization and global warming were estimated to be 2.5, 2.0 and 1.5 degree centigrade in Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, respectively”.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.U51A..03T
A USA study links a major portion of the UHI distortion on land surface temperature record to land use changes, “our estimate of 0.27°C mean surface warming due to land use changes is at least twice as high as previous estimates based or urbanization alone.”
http://lab.geog.ntu.edu.tw/course/luc/report/01_Nature%20423.pdf
A study from Mexico examines the UHI effect for large and medium size cities in Mexico, which has undergone a period of very rapid urbanization in the late 20th century, concluding, “While variability is large among the seven selected cities, the average temperature trend was 0.57°C/decade for the large metropolis (> one million) and somewhat smaller (0.37°C/decade) for medium size cities. These values are clearly larger than the one attributed to the mean greenhouse effect (0.07°C/decade) in the tropics.”
http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/Vol18-4/ATM18404.pdf
Despite all this evidence for a substantial UHI distortion of the record, IPCC (AR4 SPM 2007) has claimed, “Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.”
This statement is justified (AR4 Chapter 3, p.244) based on studies made by Parker et al., NOT by comparing physically observed temperature trends in urban areas with those in rural areas (the logical way to physically measure the impact of urbanization, as well as the basis for the many studies from all over the world, which show a significant UHI distortion on the temperature record). Instead the Parker study uses the proxy of comparing night minimum temperatures between calm and windy nights, using a reconstructed wind record. This study has since been de-bunked, but IPCC still prefers it to the physically observed facts.
The Hadley globally and annually averaged land surface temperature record shows a linear temperature increase of 0.7°C over the 20th century.
If 38 to 70% of the observed increase over land were actually due to a general distortion due to increased urbanization as was found in the many studies cited, this would represent 0.27 to 0.5°C.
So it is clear from the many studies from all over the world that the IPCC claim of a “negligible” UHI distortion of the surface record is false.
Max
Re: #4777, Peter
Although Amundsen’ boat had a small auxiliary engine, the voyage was essentially made under sail and in the tradition of the 19th century explorers of the passage. Their technique was to get as far as possible in the first season, then over-winter, and (hopefully) make a dash for it the moment that the ice broke up the following year.
I strongly recommend Fergus Flemming’s ‘Barrow’s Boys’ as a rollicking account of the numerous expeditions, and hundreds of lost lives, that lead up to Amundsen’s voyage. There is an interesting pattern to these. Reports from whalers of diminished ice and open passages would lead to an expedition being planned, with a delay, often of several years, before it set sail. Almost invariably the explorers found that ice conditions had changed dramatically by the time that they reached the Arctic.
Increased passages during the last thirty year or so probably have a good deal to do with satellite images being available which indicate the rare occasions when ice conditions are likely to be favorable.
Ken McGoogan’s ‘Fatal Passage’ suggests (p 270) that dams on the great rivers that drain into the Arctic Basin have affected fresh water inflow, and this has reduced ice formation. Even the deep water route is essentially in coastal waters.
To give some idea of how variable ice conditions can be, last year’s Southampton University expedition to the Arctic was halted by ice only just north of Spitzbergen; almost unheard of conditions. According to NSIDC, this was the result of unusual wind patterns, and of course we only know this because of satellite images. Had it happened even fifty years ago, the assumption would have been that there was a hell of a lot of Arctic sea ice last summer.
Had our Victorian forefathers known that they were trying to navigate the North West Passage at the tail-end of the Little Ice Age, they might have held off for a while and saved themselves a load of grief. If they had had modern, relatively fast and immensely strong and powerful vessels, together with the benefits of satellite images, they might have succeeded even then.
Hi Peter,
You asked, “How are you doing with your survey? Can we get the final numbers in?”
So far we have answers from 8 out of 12 respondents who are (or have recently been) active on this site.
All have agreed that the evolution theory of Darwin is valid.
All (except one, namely you) have agreed that AGW is not a serious threat.
As far as I can see, we are still waiting for votes from:
Sandra Bullock (our only clearly feminine participant)
Brute
Luke Warmer
Bobclive
But I’d say even without these missing votes, we have a good indication that there is no overwhelming link between an individual’s stand on whether or nor “Darwin’s theory of evolution is valid” and whether or not “AGW presents a serious threat”.
The bare statistic actually says that a strong majority of individuals (7 out of 8 or 87.5%) who believe that “Darwin’s theory of evolution is valid” DO NOT believe that “AGW presents a serious threat”.
The rest of the votes will hardly change this conclusion (but will only change the percentage slightly).
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Looks like your neighbor, “explorer Pen Hadow”, is having some difficulties in the Arctic, but is not letting that stop him from doing a bit of PR work.
From the video clip with his lecture on the imminent demise of Arctic summer ice it looks as though he already knows how the measurements he will take will actually turn out.
Maybe he has already written his paper projecting “demise” by year 20XX, including “abstract” and “conclusions”, and is just waiting for a couple of spot data points (which he can sort out to eliminate unexpected “outliers”) in order to include a nice graph or two in the paper.
What do you think?
(Am I being too unkind or facetious?)
Regards,
Max
Barelysane and TonyB
I did post a longer post with several links to UHI studies from all over the world, but (due to the large number of links) it is still stuck in the spam filter.
Max
Barelysane and TonyB
The analysis of the recent Chinese data on UHI in the link from Robin states:
“Taking the Hadley Centre CRUT3 data for Ren et al’s north China grid box from the KNMI Climate Explorer website we find a warming trend of 0.31 degrees per decade over the 40 years 1961 to 2000. When compared to the Ren et al numbers in Table 3 we can see this warming trend is near the top of the range and indeed indicates urban warming of 0.13 per decade or equivalent to a rate of 1.3 degrees per century.
So, more evidence that IPCC data contains serious UHI contamination.”
This is a bit higher than the average of the studies I have seen (and cited), but it does underscore that there is a significant UHI distortion to the surface temperature record, which IPCC is simply “denying”:
0.05 to 0.13°C per decade, based on physical observations from all over our planet
versus
“less than 0.006°C” as claimed by IPCC, based on some since de-bunked reconstructed proxy studies on “windy and calm nights”
It’s pretty clear to me which set of data I should believe.
Max
max 4792
Pen likes ice as he is a genuine explorer and was delighted to have the chance to get back to the arctic.
This is becoming very political with support messages from all sorts of people and he will be flattered by that-he gives talks so the attention is good.
He will report what he sees and it will then be given whatever spin the sponsors deem appropriate, but as I have said before a 700 mile long and narrow examination of the ice on one three month period has no relevance until it can be compared like for like over hundreds of years. It would be my guess he will offer to repeat the execise-should he survive this one.
Tonyb
Max
I thought I remembered the official uhi figure was .006 but it is so far removed from observation that I thought I must have ‘disremembered’ it correctly.
The chinese figure is certainly higher than anything I have seen-I seem to recall that uhi in cities was up to 8c on cold winter nights but was slightly negative on very hot summer days. Averaging that out and from my own observations and listening to the weather forecast a figure many times higher than the .006C seems probable.
Whether it is as much as the chinese claim is another matter, but of course the flight from country to cities is particularly marked there so it might be right in their circumstances.
tonyb
Hi Peter,
We did get another (unsolicited) vote from a new blogger to this site named John Ray (4752):
(As an atheist) he also supports the Darwin theory of evolution, and he has stated that he “accepts the mainstream scientific conclusion — that GW is trivial”.
So that would would make it 89% of respondents who DO believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution DO NOT believe that AGW is a serious threat.
Do we have a statistic yet?
Regards,
Max
Yeah, TonyB.
I lived in China for a couple of years.
It is absolutely amazing how many cities of over 1 million inhabitants have sprung up all over the place, and especially in southern China, where there were only towns and villages before.
I would equate their level of recent urbanization with that of Europe and the USA in the 20th century, with the one big exception: there are over 1.3 billion people in China.
So maybe it is correct that they have a higher UHI distortion than we see elsewhere.
Regards,
Max
Max,
We are also waiting on ‘Kill the Witch’, ‘Ghost of Christmas Future’ and ‘Tierran Temp’. If you can have Barelysane, and Luke Warmer and Sandra Bullock…….?
I’d be interested in Brute’s views on this and also JZ’s. As I’ve said previously, the money for the anti science lobby ( not just anti AGW science) comes mainly from the USA so it’s them who I’m primarily interested in.
TonyN,
We’ve done the NW passage argument before. I think I’ve been lectured on Occam’s razor before by you guys. So you must be aware of the idea.
What’s wrong with the simple theory that more ice is melting in the Arctic because its getting warmer?
Robin,
Yes its good to be sceptical. I’m sceptical about all sorts of things. Homeopathy, second sight, superstitious beliefs (including religion), acupuncture, that the CIA genuinely thought that Iraq had WMDs etc .
However, I’m not sceptical about the health effects of cigarette smoking, or the link between AIDS and HIV, or that AGW is caused by the emission of GHGs.
It’s knowing what to be , and what not to be, sceptical about.