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.
Hi Peter,
You opined to Robin: “You seem surprised that I would argue that not everyone makes up their minds , on the AGW case, on the merit of the science. But how can they? Unless they have had a scientific education they just can’t.”
This is an elitist argument that is totally ridiculous.
One does not need to be a climate scientist to be able to weigh the data out there critically and skeptically in order to come up with a reasonable opinion on what is going on.
The issue here is greater than just the nitty-gritty detail of the supporting science, and any reasonably educated person can look at the various scientific reports out there and get a fairly good picture of what is going on.
I am not a climate scientist. Nor are you. Nor is Robin. Nor is Bob_FJ, for example. But we can all discuss the various scientific findings and political conclusions drawn from them critically on this site. To argue that one needs a “scientific education” in climate science to have a valid opinion is absurd.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To get back more closely on topic, why has it been cooling the past 8 or 10 years despite record CO2 emissions?
Is this because of:
(a) an end to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity and the current minimum
(b) a reversal of the unusually high level and incidence of late 20th century El Nino events (including the one that caused the warmest year in 1998) and a return to more La Nina events
(c) a longer range shift in the PDO or NAO or both
(d) a combination of the above natural factors
(e) some other natural factor of which our limited scientific nowledge of today is not yet aware?
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Another scientist gives us the chilling thought that we may be headed for colder times, this time not based on forecasted continued low solar activity or ENSO shifts, but based on observations that “ice-rafted debris looks remarkably similar to a much older pattern that preceded an ice age”. Let’s hope he turns out to be wrong. We do not need another ice age of any kind.
http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html
Regards,
Max
Max,
Here (hopefully) is a better version of the graph that goes with my #5091 regarding the decline in ocean temperatures.
Max,
Nigel Lawson was one of the few names on your list that I’d heard of.
What about this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_MacRae
a co-founder of Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania? He doesn’t sound very scientific.
And Ross Mckitrick? he’s an economist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
And what about John Daly? Wasn’t he a teacher? I’ve just found out that he wrote a book “Why the greenhouse effect will not end life on earth”. But, has anyone said it would?
It seem to me that you have set lots of ‘traps’. Most names on the list. Not just one.
Max,
Re Your: Any thoughts?
I’ve posted up a graph several times showing how global temperatures always jump after a period of level temperatures or even a slight cooling. Expect another jump in the next few years.
Max,
Its not a question of elitism, but more a question of specialisation. Everyone specialises in something or other. I do. And I hope, have the good sense to defer to those on matters in which I don’t specialise. Such as on medical matters.
For instance, I happened to notice a lump in my arm recently. The doctor said it wasn’t anything to worry about. But he did a test anyway. The test result came back. Again, nothing to worry about.
I do have confidence that my doctor and the lab tester know what they are doing. If they aren’t , I’m stuffed! So, my opinion now is that there is nothing to worry about too. But, if the test results had been different, my opinion would be different too.
It doesn’t mean that I consider myself to be a lesser person than my doctor or the lab technician. There’ll be lots of things I can do that they can’t. Just as there will lots of things that you guys can do than I can’t either.
Hi Peter,
Your statement of faith that “global temperatures always jump after a period of level temperatures or even a slight cooling” sounds a bit like whistling in the dark.
There is no question that the long-term trend has been one of slight warming (0.6 to 0.7C per century) since we have been coming out of the (solar caused) Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century.
The cooling this time has not been “slight”, and it has been more prolonged than during earlier “blips”, as I am sure you must have noticed.
As Bob_FJ has demonstrated graphically, it looks very much like the start of the 1944-1976 cooling period. Whether it will continue that way is, of course, open for debate.
More importantly, there have been no obvious external factors (like major volcanic eruptions) to explain the cooling, other than longer-term natural changes from an unusually high 20th century solar activity to a new solar minimum and another natural change in the ENSO events from strong and frequent late 20th century El Ninos to La Ninas.
We’ll soon see if you are right that temperatures will again “jump”. I, personally, would not count on it as the indicators point in another direction. Our “bet” covers this difference of opinion.
Your medical doctor analogy has been made before, but it is weak, Peter. The computer jockeys that are projecting climate disaster are not medical doctors. Their diagnostic tools are not based on years of sound medical experience or on extended case studies with actual patients, but on GIGO computer models.
So we are talking instead about the modern day equivalent of “snake oil salesmen” that are selling their “cure” for an imaginary, conjured up problem, not upon sound medical diagnostics.
Sorry, Peter, your story does not pass the reality test. But it sounded good at the time, anyway.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I’m sure I’ve posted this up before:
Data from Hadcrut3
Its quite normal for there to be temperature swings of 0.3 degs within a few years of each other. Also quite normal for there to be cooling spells.
Quite normal for there to be temperature jumps too. Watch out fro the red line jumping abouve the black line by about 0.1 degs in the next year or two. Just like its always done previously.
Max 5102
a) yes
b) yes
c) yes
D yes
E yes. We are on page 20 of the 1000 page ‘Definitive handbook of Understanding Climate Science-edition 1.’ Unfortunately the first 18 pages are merely the introduction
PLUS
f The data on which a lot of the proposition is based is severely flawed-such as the concept of global temperatures and trying to use it to calculate climate trends to a precise fraction of a degree back to 1850, sea levels, computer modelling whereby theory takes the place of observation, a lack of knowledge of history that ignores we have been this way before. So the real question is;
‘Why is it DIFFERENT this time’which requires a definitive explanation and proof of the doubling co2 and feedbacks theory.
g) ‘Known unknowns’ such as the actual level of CO2 in our past. Who is correct, real competent scientists measuring it directly from 1820 or higly theoretical proxy ice core science with all its uncertainties.
Tonyb
Peter:
Re: 5085
No he didn’t. He said that he very often just skims this thread. If you want to know why, copy one whole page into Word, do a word count and divide by the number of days. Then bear in mind that this is just one thread on HS. Although the other threads get far fewer comments, a lot of them are about things that I am doing, and which require a considerable commitment of time. (The threads, not the comments)
Re: 5081
So far as I am concerned there is no bar on discussing nuclear generation here. That controversy is now inseparable from the AGW debate. But that doesn’t mean that it is legitimate to drag US foreign policy into the debate via Iran, which knowing you, will have crossed your mind before you even finished reading this sentence.
Re: 5098
Can you remind me about the academic qualifications of Ravendra Pachauri, Achim Steiner and Yvo de Boer. And George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Ross Gelbspan and Tim Flannery (yes, I do know he is a zoologist). And I will probably be remembering other high priests of global warming about whom one might pose the same question for the rest of the day.
Hi Peter,
Let’s take a closer look at your claim that “Its quite normal for there to be temperature swings of 0.3 degs within a few years of each other. Also quite normal for there to be cooling spells.”
A picture may be worth …, but in this case let’s dig a bit deeper than just your superficial chart with the nice circles drawn in.
Let’s forget the cooling “blips” before the current warming period started (1976) and look at the two that came after this.
A close look at the Hadley record shows that there were two 8-year periods that statistically showed cooling (as per your chart).
These were from 1980 to 1987 and from 1987 to 1994 (the overall period 1980 to 1994 shows warming rather than cooling).
The first cooling period showed a linear rate of cooling of –0.043C/decade or –0.03C over the 8-year period.
The second cooling period showed a linear rate of cooling of –0.060C/decade or –0.05C over the 8-year period.
This compares with the most recent period, which showed a linear rate of cooling of –0.111C/decade or –0.09C over the 8-year period (i.e. slightly more cooling than the other two together).
No following your advice to always show a picture, I’ve gone into a bit more detail than your “broad brush” graph in the charts below:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/3376819584_ef13aa4336_b.jpg
One only needs to look at the graph to see that the first two periods were bouncing all over the place, with a strong upward turn toward the end, while the current one seems to be headed “south” pretty consistently.
A comparison of the statistical R^2 factors tells the same story.
Then we have the “cause and effect” argument.
The following major volcanic eruptions occurred, causing one-time cooling:
· May 1980: Mount St. Helens
· 1983/84: Kilauea / Mauna Loa
· June 1991: Pinatubo
Both earlier periods were, indeed, short-term “blips” caused by one-time events, which simply masked an on-going warming trend, during a period of:
· Unusually high level of solar activity
· Unusually high level of strong El Nino events
· Rapid increase in atmospheric CO2
The current cooling “blip” was not caused by a one-time cooling event, but occurred during a period of”
· End of high solar activity, start of a solar minimum
· End of El Nino events, shift to La Nina events
· Record high human CO2 emissions, continued rapid increase in atmospheric CO2
So your statement: “Quite normal for there to be temperature jumps too. Watch out for the red line jumping above the black line by about 0.1 degs in the next year or two. Just like its always done previously”, is a statement of faith, rather than one based on any scientific rationale.
The current cooling period (which shows no sign of abating) is basically different from the other two “blips” you mention, in magnitude, in character and in cause. This is what makes a reversal (as you seem to believe will happen imminently) highly unlikely.
Regards,
Max
Peter: at #5098 you said to me, “You seem surprised that I would argue that not everyone makes up their minds on the AGW issue, on the merit of the science”. Yes, I was surprised: for once, you seemed to be talking sense (although you went on to spoil it by talking nonsense as Max has pointed out at #5101). It is surely completely obvious that those on both sides of the debate – including scientists – “make up their minds” (as you put it) on the basis of many factors, not all of them “scientific”.
My position, for example, is underpinned, inter alia, by scepticism of “expert” pronouncement, by suspicion of “accepted” orthodoxy, by distrust of conclusions based on complex computer modelling, by the good sense of many of the scientists who do not subscribe to the current strident orthodoxy, by the continually evolving evidence re our changing climate and, perhaps more than anything, by some understanding of global economic and political realities.
I doubt if these factors are representative of a “group”. But, if they are, perhaps they would make a start to your establishing, as you propose, an agreement on what divides what you see as two groups. Over to you.
Hey Peter,
TonyB has been king enough to respond (5109) to the questions posed in my 5102, adding some pertinent comments from his standpoint, as a scientist in the arena of global climate.
Can you do the same?
I’d really be curious on your thoughts and any rationale that you might want to express for them.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Max
Robin
I would be greatful for your comments on this
http://www.outoftheark.co.uk/eddie-the-penguin-saves-the-world-1.html
It might seem innocous, but it is aimed at 3, 4 and 5 years olds and is currently becoming very popular in UK schools as a subject by activist teachers. It is a musical where every song blames man for every ecological disaster including melting the ice and instructs them to badger their parents to mend their ways.
Now I view this as out and out indoctrination of our children in order to support a political point of view, and of course they are too young to listen objectively to the message being rammed down their throats and question it.
Bearing in mind An Inconvenient truth was forced by the courts to point out nine factual erors and that the opposite view must be included as well before it could be distributed to secondary schools in the UK, I just wondered what you thought of this latest example. Has a precedent been set with AIT or is it is something that should just be allowed to pass without comment?
Tonyb
Hi Peter,
To make it easier for you to see that there have been only two 8-year cooling “blips” since 1980 (other than the current on-going one), I’ve put together a chart with the data.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3376278955_02eeaf8e79_b.jpg
As you can see, the current “blip” resulted in more cooling that the other two put together. And (unlike the other two) it shows no sign of abating, Peter.
Break out the woollies!
Regards,
Max
Robin,
I’m not quite sure why you say “over to you”. Haven’t you understood that I’ve been saying that the groups are defined partly by religion but mainly by politics? I’m not sure how I can have been any clearer on this.
Here’s a list of US senators. Each have a score of what the Americans call liberality but we probably would just define as a left /right scale.
Incidentally Brute might be interested to see who has the highest score.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm
If you’ve more time on your hands than I have (I’m not yet retired) you could go through them all and give them a score on their acceptance of the scientific case of AGW. You might find the occasional oddity but overall there will be a high degree of correlation.
Are there any ‘James Inhofes’ in the UK parliament? I can’t think of any in the Australian parliament. But if there are, I’d bet a dollar to a cent that they’d be found hiding away in the far right corners of either the National or Liberal parties.
Max,
Sorry. When you say “as a scientist in the arena of global climate.” Who do you mean?
I’m not getting into any discussion about whether or not the Mauna Lua or ice core records have been faked.
If that’s what you want to believe that’s fine. But don’t mix up conspiracy theories with science.
Hi Peter,
You asked me “When you say ‘as a scientist in the arena of global climate’. Who do you mean?”
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I was referring to TonyB.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 5116. Left/right. Liberal/conservative. Blah/blah.
Is opinion on the importance of global warming part of the “sort criteria” for the ratings of US Senators?
Who cares?
What difference does it make?
None, actually.
This is a silly sidetrack, Peter.
Whether or not an individual believes that the scientific evidence supports the premise that “global warming is a serious threat” (as you once put it) has very little to do with whether or not this individual leans to being on the “left” or on the “right” on political issues.
Just look at the list of SCIENTISTS (not US Senators) who are skeptical of this premise. Some are European socialists, others are apolitical, some are conservatives.
But they reject the premise NOT because of their political leaning, but because they see that the scientific support for the premise is weak or even flawed.
Get it, Peter?
It’s about junk SCIENCE and GIGO computer evidence, not about politics.
Regards,
Max
Max,
As you’ve jumped into the discussion, I should perhaps just remind you that Robin and I weren’t discussing how well qualified climate scientists might decide on the issue, but the vast majority ( I’d say > 99% ) of the population, who have had little or no scientific education.
If you disagree with my explanation of their motivations, maybe you can provide your own?
When you’ve done that, maybe we can discuss whether more highly qualified scientists themselves are totally immune from them?
Hi Peter,
To the list of hundreds of scientists skeptical on global warming being a serious threat you cherrypick out 4 names and write, “It seem to me that you have set lots of ‘traps’. Most names on the list. Not just one.”
Get serious, Peter.
There are many qualified and respected scientists on that list (and others that are not on that list) who do not accept the validity of the science supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
And that was my point, which you have been unable to refute.
Now let’s get back to the current cooling trend and its causes.
Sticking your head in the sand and saying “it does not exist” is a rather non-scientific approach, so I’m sure you do not want to go that route.
Waffling and side-tracking about liberal/conservative or left/right political ideologies also have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Why is it cooling?
TonyB has given us his reasoning on this (BTW I agree with him 100%).
What say you, Peter?
Regards,
Max
More blah, blah, from you in #5119, Peter.
I have shown you that many scientists do not believe that the scientific data support the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
You have been unable to refute this.
That is the issue you and I have been discussing most recently.
I have also shown you, based on physical observations reported in several scientific studies, that the physical evidence does not support the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
There is a second issue, which relates to the draconian policy measures (big taxes or caps) proposed to mitigate against the threat from AGW.
But this issue, while of key importance to all of us, is by definition secondary to the first issue.
If there is no serious threat to be expected from AGW, there is obviously no need for the policy measures.
Get the point?
I’ll admit, it’s subtle, but I’m sure you have been able to grasp it.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Switching gears now to the proposed policy measures aimed at mitigating the threat from AGW.
We see that AGW has stopped all by itself due to several natural forcing factors that no longer force warming as they did in the recent past:
– switch from unusually high level of 20th century solar activity to the beginning of a solar minimum,
– switch from an unusually high incidence of strong El Nino events to a period with more La Nina events
– possible changes in longer term PDO and NAO cycles
– other natural factors that we are unable to explain today, with our limited knowledge of what causes climate to change
All of these natural factors are driving temperatures down despite all-time record CO2 emissions
So we really do no need to undertake any draconian and painful mitigation steps (i.e. carbon taxes or caps), since our AGW problem hs gone away all by itself, right?
Makes sense to me, Peter.
How about you?
Regards,
Max
PS I believe this also makes sense to most of the posters here, although I have not had any votes from anyone on this (except TonyB, who agrees)
Max,
Ah but we don’t really believe you when you say that “But this issue, while of key importance to all of us, is by definition secondary to the first issue.”
We think that you are against the acceptance oF AGW because you don’t like the idea of some form of collective action to fix it. That it raises too many political difficulties. That it might interfere with your ‘liberty’ to choose to ride around in a Hummmer. We think you’ve put the cart before the horse.
Peter:
I cannot understand why you seem to be obsessed by this religion and left/right stuff and why a need to divide people into “groups” is so important to you. Perhaps it’s because you are finding it difficult to deal with some of the real issues being raised here.
Here (again) are some of the factors that underpin my position: scepticism of “expert” pronouncement, suspicion of “accepted” orthodoxy, distrust of conclusions based on complex computer modelling, the good sense of many of the scientists who do not subscribe to the current strident orthodoxy, the continually evolving evidence re our changing climate and, perhaps more than anything, some understanding of global economic and political realities. None of that has anything to do with religion or left/right politics. Nor should it.
Does that put me in a “group”? I really don’t know and I’m really not interested.
TonyB re your #5114 about the Eddie the Penguin musical. Well, that is frightening – indoctrinating little children isn’t even remotely amusing. But, before getting too alarmed – and perhaps making things worse by giving the scandal wider publicity – are you able to provide evidence of it’s “becoming very popular in UK schools”? Do you know any schools where it has been performed? Do you know any parents whose children have taken part? I believe AIT came to court because a group of parents complained and I think the same would have to happen here if that sort of formal action were to be taken.
For others’ information, here’s an extract from the script:
Er … Eddie and his huge family live in the Antarctic and there is no evidence that the Antarctic is “melting away” – it’s probably increasing.
One thing that can be done is to go to the site here and make a comment. But I tried (suggesting some changes along these lines – “”Silly Eddie’ said Mother Penguin ‘we’re all very lucky – the ice isn’t really melting after all!’ ‘Hooray’ sing all the penguins., noting that it was irresponsible to scare little children with untrue stories”. I gave it one star (there’s no option for no stars). However my comment seems to have been rejected by the moderator.