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.
Tonyb,
RE: # 4949
You’re correct and I shouldn’t be flippant.
I’m concerned for the guy’s safety.
The natural world can be a cruel place and more inexperienced people sometimes don’t show the proper level of respect, (the couple that traveled to the Arctic to “swim with the polar bears” a few years back comes to mind). Seems as if your friend knows what he’s doing; I hope he finds what he’s looking for.
Looks like the list of scientists who are willing to speak out that they do not believe AGW is a serious threat keeps growing – we’re up to more than 700 now!
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200903164026/energy-and-environment/more-than-700-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims.html
Max
JZ ans Manacker,
Your latest postings prove that I’m right in my assessment that it’s just a waste of time trying to discuss any science with you guys.
Yous say “You seem to believe that no rational person could look at [your] facts and come to any other conclusion.”
You have to understand that its not just me you are arguing with but the scientific community generally. Not just on AGW but Evolution too. And yes I would say that no rational person could look at the facts, either on AGW or Evolution, and come to any other conclusion.
You need to understand that the IPCC are not part of some international communist conspiracy but the representation of quite conservative opinion on the question of climate change. But you don’t.
I’m not saying that you have to be a trained scientist for your opinion to matter but you do have to be capable of rational thought.
For instance Max says:
“…NSIDC figures [??? reference required -PM] were showing that November 2008 Arctic sea ice extent had recovered dramatically from its much-hyped November 2006 low, and was now at a level exceeding that in 1996″
How many times have I said that the only rational way of looking at long term data which is subject to random fluctuations is to present graphs? Like this for the September months:
Or the ones in this article which are very much at variance with your unsubstantiated claim.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
JZ, you let the cat out of the bag the other day with your association of Darwinian Evolution with ‘leftism’. Did you ever get around to answering that point?
What you are asking is that those of us who think that Noah’s Ark is just an historical fable should have ‘respect’ for those who would argue that it’s just as valid a ‘scientific’ theory as Darwinian Evolution.
Barack Obama may have had to play that game in order to get himself elected as US President but, and as I don’t hold any similar ambitions, I can tell you what I really think.
It’s just rubbish! However, I can agree that those who may hold this strange belief may have other abilities. They may be very good computer programmers for example, but it does mean that many of their other views are likely to be equally warped.
Do I have respect for these people? Well I try, but I have to concede that it is difficult. I certainly wouldn’t want to waste my time getting too deeply embroiled in any sort of scientific discussion with them.
Hey Brute,
What’s going on? Is the “fast track” approach for Obama’s “cap and trade” bill getting de-railed?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD96VASIO0
Don’t know what all the excitement is about. Compared to the recent flurry of “spendulus/bailout” bills, this one is a “peanut grinder” (it would only cost U.S. citizens $650 billion over the next decade).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Nice NSIDC graph for last September. Why September, Peter? It’s March.
NSIDC still haven’t corrected their Nov-Feb numbers for the 500,000 square kilometers of sea ice they “lost” due to sensor malfunctions.
The trend (since 1979) still shows a reduction of sea ice averaging around 4% per decade, but the most recent years are showing a recovery. Will it continue, now that temperatures appear to have started cooling? Or will the slow decline of sea ice return as temperatures again start warming? Or are global temperature and Arctic sea ice not directly related and some other factor, e.g.changing wind patterns or ocean currents, is more important?
All open questions for now, but NSIDC should clean up their act and put those missing 500,000 sq.km. sea ice back in the record (for the sake of “science”, of course). Don’t you think?
Regards,
Max
Aw, Peter, there you go again! Equating people who do not believer AGW is a serious threat with literal “Noah’s Ark” believers.
Actually, the “Great Flood” story resembles the current AGW story pretty closely (whether you prefer the original Sumerian or later ancient Jewish version).
Man transgresses (in the modern-day fable man does this by burning fossil fuels).
Prophets and oracles warn man that the Divine Power is angry with man for his transgression and will destroy him with a climate disaster (modern-day prophets and oracles are the computer models, who warn man that his (CO2) transgressions will cause the all-powerful Mother Nature goddess to destroy him with a climate disaster).
Do you see the recurring “transgression, guilt, divine wrath, retribution by climate disaster” theme here, Peter?
This time you are the Noah’s Ark “believer”, just in the modern version, that’s all.
Regards,
Max
Max,
OK If you want March as well as September here it is:
Hopefully it won’t come out huge this time.
Time series of the difference in ice extent in Mar (the month of ice extent maximum) and Sep (the month of ice extent minimum) from the mean values for the time period 1979–2007. Based on a least squares linear regression, the rate of decrease for the Mar and Sep ice extents was –2.8% and –11.1% per decade, respectively.
You’ll probably whine that March is from last year so here is the NSIDC data from Feb from this year and the latest to date.
Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2009 shows 2009 as the fourth-lowest February on record.
What is your claimed figure for November? I’d like some graphical evidence from a scientific source please. Not something that Andrew Watts may have heard coming from the pulpit of some Evangelical church.
Hey Peter,
You chastised JZSmith and me with, “Your latest postings prove that I’m right in my assessment that it’s just a waste of time trying to discuss any science with you guys.”
OK.
Here’s some “science” I’ve tried twice already (4661, 4911) to get you to “discuss” with me (so far to no avail). Let’s see if the third time is charm.
Let’s review the latest facts.
1. It has stopped warming since 1998 (or 2001, depending on which record one uses). This fact is unequivocal.
Is this just another short-term “blip” in the longer-term warming we have experienced over the past 150+ years as we are coming out of the Little Ice Age, or is it the beginning of a new cooling trend? Who can say for sure? What do you think?
2. We do know that the latter part of the Little Ice Age occurred during a 17th century period of extremely low solar activity (the Maunder Minimum), which was accompanied by global cooling and that there were other periods of low solar activity accompanied by global cooling in the late 18th century (Dalton minimum) as well as a period of slightly lower decrease in solar activity and global cooling in the late 19th century.
3. Despite a lot of political posturing by many nations, human CO2 emissions are at an all-time high today.
4. After a 20th century period of unusually high solar activity (the highest in 11,000 years according to solar scientists), the sun has been very inactive for the past 13 months.
5. Following a late 20th century period of frequent and strong (warming) El Niño events, including the 1998 event that resulted in the record warm year for the modern temperature record, these have been replaced by more (cooling) La Niña events, to which even the strong proponents of the AGW hypothesis attribute the current cooling trend.
What is really going on out there, Peter?
Is human CO2 really the principal driving force of our planet’s climate or are “natural factors” really overcompensating and masking AGW (as Pachauri has hinted)?
I personally conclude that the observed data show that “natural factors” are playing a much more significant role in our planet’s climate than human CO2, but your conclusion may be different.
These are the basic questions we should address together to see if we can find any common ground, based on a rational analysis of the observed facts on the ground.
Please let me know your thoughts and reasons for your beliefs on this.
Thanks and regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
The NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent for March 2008 was 15.21 million sq.km., a recovery from the all-time low in 2006 of 14.67 million sq.km.
March 2008 had recovered back to slightly more than the March 1996 level of 15.12 milliom sq.km. (I guess one could say that this was, in effect, a 12-year recovery.)
The NSIDC graph for March is pretty “flat” so this recovery is a bit difficult to see, but it’s there.
It looks like March 2009 will show a continued increase of last year’s recovery (particularly if NSIDC put the “missing” 500,000 sq.km. back into the record).
I prefer the facts to NSIDC press release commentary, as well, so we are on the same track there, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Except, it’s not us that believe in Prophets and Oracles. Its the Sen James Inhofes and Dr Roy Spencers of this world. As them what they think about Noah, Moses, Ezekiel etc Literally them, not some non existant parallel you’ve dreamt up.
I seem to remember that there were quite a few people (alas all no longer with us) who refused to move away from Mt St Helens shortly before it erupted, even though they were given good advice by Geologists. It may have been based on computer models too. I wonder if their warnings were dismissed as hocus-pocus and “All-powerful Mother Nature goddess” worship ?
I’m sure they would have have ‘rationalised’ that they’d lived there all their lives, and their fathers and grandfathers too. ‘That there mountain’s sure never hurt anyone before!’ I can hear them saying it!
Sometimes, it does pay to not dismiss all warnings too lightly.
Hi Peter,
I’ll indulge you one more time.
You asked, “What is your claimed figure for November?”
There is no “claimed” figure, Peter. I prefer to deal in “facts”, myself.
NSIDC reported a November 2008 sea ice extent of 10.63 million sq.km. (whether or not they have corrected for the missing 500,000 sq.km. is unknown).
This is a recovery from the 2006 low of 9.86 million sq.km. and slightly higher than the 1996 value of 10.56 million sq.km.
And you can skip the stupid BS of “Not something that Andrew Watts may have heard coming from the pulpit of some Evangelical church”. It’s childish, superfluous and makes you truly look silly.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
“Sometimes, it does pay to not dismiss all warnings too lightly.”
No. Just absurd ones based on GIGO computer model “the end is near” prophesies or hysterical Hansen hyperbole.
Max
Hi Peter,
You claim, “Except, it’s not us that believe in Prophets and Oracles.”
Yes it is, Peter.
The “prophets” are the Hansens and Gores of this world.
The “oracles” are the GIGO computer models that belch out “false prophesies” as they are pre-programmed to do.
The “holy scripture” is the 1,000-page IPCC report.
And you are the gullible “fundamentalist believer” that swallows this rubbish hook, line and sinker without even questioning it.
Amen brother!
The end is near unless we repent now!
Can’t you see what’s going on, Peter?
Regards,
Max
PS Now, please, Peter, let’s get off of this silly “religion sidetrack” and get back to a rational discussion of real points surrounding the ongoing AGW debate, OK?
Max,
Let’s see the graph for November! How many times have I told you that you need to produce a graph. Yes a graph.
Its like I said if you want to add science to the list of the world’s religions. The one that comes after Rastafarianism alphabetically. Then, yes, Hansen I agree would be a high priest.
But, if you think like I do, that science trumps religion every time you’ll know that’s just nonsense.
PS Just in case you’d forgotten. Us science believers like to see graphs.
Hi Peter,
Yo showed a February sea ice graph an added the comment: “Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2009 shows 2009 as the fourth-lowest February on record.”
Do you know whether or not the February number has been corrected yet for the recently discovered sensor malfunction that caused 500,000 sq.km. of sea ice to be “lost”?
It does not appear that this correction has been made, as yet, but it might be interesting to ask NSIDC to be sure.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
“Science trumps religion”. I’ll go for that one, except “computer models” are not “science”. They are simply expensive, modern versions of the old sliderule, nothing more.
Feed garbage in and you get garbage out.
Regards,
Max
Max, Reur 4937 giving your impressive study of permafrost information out there, I don’t think I can add much to it at the moment. You wrote in part:
However, here in part is an apparently different NSIDC definition/discussion, (which to me seems less credible):
NSIDC make no reference on this web-page as to the depth below the surface of permafrost, and the inference is that however deep it is, it need not be below 0C for more than two years at a time. This is from the ultimate authority right? a branch of NOAA?
And, lo and behold, Pete’s popular image from Dawson City, (ex Klondike gold rush), is emulated in cropped format as follows:
It is accompanied by the following NSIDC text:
But, these buildings allegedly collapsed probably more than 200 years ago. Furthermore, they are popular heritage as the “Dawson City leaning tower of Pisa”, and another web-story somewhere is that they were built straight onto the ground without footings/foundations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It seems that we know nothing certain about permafrost history, that being even less than we can prove on sea-ice.
I do seriously wonder about the alarmist forecast of catastrophic rate of release of methane and carbon dioxide, from thawed ground below the (summer) surface. Anyway, if the depth of permafrost increases, will that not allow increased growth of photosynthetic plant-life in deepening warmer and moist soils?
Hi Peter,
November Arctic sea ice graph, as requested.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3656/3362437516_d3fa346c27_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
Interesting comments on permafrost. It’s pretty clear that much less is known about [hidden] permafrost extent and trends than is known about [visible] sea ice (since 1979). The wild speculations being made are all based on very little real knowledge and a lot of computer hype.
It looks like the “subsidence due to AGW” photo-ops were phony, as well. Guess you can fool some gullible folks with these, but not everyone.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ,
You posed the question, “if the depth of permafrost increases, will that not allow increased growth of photosynthetic plant-life in deepening warmer and moist soils?”
This would make sense to me. There are more healthy looking trees and other vegetation in the areas further to the south where the top of the permafrost is deeper below the surface. The guy I told you about was even growing potatoes inside the Arctic circle!
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ,
The key “take home” from the permafrost studies I found was the fact that the permafrost in sub-arctic Yukon was found to have been around for 700,000 years, surviving all kinds of interglacial periods much warmer than today that lasted hundreds or even thousands of years.
And we’re worried that the little bit of warming we’re experiencing (by comparison) will cause “the demise of the permafrost within this century, releasing major quantities of sequestered greenhouse gases, leading to runaway warming”?
What total rubbish!
Regards,
Max
Max, Reur 4915/p33
You wrote in part:
I have some amusing stuff on Mark Serreze, which I will try and hunt-up. You (Max) may recall that a year or so ago we had exchanges with Andrew Dessler on Gristmill, and even he agreed that Serreze was a tad silly on some stuff.
Meanwhile here is an image of the said Serreze
Hi Bob_FJ,
The Klondike gold rush in the Yukon Territory actually began in 1897, so that Dawson City building is probably only 110 years old or so. But, as you say, it collapsed 100 years ago, not from AGW, but from lousy insulation or poor foundations (or both).
It was probably a brothel/hotel/saloon.
There is a story about a local con man (and brothel/saloon operator) named “Soapy” Smith in Skagway, Alaska, where many prospectors landed by ship from San Francisco or Seattle to start the tortuous climb across Dead Horse Pass to the Yukon River, where they could float by barge to the Klondike gold area.
Soapy (who died in a shoot out later) was famous for his saying, “The miners mine the gold, and we mine the miners”.
May his black soul rest in peace.
Regards,
Max
PS More recently, I think the saying has changed to, “and we mine the tourists”.
Gadzooks, Bob_FJ!
Put a scraggly cowboy hat on Serreze, stick a slim cigar in his mouth and he’d be a dead ringer for “Soapy” Smith, based on the pictures I saw in Skagway.
Eerie!
Regards,
Max
Brute 4951
Its ok, Pen Hadow and his group are grown men who are experienced, so its their decision. What disturbs me more are those who are using the expeditions desire to get on the ice for their own ends and are sitting in nice warm offices elsewhere dreaming up the rationale.
I have studied this project at some length and try as I might I can’t see the point-the data from collecting data along a straight line 900 Km long seems so pointless unless collected every year. Even then its still one set of points which from year to year will alter according to many reasons unconnected to melting-such as wind and current.
Wil they do this every two years so any short term decrease can be counted as some sort of robust proof? As I say they are grown men but despite all the technology employed this is not a scientific expedition.
Nice to see you back Peter.
I look forward to your graphs on antarctic sea ice and why we should be so concerned about arctic ice movement in that extremely brief snapshot from 1978. It would have started from a high point due to the previous cold years that started the global cooling scare (however exaggerated or not)
Go further back and the ice melts substantially every 60/80 years or so. I have posted the records of Bob Bartlett in the 20’s and 30’s The lead up to the Titanic, The Royal society expedition in 1817, The Hudson Bay company records, vast amounts of information on the Vikings. The 2000 year old civilisations found in the Arctic that couldn’t be sustained today.
Why are we concentrating on one hemisphere and one short period in time?
Tonyb