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.
Brute, Bob_FJ
The ones you call “deerflies” are what the Swiss call “Bräme” (in Swiss German).
I came across these guys in Wisconsin and they almost ate me and Mrs. Max up.
They are smaller and slimmer than the big horseflies, and very aggressive.
I’m sure that somewhere in the (yawn!) thousands of pages of IPCC AR4 reports, you will find a reference that predicts that these beasts will multiply (due to AGW, of course).
But you are right about Gore/Hansen predictions, Brute. So far the hit rate is pretty close to 0%.
Bob_FJ, the little Australian flies were in the Northern Territory (from Ayer’s rock to Alice Springs). Local folks endured them stoically, but advised visitors to buy fly nets to keep them out of their eyes.
Maybe these are also supposed to multiply exponentially with the predicted large-scale drought (caused by AGW, of course).
Max
Hi Brute,
Back to your question (6044):
I did some checking. The answer to this is “NO”.
Peter has been unable to cite any prediction that really occurred (nor has anyone else).
But the “fatal flaw” in the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat comes from the Climate Models, themselves.
These are the prognosticators of dangerous global warming resulting from human CO2 emissions upon which the whole premise of a real and serious threat from AGW is based.
Yet there was not one single Climate Model that predicted the slight cooling trend we have seen since 1998, or the even sharper cooling we have seen since 2001.
If there is no such a Model then why should we believe their predictions for the next 100+ years?
IOW, if they cannot get the next 8 or 11 years right, why should we have any faith whatsoever that they will get the next 100 years right?
This is truly the “fatal flaw” in the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat.
And it is precisely this “fatal flaw”, which Peter has been unable to refute.
Regards,
Max
Bob and Peter
A BBC news programme has reported that Australia’s plans for a cap and trade scheme is being put on hold for 12 months because of the economic situation, but so far there is nothing on their website. Is this true?
Max
I have repeated a part of my 6032 in response to yours of 6052
“The met office use the same computer models to forecast (often wrongly) the weather for a day or week ahead as they do for a century ahead”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/
We have come to believe that the notion of climate predictions for a century ahead is somehow more scientific than the ones they make covering a few days or three months.
I think that is because the IPCC, Al Gore and James Hansen talk about ‘trends’ and ‘statistics’ and ‘scenarios’ rather than forecasts. In reality the Met/office Hadley efforts are nothing more or less than a prediction or forecast as the Met office link above clearly shows.
Also bear in mind that all the components that go to make up world wide climate over 100 years is infintely more complex than the factors making up our weather for a few days ahead.
The Met office are said to be the most advanced in the world (so they should be with the amount of taxpayers mnoney they consume) but many of their forecasts for even a day ahead are dismal.
I have come to the conclusion that we give their 100-500 year climate forecats far more credibility than they deserve, when really we should be making more of the fact that a very long term forecast is likely to be even more completely wrong than a one day (or three month) forecast.
They are not somehow different and more scientific than long term climate forecasts as the IPCC like to make out.
Tonyb
TonyN 6053
Common sense is breaking out-although the longer term targets are still difficult
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/03/australia-delays-carbon-trading/
tonyb
tonyb
Thanks! The BBC seem to have dropped it altogether now. I wonder what billing it would get if Australia had brought its plans forward?
This (“A Global Warming Hoax” – sorry, Peter, naughty word there) is worth reading. It’s from an Indian blog and is about a campaign to save the islands of the world heritage zone of the Sunderbans. The author shows that, contrary to claims, the loss of an inhabited island to rising sea levels was almost certainly not caused by global warming. I particularly liked his comment that “journalists across the world forget the basic rules of reporting and use quotes from a single source (without cross-checking with other experts in the field) to support the ‘peg’ of their story”. Too true.
A reminder: for some time, Peter has been challenging me to tell him how I think the dangerous AGW hypothesis should been verified. I set the scene for my response by reviewing the essential features of the scientific method (#5839). I did this because it seems to me that the hypothesis, used by Western politicians to justify huge intervention in our economic structures, has not been subjected to the disciplines that have been the basis of scientific and technological progress for 300 years.
Then I advised him that, to persuade me I was wrong and that the principles of the scientific method had been observed, he should
“produce published research demonstrating unambiguously that the hypothesis (that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature) had been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and had survived such testing intact. The evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication.”
After various diversions, Peter came up with his answer (#5958) – the IPCC’s AR4 “Synthesis Report”.
I replied (#5959) explaining, by a brief summary of how the smoking/lung cancer link was established, what I meant by “unambiguous” – the standard I expected the dangerous AGW “validation” to meet. I promised to get back with a full response after a few days. This is it.
Peter:
1. Max has already shown (#5961) how the IPCC in AR4 admits to areas of uncertainty – notably solar forcing and cloud feedbacks where its assumptions have, as Max put it, “not been validated in real life” but by computer models. He’s also pointed out how AR4 is based exclusively on the period 1976 to 2000, thus ignoring the factors applicable to previous temperature changes (something you and I have discussed in detail before). So immediately I find that the report’s results are not unambiguous (just compare the certainty of the evidence for the smoking/cancer link), not empirical and not capable of independent replication. Moreover, they fail to show conclusively that there will be a dangerous increase in global temperature if we continue to add GHGs to the atmosphere. And that’s the link I’m looking for – so AR4 fails to meet my request (see above) from the outset.
2. I’ll persevere nonetheless and refer to Topic 3. This is concerned with “projections of future climate change” and is, therefore, specifically relevant to my request. But immediately there’s a problem. The IPCC has been clear that “projections” are not “predictions” – so it doesn’t even try to show that this (adding GHGs) will lead to that (a dangerous increase in temperature). So, again, it’s utterly failed to meet my request. (And see Max on prediction at #6052.)
3. I’ll persevere nonetheless. Item 3.2 (Topic 3) refers to projections “for a range of SRES emissions scenarios”. But these (from IPCC “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”) were defined in 2000 and were much criticised by economists then. Yet here we are nine years later and the global economy is wholly changed. So the whole “projection” edifice is built on a meaningless base. Again it’s utterly failed to meet my request.
4. I’ll persevere nonetheless. Its first “projection” is that, for the first two decades of the 21st Century temperatures will increase by “about 0.2 deg C per decade”. Not impossible, I suppose, but so far it looks exceptionally unlikely. “Unambiguous”? – no. Another failure.
5. I’ll persevere nonetheless. Now I’ll refer you to the report of Working Group 1 – here. This is one of the reports of which your referenced document is a “synthesis”. Look at Table SPM2 (page 8). It lists seven “Phenomena” – including, for example, “Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas” and “Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas”. Of these, for five the “Likelihood of a human contribution” is assessed as “more likely than not” and, for the other two, as “likely”. Not one is assessed as even “very likely”. Further, the assessment (according to the column’s heading) is of “a human contribution”. That’s all – not “due to” or some other reference to causation. After all, a “human contribution” could be as little as 1%. Moreover, for four of the seven phenomena, a footnote (f) says “Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies”. This last appears to amount to little more than guesswork and doesn’t remotely meet my request that the “evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication”.
I could go on. But it’s getting tedious. Quite obviously AR4 doesn’t begin to meet my request for an unambiguous demonstration from empirical evidence that our continuing to emit GHGs will cause dangerous warming. If that’s the best you can do, Peter, I suggest that you accept that, in reality, you too are a sceptic.
TonyN: your system keeps failing to post rather a long note from me. So I’ll try splitting it into two parts. Here’s the first.
A reminder: for some time, Peter has been challenging me to tell him how I think the dangerous AGW hypothesis should been verified. I set the scene for my response by reviewing the essential features of the scientific method (#5839). I did this because it seems to me that the hypothesis, used by Western politicians to justify huge intervention in our economic structures, has not been subjected to the disciplines that have been the basis of scientific and technological progress for 300 years.
Then I advised him that, to persuade me I was wrong and that the principles of the scientific method had been observed, he should
After various diversions, Peter came up with his answer (#5958) – the IPCC’s AR4 “Synthesis Report”.
I replied (#5959) explaining, by a brief summary of how the smoking/lung cancer link was established, what I meant by “unambiguous” – the standard I expected the dangerous AGW “validation” to meet. I promised to get back with a full response after a few days. That will be my next post.
TonyN:
Will you please investigate why your system will not post a rather long comment of mine. I tried splitting it into two parts – but still it doesn’t work.
Thanks.
Robin your 6057
These islands constitute one of the usual scare stories from the warmists. When they try to make a case (such as the islands here and at the Maldives) they take the IPCC modelled projections (as our Govt does) rather than the actual observed figures.
This first link shows trends in Bombay to 1994 where -if it continued- would result in sea level rises of 4 inches in the next 100 years
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=500-041
This is current mean 50 year i.e up to date, showing an actual drop at Bombay
since around 2005
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.shtml?stnid=500-041&name=Mumbai/Bombay&state=India
This is Madras to 2003 showing a projected rise of 1 inch per century, this is now dropping as well.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=025-001
This is Newlyn Cornwall to 2003 showing a projected rise in 100 years of 6 inches.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=500-091
The sea level around the UK has been falling since 2005, so new projection is zero to minus 6 inches. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.shtml?stnid=170-161&name=Newlyn&state=UK
There are large errors of uncertainty as this is not a precise science. (I meant sea levels, but I think we can take that as a metaphor for climate change in general!)
Sea levels are not accelerating as claimed by the IPCC, Hansen and Gore. Many locations are rising only very modestly, many are static, many are falling. Other than in a few places where other factors come into play, nothing very much is happening with any of the worlds oceans. But that doesn’t make a very good story does it?
tonyb
Robin 6057
Your post illustrates the usual scare stories from the warmists, who when they try to make a case (such as here and at the Maldives) take the IPCC projections (as our Govt does) rather than the actual observed figures.
This first link shows trends in Bombay to 1994 where if it continued would result in sea level rises of 4 inches in 100 years
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=500-041
this is current mean 50 year i.e up to date showing an actual drop at Bombay
since around 2005
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.shtml?stnid=500-041&name=Mumbai/Bombay&state=India
This is Madras to 2003 showing a rise of 1 inch per century this is now dropping as well.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=025-001
This is Newlyn Cornwall to 2003 showing a projected rise in 100 years of 6 inches.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=500-091
The sea level around the UK has been falling since 2005, so new projection is zero to minus 6 inches (large errors of uncertainty) This is not a precise science.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.shtml?stnid=170-161&name=Newlyn&state=UK
Sea levels are not accelerating. Many are rising only very modestly, many are static, many are falling. Other than in a few locations where other factors come into play, nothing very much is happening with any of the worlds oceans despite what the IPCC, Gore and Hansen might say.
tonyb
Robin
As an experiment I tried to post a middling long reply to you (but with a series of hyper links) Despite two attempts it didn’t get through. Perhaps there is snow on the line and both posts will appear later.
Tonyb
After some weeks of behaving admirably, the spam filter has started playing up again. If one of your comments fails to appear, please do NOT try to re-post it; there is no better way of convincing the filter that you are a spammer and it will just go on gobbling your comments. If you put a comment on the Admin thread saying what has happened, I will probably see it quite quickly and it is then fairly simple to retrieve the missing comment. If you put a comment about it on this thread, it will probably take longer. That said, I’ll be away from early until late tomorrow.
Spam is now averaging in the region of 100 items a day and therefor I have stopped checking through them all on a daily basis. It just takes too long. All comments that are flagged as spam, and therefore do not appear, are retained in the filter for 15 days and are retrievable during that period, so no pearls of wisdom will be lost.
Thanks, TonyN – eventually my post got through (at 6058 – 6059 can be ignored). And TonyB – thanks also. It seems you had the same problem: 6061 and 6062.
Bob re your 6036, apologies for the delay, have been away from the computer this last few days, doing Bank Holiday stuff..
1) “The hottest summer for 500 years, based on what?” That’s a good question, as 500 years back from 2003 takes us to 1503 (and the Central England Temperature series doesn’t go back quite that far, starting in 1659.) I think they’ve just plucked that figure out of the ether. Also the strength of the heat wave of 2003 appears to have varied from country to country across Europe. Here’s an interesting report from the Netherlands, stating that the 2003 heat wave was neither the longest nor the hottest on record, in that country. Back to the UK, over 37 degrees Celsius was recorded at Heathrow on 10th August 2003 – however, Heathrow definitely counts as an UHI, when you consider the vast area of tarmac and concrete around the airport, plus the densely built-up area surrounding it (interesting and rather amusing Times article about this here.) So, plenty of question marks.
2) Absolutely agree with you about heat-related deaths among the elderly (the Dutch article I linked to above has something about that.) Leaving elderly folks with mobility problems by themselves in flats during heat waves is like leaving dogs in cars on hot days with the windows closed – bad idea. And you’re right, many more people die from the cold, not necessarily from exposure but from respiratory diseases, etc.
3) And yes, we in the UK tend to forget that over-35-degree summer heat is normal and survivable over vast swathes of the Earth’s surface, or so it is said!
Re Heathrow again, as a frequent visitor to WUWT and the “How not to measure temperature…” series, I’m now wondering exactly where they put the Stevenson screen. Next to a runway?
Alex, Reur 6066 (and 6033)
Reur items 1, 2, & 3:
Thanks for the two interesting links and your comments. I think it confirms my opinion that the UK Met Office and the BBC, are rather prone to issuing forth with great piles of excreta, with the worst aroma of that of dog with loose motions.
And: Reur:
Do they have a big baffle-wall at Heathrow, where they can run-up their engines for test purposes. That would be a good location for measuring global T. (Not too ludicrous when you see the farcical revelations at WUWT)
(The following short essay was prompted by Peter’s inability to produce evidence supporting the hypothesis that mankind’s continued emission of GHGs will cause dangerous global warming.)
The economic, intellectual and cultural success of Western society is based, to a substantial extent, on the development and application of science and technology over the past 300 years. And that, in turn, has depended on the rigorous application of the principles of the scientific method as developed during the Enlightenment. Those principles (a problem is identified / a refutable hypothesis explaining it constructed / the hypothesis is tested against empirical evidence / if the evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is validated) are beautifully characterised by these quotations from Thomas Huxley (whose debate with Bishop Wilberforce established the pre-eminence of Darwin’s theory of evolution):
In my view, therefore, we should be very concerned that, regarding the hypothesis that the continuation of mankind’s emissions of “greenhouse” gases will cause dangerous global warming, we seem to be abandoning these principles. Instead of clear references to empirical evidence as the validation of the hypothesis and the admission of any uncertainty, there are assertions of “consensus”, reliance on authority, statements that “the science is settled” and the demonisation of critics. Yet it was precisely science’s escape from the tyranny of the consensus of authoritative opinion that underpinned the Enlightenment and hence our society’s success.
Over recent years, global temperatures have stabilised (most recently they have fallen slightly) despite the continued rise of greenhouse gas emissions. Were that to continue for, say, another five or ten years the hypothesis could be fatally damaged and the scientific establishment lose the moral authority on which our society depends. It is, in my view, a dereliction of duty for scientists to have allowed such a possibility to have come about.
Hi Robin, some excellent quotes from Huxley, and your final two paragraphs sum up the current predicament loud and clear.
In that context, does anyone else find Mike Lockwood’s recent position on the solar minimum absolutely astonishing? (Found via WUWT, where this has provoked quite a bit of comment already, original article in National Geographic here.)
“He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.”
If I understand this correctly, Lockwood et al have a hypothesis, or hypotheses, i.e. that increased greenhouse gases will cause dangerous global warming, and that diminished solar output will not have a significant effect on said warming.
However, instead of waiting for the outcome of the experiment and finding out whether the evidence supports these hypotheses, they engage in this “preemptive denial”, from which I understand that they already feel they know what the outcome is going to be.
I’m no scientist, but this appears to be turning the scientific method precisely on its head.
Excellent summary, Robin.
Max
Robin, Reur 6068:
In a word: exquisite!
TonyN/TonyB, Reur 6053/6055/6056
As more background, the proposed Oz deferral of climate stuff comes ~a week before “The federal Budget”, next Tuesday. There is a lot of rumour and speculation, but one of the most staggering is that there will be a 70 Billion$ red problem this year and significantly so for maybe 6 or 7 years. For a country of population only ~24 million, accustomed to surplus, this is not nice. It is a consequence of the so-called “economic stimulus package” (avoid cynical comment)and reduced revenue.
Anyone upset by deferral of climate stuff, may begin to see the relative importance of things.
Alex: thanks for the link to the National Geographic report on the quiet sun. The scientists’ comments (especially Professor Lockwood’s) are both hilarious and a perfect illustration of my #6068. Why are people described as “scientists” using absurd phrases like “preemptive denial”? (Anyway, I thought “denial” applied only to naughty sceptics.) And then there’s this ridiculous statement from Lockwood: “I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down. I think that helps keep it in perspective.” Does it? Since when did comparing percentages of utterly different things mean anything: would he prefer 60% of 1P or 0.2% of £1m? And when was CO2 “normal”? Then we hear that, according to Jose Abreu of the Swiss Eawag research institute, “We don’t know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn’t play with things I don’t know.” But there I was foolishly thinking that the science was “settled”!
Lockwood and co. are putting themselves into an awkward situation. By admitting to some (minimal) solar influence but insisting that CO2 emissions are the driving force (even though the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity is not, it seems, known) they put their whole position at risk. If the sun continues to be quiet and global temperatures continue not to rise in the medium term despite increasing atmospheric GHGs, their dangerous AGW hypothesis will look dubious at best – as will the case for massive distortion of our economies (carbon trading, “green” taxes, windmills, solar power, etc.). Moreover, the reputation of the politicians, media, “green” industries, pressure groups and other vested interests that have made so much of the issue will be undermined. However, as I argued at #6068, it’s the potential collapse of science’s reputation that concerns me most.
Hi All
Rather interesting interview.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/
Just a quick word to let you know I haven’t disappeared. I’m just a bit too busy with other things at present to keep you all in line.
I couldn’t help but be touched by Robin’s kind comment ” it’s the potential collapse of science’s reputation that concerns me most.”
There’s no real need to worry yourself about that Robin. But if you are so concerned and you’ve nothing else to do but lie awake at night, you could make a start with a simple Physics text book. Is there such a title as “Physics made Simple” or “Climate Physics for Dummies”? Don’t be offended. I’ve got one about “Access (the database program) for Dummies”. It wasn’t too bad.
If there were, I’m sure that it would tell you that scientists are well aware that the solar cycle modulates the underlying global warming due to increased CO2 emissions.
If you would care to take a look at the NASA website it will tell you the same thing.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
(just past halfway)
The NASA scientists have even calculated that the current drop in the solar intensity has an equal forcing to 7 years of CO2 growth at current rates. Aren’t they clever?
Just think. After a few years study you could be making exactly the same type of calculation yourself. You might turn out to be so good at it that you will be able to correct any mistakes that might have been made and rescue the reputation of science forever. Who knows? You’d be such a hero!