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,
Wrong again when you wrote: “Sensible people, and there are many without any scientific background, only need look at what is happening in the Arctic… to know that even the current levels of global warming are a cause for concern.”
Current level? Concern? Concern about what (that is currently happening, not future computer-generated fantasy) Peter?
Just on sea ice: the combined Arctic plus Antarctic sea ice is at a slightly higher extent today than the 1979-2000 average.
Which “low lying islands” have been swallowed up today due to rising sea levels caused by AGW(again not future virtual reality)?
Get serious, Peter. There are no indications that today’s level of global warming is any real cause for concern.
If you have any such examples, please bring them forward.
But don’t come with future disaster rophesies. These are hard to swallow.
Regards,
Max
Max 447,
Dear old Phil Jones, Briffa and Osborn are also great Hockey-Team enthusiasts and have helped to cancel the MWP (Medieval Warm Period).
According to this series of lead articles, they do appear to jiggle their data, but perhaps not as brazenly as GISS.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=52
Manacker,
Maybe I should congratulate you on accepting the IPPC position and agreeing with the mainstream scientific position, but on the other hand maybe not, I think that you want it to have it both ways.
So can’t be claiming to be in the mainstream of science and say that AGW by the year 2100 is going to be no more than about 0.7 deg C or so. That is not the mainstream scientific position. Neither is it that the feedbacks are negligable. Your much loved Stefan _Boltzmann calculations do need to be treated as a starting point, with feedback effects applied later.
The mainstream scientific position now is that the value of 2 x Co2 is likely to be in the region of 2.5 to 4 deg C
Your “mainstream scientific position” is 1930’s at best. What was that you were saying about keeping up to date?
Re: Post # 447
Max,
Thanks. I suppose it comes down to my earlier statement that Hansen is changing the facts to fit his theory………after the fact.
I suppose I’m just naïve and would like to believe that a topic as serious as this would be investigated thoroughly and without prejudice/bias. (How silly of me).
It’s obvious that Hansen has a political agenda and is misrepresenting the facts to further his case.
I’m not a scientist, but my view has always been that my integrity is, in the end, the essence of my being. It doesn’t appear that Mr. Hansen shares this view.
This article is interesting. I’m amused by the concept of The Hot Water Bottle Effect (THWBE) superseding the dreaded AGW. And it seems there may be some truth in it. Hmm.
Shock, horror – Romm deletes post he doesn’t like. See this. BTW I haven’t a clue what it’s about: perhaps Max could explain.
Some fun in Spain. Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a confirmed skeptic, debated a “lead author” of the IPCC assessment report.
Also see this: link
C/O Greenie Watch:
Another scientist Dissents:
MIT’s Rose: Cooler heads needed in global warming debate. Robert Rose is a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific disciplines at the graduate and undergraduate levels
It would appear that columnist Robert Kelly has been sharply reprimanded for his June 18 piece on global warming (“Contrary to Gore, sky’s not falling”). The latest scolding, by the Rev. Jeff Barz-Snell in the July 3 edition (“No denying fact of global climate change,” letter to the editor), accuses Mr. Kelly of untruth (I think that means lying) and of immorality.
I must ask both of the combatants in this matter whether or not they have actually read the scientific documents underlying the news accounts (Barz-Snell claims “every single nation’s academy of science” agrees with his thesis); or for that matter understand the science underlying Mr. Gore’s immortal movie – particularly when they refer to the “facts.”
We do know that, due to the earth’s orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the earth’s spin, global warming is occurring as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the warming, and the going has been difficult. (Try Science magazine, page 28 of Volume 317, July 6, 2007, for a typical report of the struggle.)
These models can’t be tested experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races.
Clearly, these are not “facts.” They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect. We have also not examined the consequences – human, economic or environmental – of reversing our contribution (whatever it is) to global warming. The unintended consequences of corn-based ethanol on our economy (and even more important on our shrinking water supply) is a good case in point.
In any case, it is not helpful for clergy to condemn those with whom they disagree as immoral or untruthful. (Galileo had that problem – one we don’t need a repeat, thank you.) I would advise the reverend to heed his calling (“Judge not, that ye be judged,” as I recall) and all parties to approach the problem with more humility.
Here’s a ‘first’ for Harmless Sky. We’ve been mentioned at JunkScience
.
Clean Air Causing Global Warming
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/07/clean_air_causing_global_warming/
‘Global Warming Causing California Glacier to Grow’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/09/headline-global-warming-causing-california-glacier-grow
Brute 461,
As a diversion from AGW
I tried to climb Mount Shasta back in the 80’s, without knowing much about it; like I bought a map when I got there. I just thought it looked magnificent and needed to be climbed. It was a Labour Day W/E. Got to a campsite called lake-something or-other at the foot of the main climb, (actually a boulder-field), and was amazed to see hordes of other loonies there. Also that there was this steep bit comprising loose rocks, and thought oh-dear….forgot to bring my helmet. Bye-bye.
Got back to the car just as it was getting dark!
I heard later that it was a massacre up there the next day. One, (or was it two?) killed by falling rocks.
A very beautiful mountain though.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “The mainstream scientific position now is that the value of 2 x Co2 is likely to be in the region of 2.5 to 4 deg C. Your “mainstream scientific position” is 1930’s at best. What was that you were saying about keeping up to date?”
“Mainstream” does not mean very much, Peter.
“1930’s at best?” Dead wrong again, Peter.
Richard Lindzen , Nir Shaviv and Roy Spencer are just three respected climate scientists that agree on a 2xCO2 sensitivity around 0.7C.
And Roy Spencer’s recent study confirming this with strongly negative cloud feedback observations was published last year (after IPCC’s report, so it is understandable that they have not yet been able to include these new observed data in the model projections they cite).
So this is not input from the “1930’s”. That’s what I meant when I told you to “keep up to date”.
Where in the world did you come up with such a silly statement?
Regards,
Max
TonyN, Re your appended note to me on #440:
I hope you don’t think I was whinging; I was responding to your call for comments on any difficulties in posting. I fully understand some of the difficulties and quote from an Australian site, to recognise just how bad they CAN be:
Dear Microsoft Technical Support,
I [Joe] am desperate for some help. I recently upgraded my software package from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that the new program began giving unexpected errors and also took up a lot of space and valuable resources. This wasn’t mentioned in the product brochure. In addition Wife 1.0 installs itself into all other programs and launches during system initialization where it monitors all other system activity. Applications such as Boys Night Out 2.5, and Cricket 5.3 no longer run, and crash the system whenever selected. Attempting to operate Saturday Sports Bar 6.3 always fails but Saturday Shopping 7.1 runs instead. I cannot seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background whilst attempting to run any of my favourite applications. I am thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0 but uninstall doesn’t work on this program.
Kind regards,
Joe.
THE REPLY FROM MICROSOFT:
Dear Joe,
This is a very common problem resulting from a basic misunderstanding. Many men upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 thinking that Wife 1.0 is merely a utilities & entertainment program. Whereas Wife 1.0 is a complete operating system, designed by its creator to run everything. You are unlikely to be able to purge Wife 1.0 and still convert back to Girlfriend 7.0 as Wife 1.0 is not designed to do this and it is impossible to uninstall, delete or purge the program files from the system once installed.
Some people have tried to install Girlfriend 8.0 or wife 2.0 but have ended up with even more problems. (See in manual under alimony Support and Solicitors Fees). Having Wife 1.0 installed myself I recommend you keep it installed and deal with the difficulties as best you can. When any faults or problems occur, whatever you think has caused them, you must run the C:\I APOLOGISE program and avoid attempting to use the *Esc-key. It may be necessary to run C:\I APOLOGISE a number of times but hopefully eventually the operating system will return to normal. Wife 1.0 although a very high maintenance program, can be very rewarding.
To get the most out of it consider buying additional software such as Flowers 2.0 and Chocolates 5.0. Do not under any circumstances install Secretary 36.24.36 (Short Skirt version) as this is not a supported application for Wife 1.0 and the system will almost certainly crash.
Thank you for using the program.
With regards,
Bill
P.S. In no case try to install the free software (Mother-in-Law 1.0) that comes with WIFE 1.0 operating system. Installing the software would lead to not responding messages from Wife1.0 operating system.
Pete 463, You wrote in part:
Oh Really; “Mainstream“?
Even fruitcake physicist A P Smith likes 2K!
Whereas David Bullshit Benson likes 3K
But, I can find lower proposed values around the place. Let me take-you-in to page 33 of 37 of an academic blog, where sensitivity values of a different order are discussed. Perhaps if you can grasp it from that point-on, you may care to run through it in entirety from page #1. But page #33 is perhaps a soft introduction point for you:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=286&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=320#p6697
Please do not be afraid to add your opinion to this blog.
Diverse opinions always add to any debate!
Pete 463, You wrote in part:
“The mainstream scientific position now is that the value of 2 x Co2 is likely to be in the region of 2.5 to 4 deg C.”
Oh Really; “Mainstream“?
Even fruitcake physicist A P Smith likes 2K!
Whereas David Bullshit Benson likes 3K
But, I can find lower proposed values around the place. Let me take-you-in to page 33 of 37 of an academic blog, where sensitivity values of a different order are discussed. Perhaps if you can grasp it from that point-on, you may care to run through it in entirety from page #1. But page #33 is perhaps a soft introduction point for you:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=286&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=320#p6697
Please do not be afraid to add your opinion to this blog.
Diverse opinions always add to any debate!
Re: 464
No problem Bob, except that Akismet just seems to have spammed you again and this time I do not think it could have anything to do with the URL that you quoted. Shelock Holmes is on the case, but at the moment I fear that his deductive powers are not equal to this elementary problem, he may even be guilty of arguing ahead of his data.
This article is amusing. But its observations are serious – and, I fear, accurate.
Further to 415, 427, 428 and 442, this article is important: perhaps Bush was right about GW after all.
Hi BobFJ
Three more recent estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity:
1.1C Schwarz
1.2C Minschwaner + Dessler
1.8C Goosse et al.
Note that all of these expressed uncertainties regarding the impacts of clouds and all predated Spencer’s study showing a major net negative feedback from clouds.
So Peter is “dreaming” with his 2.5 to 4.0C “mainstream” number, as is DBB with his 3C number. This is old stuff.
Regards,
Max
Russia’s Putin tours new rig in Arctic oil drive
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7IFwV9Crl9T3O34vrjPL1hs9z-A
Robin,
Did you already post this? I remembered an article by someone named MaCrae……
C/O ICECAP
How the Hadley Centre spins the data on non-warming
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=74
Jul 12, 2008
How the Hadley Centre Spins the Data on Non-warming
By Paul MaCrae, False Alarm
Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research is in a spot of bother at the moment. On the one hand, the Hadley Centre is a firm believer in the hypothesis that humans are the main cause of global warming and that we’re heading toward catastrophe. It even devotes several of its web pages to waving a nagging finger at those foolish enough or unprincipled enough to believe otherwise.
On the other hand, the Hadley Centre, as part of the British Meteorological Office, is also churning out data showing that the planet isn’t warming at the moment, and hasn’t for the past 10 years or so. What to do? As principled scientists, the Hadley staff can’t cook the books so the temperature figures fit the hypothesis, although at least one other major climate centre is doing its best to keep its figures matching the hypothesis. On the other hand, if the general public got the idea that maybe the planet wasn’t warming after all, despite what it’s been told so often, the people might rebel against punitive carbon taxes and go back to their materialist-loving ways. The Hadley Centre’s solution is a combination of spin-doctoring and let’s hope nobody notices. You find the spin in its finger-wagging admonitions that we mustn?t take this non-warming trend at all seriously. Just temporary. Planet’s still warming. Move along; nothing to see here.
Hadley notes “Earth’s climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans”. So, humans are causing “most of the warming” at the moment, but not warming in the past, and there are many other causes of warming as well, all natural, and all, one would think, a lot more powerful – solar orbit changes, volcanoes, variations in solar energy – than anything humans could throw at the planet.
It was warm from 1850 to 1940, too, but in 1940 the planet cooled for 30 years. However, this cooling can’t happen again, according to the Hadley Centre. How does it know? Because its computers tell it so – the same computers that couldn’t predict the recent 10 years of non-warming. But why isn’t the planet warming now? After all, humans are “driving” the climate, aren’t we? Well, not quite. As the Hadley Centre tells us “The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Nina conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.” (incidentally, “slight slowing of the warming” is an unsual way of describing “no warming”).
See large image here
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Since_2002.jpg
So the oceans are driving this non-warming through an La Nina (a cold current), overriding our human-caused carbon dioxide. Maybe humans aren’t as powerful a “driving” force as the Hadley Centre would like us to believe after all. And if humans aren’t the main cause of cooling, maybe we’re not the main cause of warming, either. Read more here.
Max,
Not “dreaming”, just sticking with the mainstream of scientific opinion. As the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report puts it: 2 x CO2 is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.
The term mainstream science does have a definite meaning. This is, generally, the common current of rational thought of the vast majority. On the other hand, fringe science ideas are usually advanced by individuals either from outside the field of science, or by scientists outside the mainstream of their own disciplines. The thought process of fringe science is often quite irrational which makes debate between the two groups quite impossible.
Whether Spencer or Lindzen can be classified as “mainstream” is debatable. Certainly their ideas are well outside what is generally consider the normal range of scientific opinion and which is no doubt why you contrarians are their biggest fans.
An example of fringe science would be the theory of intelligent design. This has an obvious appeal to those of a religious persuasion, and which by its nature must be based on an irrational thought process. It might be significant to note that Roy Spencer is himself reported as being a supporter.
There may be some connection between Roy Spencer’s views on ID and climate sensitivity. Religious doctrines, including Islam and Christian, often hold that God created the earth primarily for human benefit, including, presumably, large reserves of oil, coal and natural gas. The Bible or the Koran doesn’t mention the robustness of the climate against human emissions of CO2, of course, but I would expect that those who do believe in a supernatural creator would be of the opinion that this creator would have allowed for the use of these resources in the grand plan.
OK, maybe it is an argument, but it’s not mainstream science.
Max 470, Concerning CO2 sensitivity:
Yes, I find it quite hilarious that Andrew Dessler (AGW activist/alarmist) should contradict the so-called IPCC consensus or mainstream view as PM puts it. As we both know, whenever Dessler has been confronted with simple questions over at Gristmill, like do you have any evidence for this or that, he may respond unhelpfully with: “Go read the IPCC report” (If he does not ignore the question)
But, he contradicts that same infallible source!
That source which is a Bible to PM
Brute 472,
You referenced Paul MacRae and his lead article which included in part:
This Hadley claim is BS!
See my graphical composite in link below of global SST’s with the (NOAA) ENSO and also the PDO indexes.
Positive values per NOAA ENSO, are El Nino, and negative are La Nina.
The PDO, (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, further north in the Pacific) is arguably substantially a manifestation of ENSO
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2615685346_eeb693e1a3_b.jpg
BTW, I was going to make a series of posts over there, but my first, somewhat similar to the above, has gone into “moderation”