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.
Peter:
You’re not doing too well are you?
First, you fail to respond to Max’s repeated request that you name 600 climate scientists who accept the dangerous AGW hypothesis, despite his having the guts to name 200 who do not.
Next, I’m comprehensively acquitted by your kangaroo (I loved that) court.
And now, despite your presumably believing that, unlike me, you are “well acquainted … with the scientific evidence”, you seem unable to answer Max’s repeated question – “Why is it cooling now, despite all-time record CO2 emissions?”
Max,
You ask “How can they predict temperatures for the year 2100 when they cannot even get the first eight years of the new millenium right? “
Consider the following simple mathematical equation:
T = 0.03 X + RND (-0.15 , 0.15)
The second term is a random number which can be anything between -0.15 and +0.15
You’ve probably guessed by now that X represents the number of years, 0.03 is the projected annual increase in temperature and the random term on the end represents the ‘noise’ on the graph.
Say you need have to predict what T is when X =10 and X=100. Do you think you will likely get closer, as a percentage, at X=10 or X = 100 ?
Hi Brute,
How much money is 3.6 trillion dollars (the amount of President Obama’s budget request)?
Not to alarm you, but if you converted it to US cents (pennies) it would be 360 trillion cents.
A US cent is 1.55 mm thick (0.061 inch).
Stacked up, this would be 558 trillion mm or 558 million km high (346 million miles).
Believe it or not, this is over 3.5 times the distance from the earth to the sun.
Just something to think about as you go to sleep at night.
Regards,
Max
PS From what I have just heard, the good news is that Congress is going to slash around 100 to 150 billion $ from the budget, so the pennies would only reach 3.3 times the distance to the sun.
Brute:
Yes, Dan Hannan’s speech was remarkable. But, although widely viewed in cyberspace, it seems not to have been reported by the MSM. But there is some good news for you this morning (re your 5216). According to this front page report in the Guardian:
It seems my comment on the US at 5214 was prescient.
Hi Peter,
Your 5227 was interesting, but you failed to consider one key point.
The longer out that a projection goes, the more likely it is to be incorrect. This is a fact of life.
The reason is quite simple.
One can usually predict a year in advance what will happen. The likelihood of an “outlier” or significant unexpected event occurring is much lower than when projecting ten or even one hundred years in advance.
By definition errors get worse with the degree of remoteness to the time of the projection. IPCC falls into the trap of underestimating the errors of its predictions because (in addition to its myopic concentration on anthropogenic factors, primarily CO2) it ignores the “outliers” that will render them meaningless.
As Nassim Taleb has written in his book, “The Black Swan”: “You cannot ignore self-delusion. The problem with experts is that thet do not know what they do not know. Lack of knowledge and delusion about the quality of your knowledge come together – the same process that makes you know less also makes you satisfied with your knowledge.”
The “my forecast was right, except for…” syndrome takes over. The forecaster deludes himself into truly believing that his forecast was correct, except for an unforeseen circumstance that is, in effect, just “background noise”.
The classical example is the one about horse manure in Manchester, resulting from the ever-increasing number of horse drawn buggies in the mid-19th century. The prediction was that Manchester would be covered by 2 meters of horse manure by the year 1920.
Of course, this did not turn out that way.
So, even if we were to accept that CO2 drives our climate (a most dubious assumption, based on the observed long-term facts), we do not know what other factors may overshadow the impact of CO2 (as is already occurring since 2001).
So your logic is basically flawed, Peter.
If IPCC cannot even get the first 10 years of a forecast right, they are even less likely to get the next ninety years right.
Regards,
Max
From WUWT today.
“It WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.”
Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism.
Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”
“The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models,” Dyson was saying. “They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”
I live close to the Exeter Met office. Day after day they give a forecast from models that they might correct if they actually looked out of their window and saw what it was actually doing in the real world rather than what their computer tells them it is doing.
This lack of observation and reliance on models or interpolated data is rife in the industry and affects everything from temperatures to sea level.
It is no coincidence that the rise of the belief in AGW rises in line with our ability to mispredict it. We live in the era of Menckens hobgoblins and alarmisnm is rise.
Look at the actual facts. Look at what History tells us. Observe things.
The reality is different to the models because after all they are only models.
TonyB
Max 5230
“The classical example is the one about horse manure in Manchester, resulting from the ever-increasing number of horse drawn buggies in the mid-19th century. The prediction was that Manchester would be covered by 2 meters of horse manure by the year 1920.”
Great alarm here on the coast as the water level has dropped one foot in the last hour. I fear for us all as my robust models show that by Midnight the water around the entire coast of Britain will have disappeared. I will keep you posted on this disturbing development.
TonyB
Peter/Max:
I hope you will not mind my butting in on your discussion about the IPCC’s failed predictions (er … projections). I’m sure Max is right to draw attention to Taleb’s observations about forecasts. I think also that TonyB’s reminder about Dyson’s comments on how the “climate-studies people” overestimate their models is relevant. But what I am still waiting to hear is Peter’s answer to Max’s simple question:“Why is it cooling now, despite all-time record CO2 emissions?”
For someone who presumably believes he is ““well acquainted … with the scientific evidence” that one should be easy. So, Peter – what’s the answer?
Re: 5212 & 5223, Peter
It doesn’t look as though the Royal Society has updated that site much since Bob Ward left to join the insurance industry.
As to your suffragette analogy, just what do AGW sceptics have in common with women campaigning for enfranchisement nearly a century ago?
Help! Has anyone come across the reference for this?
Quite a while ago I read an interesting paper by a team of political scientists. They noted that politicians who are aware that a scandal might break will very often leak the story to the media themselves. Their findings were that once a story is released in two or three places, the spin that is initially put on it rarely change as it spreads through the media, whatever new facts may emerge.
If anyone else has come across this paper and they can give me a pointer, then I would be very grateful.
Max and Robin,
You’ve asked why it is cooling now despite all time emissions?
I hope that this graph can help me explain why it appears that it might be cooling:
This is not at all based on any real temperature record. I’ve simulated what has been happening over a 30 year period using Excel.
The red line shows a linear temperature increase of 0.6deg C.
I’ve added a sinusoidal component in blue with an 11 year periodicity to represent the small temperature change we measure due to the solar cycle.
On top of that I’ve added some random variation to represent measurement inaccuracies.
Now its not difficult to pick out 8 or 9 year periods where the temperatures seem to be flat or even falling.
That’s exactly what we are seeing at the moment in the real temperature record.
Peter 5236
See my comment about computer models. Why dont you use real data?
TonyB
Peter – re your 5236. The real observed data measured by satellites that circle the world 24 hours a day (the real world, that is, not some computer generated version) show that temperatures have been flat since the turn of the century and have fallen slightly since 2001. There’s no ambiguity about these observations – they did happen, not might have happened as you suggest. Yet, during that period, mankind’s CO2 emissions have increased. How do you account for this – if emissions are the main driver of global warming?
Oh no – religion raises its ugly head again. Now the Archbishop of Canterbury has waded in:
So God won’t help? That’s bad.
Peter,
You mean you don’t know if it is cooling or warming? “Appears” that it “might” be cooling?
Here is what the temperature has done for the last 20 years. Robin is absolutely right. What has actually occurred doesn’t fit the delusions of Hansen or any other Alarmist’s fantasies although CO2 has been rising during the entire period.
NO Correlation……………
Hi Peter,
Nice virtual graph (5236). Unfortunately it doesn’t convey any real information (but I’ll admit that it’s very pretty and looks impressive). Great chartmanship!
Please refer to my 5111 for some graphs of the 3 real cooling “blips” we’ve seen since the longer mid-century cooling period ended. (Please note that these are based on actual physically observed Hadley temperature data.)
It is clear that the current cooling “blip” is different from the earlier two “blips”.
There is also a listing of some possible contributing causes for these “blips”.
In the case of the first two, there were major volcanic eruptions wich caused a temporary cooling despite an all-time high level of solar activity plus a above average frequency of El Nino events.
In the case of the current cooling, there were no one-time major volcanic events, but rather an endemic change in both solar activity (from the record maximum to a new minimum) and in ENSO patterns (from above average El Nino frequency to more La Nina events).
This tells me that the current cooling trend is likely to continue for a longer period of time than the earlier two.
What does it tell you, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Looks like Brute “beat me to the punch” with his “real data graph”.
You’re in the hole on this one, Peter (as TonyB has also noted), so I’d suggest you stop digging.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Robin brought it up again (to get us both back on track).
In your opinion, why is it cooling now despite all-time record human CO2 emissions?
Appreciate your thoughts.
Regards,
Max
Also….Don’t Forget To Switch On Every Light Inside And Outside Of Your House This Saturday Night @ 8:30 PM To Celebrate Thomas Edison/Henry Ford Hour!
Turn Your Heat Or Air Conditioning On Full Blast And Leave Your Car Idling In The Driveway With The Lights On!
Celebrate What These Men Have Provided Us And All Of The Wonderful Gifts They Have Invented For The Betterment Of Mankind!
Pete,
Where’s your list?
Hi Brute,
Thanks for Edison/Ford Day reminder.
I’ll do my best to celebrate in style (hope I don’t blow any fuses).
Max
PS Let’s see if the guys in the Space Station follow the Earth to catch what is happening in each time zone.
Max
my 5232
My computer model is frankly proving a disaster. The water level fall has now reversed, quite contrary to the robust extrapolations I had constructed.
It is now rising at an alarming rate totally outside the parameters of the 8 hours of data I have carefully accumulated.
My new and even more robust model now calculate that we will all be overwhelmed in our beds by the rising sea levels.
Hope everyone is able to keep safe-take to the boats- and I will report on the unprecedented levels the sea will undoubtedly have reached by the morning.
TonyB
Peter
The good thing about being a sceptic is that you question the status quo and look at all the relevant and current information before making up your mind, and as someone once said ‘If the facts change, I change my mind.’
I was quite prepared to believe in AGW until I looked at the data which demonstrates it is a chimera.
I was quite prepared to accept co2 levels were a constant 280ppm and ice cores were accurate until I looked at Becks work and thoroughly researched the social conditions in the 19th century and realised that analysing co2 was a common activity practised by many top scientists. Now I am inclined to believe levels were similar in the 19th century to today.
I was quite prepared to believe the conventional explanation for the ozone hole. When I contacted several of the leading experts in the world I realised something was up and corresponded with the scientist whose research is now showing that cosmic rays may have a big part to play and posted this information here. Now I am mostly sure that the conventional explanation is wrong because it is not backed up by observable evidence
Several weeks ago I was invited to write a paper on renewables, with particular reference to wave/tidal. After doing a great deal of detailed research I have changed my mind about their effectiveness and do not believe they have the ability to supply worthwhile amounts of power-at least in the short to medium term.
When the facts change I change my mind. What about setting aside your personal belief in the idea of AGW and look at the facts in an objective fashion, and recognise that they don’t actually support what you believe.
TonyB
Hi TonyB
Please keep us all up-to-date on the alarming sea level rise you are experiencing as well as the long-term projections your models are now showing (I have a friend who is hoping to be able to purchase some seafront property in the Birmingham area).
Regards,
Max
Well if you want real data here it is, from the Hadcrut Data,yet again:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3178294991_2a1dae1ca8_o.png
You ask again “why is it cooling now despite all-time record human CO2 emissions?” If you want to be simple minded about it, and it does strike me that there are quite a few on this thread who are quite happy to be simple minded, you just put a line through a cluster of points and declare that the earth is indeed cooling.
Max says that my Excel simulation ” doesn’t convey any real information”. I do have to agree that for a simple or a closed mind that statement is very likely to be true. However, if random variation can produce data patterns which are very similar to real data patterns might not an even moderately intelligent person think…….
The data is derived exactly as I have described. Using a mixture of a linear increase , a sinusoidal variation, and an element of randomness. I’m happy to send anyone the actual excel spreadsheet if they’d like to verify this.
One piece of real information that you could convey to me is the source of the data from the icecap graph. I’ve seen this graph reproduced on several contrarian websites. Has anyone ever checked its authenticity?
Robin,
I can imagine that some of the contributors to this thread might ask the same dumb question (as in your 5238). But aren’t barristers supposed to be a bit smarter than most?
Have I got that right? Were you really a barrister?
Tonyb,
I’m chuckling heartily.
Undoubtedly the rise (and fall) in sea levels in your locality are an indication that you and your fellow citizens have offended the environmental God(s). I suggest you take up a collection and donate the proceeds to Al Gore immediately to avert certain and irreversible consequences.
Of course, you could take the approach that rising and falling sea levels were both projected in your model as Hansen, The IPCC and Romm have previously asserted with their global warming crystal balls. Therefore, no matter what the sea level does you will be assured continued funding.
Please keep us posted on this imminent environmental calamity.
Robin,
Your Member of Parliament (Daniel Hannon?…..not certain if I’m spelling this correctly) is a complete smash here in the U.S. He has made the morning talk shows (via satellite), afternoon drive radio and will be making an appearance tonight on national television.
Well done.