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,
Thanks for your 5870 and 5873, which, unfortunately, did not provide any evidence to support your stated credo that AGW is a serious threat.
Although I hate doing this to you, I am going to make your case even harder to defend.
In the scientific method, it is not the task of the rational skeptic to disprove the hypothesis (as we have already established).
You say it “isn’t the same as mathematics which works on the basis of proof. It is probably more analogous to the operation of a court of law, which assesses evidence and comes to a reasonable conclusion.”
Robin can probably inform us both more precisely about the workings of a “court of law” under English jurisprudence, but under the scientific method it is, indeed, the proponent of the hypothesis who must provide the physical evidence to support the hypothesis and his premise that this hypothesis is valid and (in this case) that AGW is therefore a serious threat.
But I will iterate a few hurdles that you have in validating your AGW hypothesis and resultant credo that it is a serious threat, and list some examples of physical observations that do not support the premise that AGW is a significant driver of our climate, which we have already discussed:
· Rapid warming cycles in the late 19th century and early 20th century, before there were any significant human CO2 emissions.
· Mid 20th century cooling cycle despite increased human CO2 emissions
· 21st century cooling cycle despite all-time record human CO2 emissions and increase in atmospheric CO2 content.
· Increase in solar activity from long-term solar minimum concurrent with past recovery from the Little Ice Age.
· Highest level of solar activity in several thousands of years concurrent with 20th century warming.
· High incidence of warming El Niño patterns concurrent with late 20th century warming.
· Start of new solar minimum concurrent with most recent sharp cooling trend.
· Lack of warming in Antarctica, increase of sea ice.
· Rapid Arctic warming and ice loss in the 1930s and 1940s prior to significant human CO2 emissions.
· Paleoclimate, historical and physical evidence supporting the fact that there have been past periods that were warmer than today, despite no human CO2 emissions (Medieval Warm Period, Roman Optimum).
· Tropospheric temperature record, which shows a slower rate of increase than the surface record; greenhouse theory tells us that this should be exactly the other way around for the warming to have been caused by AGW.
· Lack of the telltale “hot spot” at about 10 km altitude in the tropics; this pattern is needed provide the greenhouse “fingerprint” in the warming, but it is absent.
· Paleoclimate studies from the Vostok Ice Core show that past warming periods have preceded increased CO2 concentrations by several hundreds of years (not the other way around), and despite increasing CO2 levels the warming trends have then reversed, so that CO2 was not the driver of climate change, but rather the follower.
None of the above observations disprove that there may have been a CO2-based greenhouse component to our planet’s climate, but all of the above point to the fact that AGW is not likely to be the principal cause of planetary warming.
Now we come to the forecasts for the future.
Despite the fact that 20th century warming was only 0.65C over the entire century, of which 0.35C has been attributed by solar scientists to record high solar activity, climate models cited by IPCC now predict that the AGW warming over the next century will be 1.8 to 4.0C, with a maximum estimate of 6.4C, over 10 times the 20th century warming!
Let us ignore the physically observed fact that the first eight years of the 21st century have seen sharp cooling (at a rate of 0.1C per decade), making the model estimates of rapid 21st century warming even more unlikely of really occurring (would required a reversal of current cooling to warming at 0.7C per decade to reach 6.4C by 2100).
These estimates are all based on assumed “positive feedbacks” primarily from warming-induced changes in clouds, water vapor and surface albedo.
Here again, the physical observations do not support the hypothetical feedback assumptions fed into the climate models, which result in these exaggerated forecasts:
· Physical observations have shown us that the net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed in all the climate models
· Physical observations have shown that the climate model assumption of constant relative humidity with warming is not supported by the facts, therefore that the water vapor positive feedback is significantly overstated.
· Physical observations show that Arctic sea ice has receded, but that Antarctic sea ice has grown over the same period. In addition, Northern Hemisphere snow cover has not receded since the 1980s. These are the factors that influence our planet’s surface albedo (influencing the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space).
It is likely, as a result of these physical observations, that we can conclude that there is no net “positive feedback” as assumed by the models, and that the 21st century warming that one could theoretically expect from the projected increase in CO2 would be measured in tenths of a degree C, rather than by several degrees C as predicted by the climate models cited by IPCC.
So, all in all, the case for significant global warming as a result of AGW stands on shaky feet and on a hypothesis that is not supported by the physical observations and even strongly challenged by many of these.
But I am still waiting for the physical evidence to support your credo that AGW is a serious threat.
The ball is still in your court, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max, Peter Martin addressed you in part in his 5870:
Max, and other rationalists here, I opine that the subject of mathematical proof has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the price of cheese, or the various hypothesise on AGW.
Furthermore, Pete has demonstrated yet again (so many times) that he is prone to assert big pronouncements in scientific matters, which are WRONG!
In this case, he claims that DNA evidence at the scene of a crime has a trivial element of doubt. He then goes on to claim that mutual evidence of finger-prints, are also trivial in combination! I imagine that he is thinking that the two evidences are simply an arithmetical addition of chance. However, this is quite silly. The probability of two such probabilities coinciding at the same point, is not a matter of A + B!
Max, since you still seem to be prepared to talk to Peter, (whilst I would rather not waste my breath), I comment to you, that yet again he has assumed something way beyond his understanding of the science. (some of that science being theoretical rather than proven)
ALL, further my 5877, I would like to add that since Peter Martin adopted a new nom de blog of Tempterrain, and joined that fruitcake cabal over at the Guardian, I have noticed a significant decline in his persona. It almost seems like a virus infection, where he has become reduced to a low level somewhere twixt one of these: Onthefence, Mefinny2 and Nefustas, but definitely way below Bioluminesence, him being prepared to stay on topic and be fairly rational in his arguments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW: Oddly, Peter Martin has previously scolded us for using nom de blogs, but now insists on doing just that. Ho hum!
Good oh, it’s not just me that thought that then. Anyway, post on icecap for all my fellow Brits.
Apr 23, 2009
UK Budget “Carbon Con” must be stopped
By Piers Corbyn
UK Budget “Carbon Con” must be stopped – spend it on Council Housing instead says scientist.
“The 1billion UKpound ‘carbon budget’ announced by Alistair Darling 22 April is nonsense to create a bubble of false value based on false science and will fail” said Piers Corbyn, ‘Climate Realist’ and astrophysicist of WeatherAction.com long range weather and Climate forecasters.
“Just as UK and USA banks led the world in creating the bubble of false financial and property value; UK and USA Governments are intent on leading the creation of another bubble of false value – the ‘carbon bubble’. It will not aid economic recovery but do the opposite. Government borrowing to create a ladder to help us get out of the economic hole of the world economy – while other parties want to dig deeper – is fine but climbing a ladder is not helped by a carbon capture factory bolted onto your head.
“Carbon dioxide is the ‘Gas Of Life’ not a pollutant and recent increases in CO2 have caused trees and crops to grow faster while world temperatures have been falling for at least 7 years. If G20 Governments really believe that CO2 is a big problem they would welcome the world recession but instead they bailout the car industry!
“Contrary to the media image oil companies fully back climate hysteria because the ‘carbon capture’ they are involved in is very energy intensive and needs 80% extra energy to remove CO2 from coal and doubles the price of energy. This is Win-Win-Win for oil comanies. Carbon Capture and carbon trading are not policies for careful use of resources they are a Weapon of Mass Taxation and plunder of natural resources and the developing world whose advance will be held back by rising energy costs due to carbon capture, carbon trading and biofuels”.
Piers warned – as he had in a Presentation on Raven’s Ait Island Kingston on Thames on Sunday 19th; “The danger for genuine green campaigners who hope to use the CO2 bandwagon to further their honest agendas is that when the CO2-centred theory of Climate Change is exposed as nonsesne – then those who wish to plunder natural resources, poison the earth and destroy bio-diversity in rainforests in the process will claim a green light because ‘CO2 is not a problen after all’.
“There is no evidence for the CO2-centred theory of Global Warming & Climate Change – but there is decisive evidence against – and the UN has still failed to provide evidence for the theory to an international group of scientists (see** below). 2009 marks the 400th anniversary of Gallileo sighting mountains on the moon in 1609 and just as his discoveries were shunned by the established order at the time but later won through; this year which is the year of reckoning for banks and politicians, must also be the year to call false science to account”
Very good summary document
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
Max,
Its amazing how you can rattle off a whole list of points but it never seems to cross your mind to back up even a single one of them with any sort of scientific reference. If there are indeed the number of scientists which you say there are (how many were on that list of yours?) to oppose the consensus it shouldn’t be too difficult for you.
Most of your points are well worn. Not to say worn out.
But there is a new one in there. The missing tropical hotspot. Can you at least provide a scientific reference on this , if nothing else?
Barelysane: “…post on icecap for all my fellow Brits. Apr 23, 2009. UK Budget “Carbon Con” must be stopped…”
On the subject of coal-fired power stations and carbon capture, I watched Ed Miliband talking to Jon Snow on Channel 4 news last night, and he sounded rather less than convincing, to put it politely. At least twice he insisted that there was no other choice – I’d agree with him certainly that there is no other choice available than to build power stations (and this is long long overdue) but I would certainly not agree that our only option is to blow yet more of our fast-dwindling wealth on something as a) untried – on a large scale – and b) unnecessary in the first place, as carbon capture.
There is a ray of hope, I suppose, in that they’ll possibly go ahead and build the power stations anyway, so that when the carbon capture project fails to make headway, a more realistic future government will make the decision to fire them up and get them working without CCS.
Times Online has this article today. “Ed Miliband: Coal with carbon capture and storage may fail but we have to try”. Doesn’t exactly inspire one with confidence, does it.
Amazing, a scientific organisation that doesn’t endorse AGW.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm
Peter
As you clearly can’t be bothered to go through previous post for supporting references i’ll get you started. My 5880, the references section contains a link to troposphere temperatures
Hi Peter 5881
Earlier in the week I posted this link -which Barleysane has kindly repeated today. It is Lord Moncktons excellent testimony to the US Congress (yes the one that Al Gore won’t face if Mockton is there at the same time).
Monckton gave 50 red flags-ie references to unscientific matters mentioned in the IPCC report. I expect you are busy working through each one so you can rebut them here, so have as yet not reached 24-26 on Page 20 onwards which deals with the hot spot (or rather the lack of a hot spot)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
I am sure you will want to deal with these three red flags first in your reply to Max then work on to the remaining 47.
Ps You also seem to have missed my posting re Gistemp to which you seem to have a strange attachment, obviously in the mistaken belief that it is a meaningful data set.
Tonyb
Peter:
I laughed when I read your 5866 confirming your notion of how science is done. Had, for example, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Pasteur and Einstein accepted that “the scientific community puts their heads together” and “the specialists in the field … have the most say”, they would quite probably have achieved nothing. And your reference to Arctic ice and temperature records as physical evidence displays your lack of understanding: evidence of warming is not evidence of what caused that warming.
Anyway, I think it’s time to take Max’s wise advice at 5812, refer to my post 5839 and Max’s 5854 and 5864 and respond to your question at 5705, 5768, etc. about what would satisfy me regarding the validity of the hypothesis that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature.
Here’s my answer: published research demonstrating unambiguously that the hypothesis has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact. The evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication.
Hi Peter,
As expected, you have not yet provided the physical evidence to support your credo that AGW is a serious threat in your latest post # 5881, but, instead, have chosen again to stray from this topic, when you opined:
Peter, I am going to refrain from calling you a liar, and give you the benefit of the doubt. You either have a serious lapse of short-term memory, are conveniently sticking your head in the sand or are out-and-out lying. Except for the new point I brought up (the missing tropical hotspot) I have backed up every single one of the statements I have made with ample scientific references on this site, and you know this full well. Stop acting so silly!
I will provide the evidence for the one new point, where I have not yet done so, so that you now have scientific references for all the points I made.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract?SRETRY=0
This is the reference to the Douglass et al. study, which shows that model results and actual observed temperature trends are in disagreement concerning the tropical troposphere, where the greenhouse warming “fingerprint” should be apparent (but is not, in fact).
There was an attempt by Santer et al. to counter this study (by essentially saying that it is hard to make meaningful measurements, so the hot spot “might” be there, anyway, even if we cannot see it, but this has been shot down on ClimateAudit, so there is no point putting that all out there).
But Peter, it is up to YOU to provide physical evidence to support your credo, not up to me to disprove it. Remember?
I just made your job a bit more difficult by pointing out a large number of serious problems your credo faces in the real scientific world, as opposed to the virtual world of computer models.
The last paragraph in Robin’s 5885 provides a very good definition of what is meant by “physical evidence”. Please read it carefully, and re-read it, if necessary, to make absolutely sure that you fully understand it.
Don’t get all wrapped around the axle about the fact that Robin, himself, is not a physicist or a “climatologist”; he understands very well how the scientific method works, and has expressed it quite succinctly and concisely.
If you do not come with something specific very soon, I will take this as an admission that you are unable to back up your credo with any physical evidence, and that it is therefore unsubstantiated. It’s all up to you, Peter.
PUOSU.
Ball in your court, Peter.
Regards,
Max.
Max,
I’m not sure what you are getting at. For instance, say you heated a saucepan of water on a stove. You could measure the temperature before and afterwards.
Say the temperture increased from 20degC to 30 degC and you could of course measure that with a thermometer. But where would be the sort of ‘physical evidence’ that you are asking for?
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your query about “where would be the sort of ‘physical evidence’ that you are asking for”, i.e. the physical evidence to support your credo that AGW is a serious threat.
I think I have made it very clear what sort of physical evidence is required.
You have to figure out “where” this sort of “physical evidence” would be.
It must show that (a) AGW is the cause of the global warming our planet has eperienced to date, and (b) that AGW is a serious threat for the future.
The ball is in your court, Peter.
Don’t waffle.
Don’t evade the issue.
Bring the evidence.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Since it appears (5887) that you are confused on what constitutes “physical evidence”, I have copied Robin’s excellent summary (5885):
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Like Bob_FJ you don’t seem to have understood the what I was saying about the difference between ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’. I thought you were bit brighter than him.
I was saying that science is evidence based so you cant use words like ‘disprove’. Remember? Does that make sense?
Furthermore, I not sure that there are any rules about who has to show what. Who is going to make them? Obviously you guys like to say that we have to show that the evidence has to be strongly in favour of the need to mitigate CO2 emissions. But on the other hand we could say that if you are proposing to allow a substantial increase in CO2 levels the onus should be on you to show that it is safe.
Max,
You say “I think I have made it very clear what sort of ‘physical evidence’ is required.”
You may think you have, but I’m still somewhat at a loss to just what you are getting at. In fact I don’t think you know either. You can’t explain what you are asking for.
If you can’t say what the ‘physical evidence’ might be for the very simple eaxmple of heating a sample of water, it will be clear for all to see that you are a scientific illiterate and you just don’t know what you are talking about.
Hi Peter,
Bring the physical evidence and stop waffling (5890/5891).
You are losing this debate by default.
PUOSU, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just for the helluvit I will play your silly game, when you write:
In the case of the saucepan of water, we have a container with X grams of water at room temperature T1, which equals 20C. The water and room temperature have both been measured with the same thermometer and are identical.
There are no other sources of heat.
We turn on the gas and the water starts to warm slowly.
After 5 minutes, we again measure the temperature of the water, and find that it has warmed by 70C to a new T2, which equals 90C.
As there are no other sources of heat, we can conclude from the physical evidence that the heat from the gas burner has warmed the water.
We know unequivocally that the source of the heat was the gas burner (where we combusted methane as our energy source)
We know that the combustion gases from the gas burner have gone into the atmosphere of the room, thereby heating it slightly.
To make sure that we have not lost too much heat to the room, we again measure the room temperature, and see that it is still 20C (our thermometer can measure tenths of a degree C), so we can conclude that most of the heat energy from the gas burner went into heating the water (plus a small amount into heating the pan, itself) and a relatively insignificant amount into heating the atmosphere in the room.
Voila! We have the unambiguous physical evidence of how the water got hotter.
Now it is up to you to bring the unambiguous physical evidence that AGW has caused global warming and that it is a future threat.
Keep trying, Peter!
Regards,
Max
Max, Reur 5886 to Peter Martin, you wrote in part:
Well, I would like to speculate that since Pete became cerebrally infected by a number of extreme fruitcakes over at the Guardian, his silliness has accelerated and sunk to no bounds. However, although I had earlier suspicions of dementia in him, I now doubt if this is the case. For instance, he is able to construct some stunningly clever anagrams, way beyond the capabilities of any of us others here.
Thus, there may well be some level of intelligence in him, even if it may be focussed on a few bizarre OCD’s
I would like to submit that the silliness he gives us is carefully thought through by him to create maximum irritation, with him deliberately creating an untruth, in order to generate a response. This weird behaviour is also known as trolling, a la blogosphere.
BTW; I notice that in his alleged self portrait, he does not give us eye contact!!!!!!And, for distraction; a pussy-cat. It would be interesting to have that analysed by a clinical specialist in matters of disturbances of the brain.
Barelysane, Re Vidal’s £3 million energy screw-up on the Guardian:
CC Robin:
~36hours ago I made a logical post there, which in my view did not infringe any of the editorial guidelines, (It was on-topic, zero insults, etc), and was not related to a deleted post, and it was blocked and held for mediation, but is still yet to appear. I submitted a reduced version of it about six hours ago, and it too was blocked and held for moderation.
What I find really bizarre is that Onthefence is at least until now, able to post freely, although his last two were subsequently deleted by the moderator. I copied his latest before it was deleted, and it included:
Ah, I’ve discovered one of the forbidden words. I’ll try again, with different words…
…It is total, profound, impenetrable ignorance, such as that displayed by Barelysane and BobFJ on the CIF threads…
They are simply too ignorant to understand how ignorant they are.
If this is not resolved shortly by the mediators, to my satisfaction, I may well enquire elsewhere in “The Guardian” why my unemotional professional engineer’s comments herewith were not allowed, and also those many deleted on the Singh thread.
Does anyone here understand the structure of “The Guardian” and where the sanity or prejudice might be within?
Max: I have a comment on your 5889. You quoted my 5885 but inserted “[AGW]” before “hypothesis”. That was misleading: I accept, as I know you do, that man-made CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. Indeed, I might even accept that “the science is settled” on that point – insofar as science is ever settled. No, the hypothesis regarding which I am seeking published data about rigorous testing (etc.) is the hypothesis that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature.
Max: at 5886, you note that B. D. Santer has attempted to explain the missing hotspot – and so, as you probably know, has Steven Sherwood. Both have published lengthy papers. But, although they try to argue that the hotspot has not been found in the observed data, neither claims that it is certainly not present. As you have said, it not up to sceptics to disprove the hypothesis, it’s up to its proponents to demonstrate its validity: even on the most sympathetic analysis, Santer and Sherwood have failed to do this.
Hi Robin,
This may be an area where you and I are in slight disagreement.
I agree that it is quite logical that human greenhouse gases may, indeed, have caused a noticeable rise in global temperature, based on the greenhouse hypothesis. I would just like for Peter to bring the unambiguous physical evidence that this is, indeed, the case, and that this hypothesis has been validated.
In addition, I would like for him to bring the physical evidence that unambiguously validates his “credo” that AGW is a serious threat.
I believe you are saying you would be satisfied if he brought only physical evidence to support the second premise, i.e. his “credo” that AGW is a serious threat.
I could live with that change, without, of course, conceding that I agree that the AGW hypothesis has been validated by physical evidence.
But let’s see what Peter comes up with.
The ball is in his court to produce something or admit (by default, if necessary) that he cannot do so.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
On your 5897 (Santer and Sherwood), you are absolutely correct.
Santer has essentially stated that “our measurements are so lousy that there may be a hot spot up there, we just can’t see it”.
This is a variation of the Easter Bunny theme, or (in the extreme) the Radio Pinsk approach of demonstrating that Paleolithic ancestors of the region had invented wireless communication since no copper wires were found in their caves.
But it is up to Peter now, not to refute my statement on the missing “hot spot”, but to provide physical evidence that AGW is a real threat.
Regards,
Max
PS I will be away from my computer for a couple of days, but will tune back in shortly to see what Peter has brought us.
Hi Bob_FJ
You asked:
I think it is easy to understand the structure, Bob, when you just read the Singh lead article referring to “climate numpties”.
“The Guardian” makes no attempt to create a neutral, fact-based structure, despite its lofty list of site rules of behavior. Sanity is not part of the equation, but prejudice is strong.
The lead author himself does not even abide by these lofty rules!
It’s just a step above the RealClimate approach of deleting anything that might hit too close to refuting or contradicting the mantra.
When you get on these sites (which I am more inclined to avoid, as life is too short to put up with too much BS) you have to be aware that they are rigged to make the AGW story sound logical, that they tolerate often foul-mouthed and juvenile pro-AGW trolls who are unable to contribute anything but ad homs and that they systematically delete anything that they do not like to hear.
Once you understand the ground rules as they are, you can either decide to jump into the fracas from time to time for a bit of fun or ignore these sites entirely.
Non illegitemi carborundum (as the great Australian Latin scholar once opined),
Max