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.
I like this sentence best.
“We don’t know what the weather/”climate” will be like next month, but we’re certain what the weather will be 60 years from now and intend to rearrange the entire economy based on our weather prophecies”.
Great article isn’t it, how to make a story out of absolutely nothing. Not as though we’re particularly short of real news items in the UK atm.
What is it with the Guardian site? I posted the following at 10.36 this morning only to have it subsequently removed.
Firstly I posted this which confirmed that the Guardian in 2000 agreed with WUWT in that there was open water at the pole.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2000/aug/23/g2.weather
I also commented that Mefinny2 absolute faith that the science is settled and models are highly accurate wasn’t borne out by this.
“This was posted by the met office demonstrating the uncertainty in the science
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/vacancies/001758.html
A significant uncertainty in future projections of sea level is associated with dynamical changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and a key aspect of this uncertainty is the role of ice shelves, how they might respond to climate change, and the effect this could have on the ice sheets. The goal of the post is to contribute to improved scenarios of sea-level rise, which is an important aspect of climate change, with large coastal impacts.
Specific job purpose
Incorporate a model of ice shelves into the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model to develop a capability to make projections of rapid changes in ice sheets, thereby leading to improved scenarios of future sea-level rise.
Models are not the foolproof tool often believed. Correspondents who believe they are will find themselves disagreeing with the IPCC themselves, for Kevin Trenberth, one of their lead authors wrote,
“…the startling climate state in several models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.”
“Water vapour and cloud play a crucial part if the climate is to be accurately modelled, but as the IPCC themselves admit numerous times, it can’t be achieved.”
“…cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty…”
“In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
My comments werre removed and I can’t post anything at the moment. Are Guardian posters who don’t like certain information able to have it removed?
Tonyb
Ah, excellent, two pedantic deniers.
You realise of course, that this works two ways ?
As for Excel – GIGO. I think that is one of the common denialist refrains isn’t it ?
Keep trying, you still have no evidence. No science.
James P says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Excel rubbish entirely unconvincing rubbish to scienists. Like me.
A scienist, eh? Who knew? :-)
6266
barelysane says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
social scienist ? :)
Seriously, what’s wrong with excel? It’s a perfectly valid mean of presenting data. What particular package do you prefer for presenting data then?
No we can’t, and for evidence quite frankly the garbage posted by some of your compatriots is false and deliberately misleading. And that’s the most polite way I can put it.
tonyb says:
My comments werre removed and I can’t post anything at the moment. Are Guardian posters who don’t like certain information able to have it removed?
Tonyb
100% accurate, though I doubt Wax means the same shower I do. ;-)
Lets remind ourselves about the peer reviewed literature searches that Oreskes conducted…what did they show ?
manacker says:
They are not the scientists, meteorologists and engineers or the serious debaters of the open issues, but the guys on the sidelines of the blog scene, throwing their senseless drivel into the debate without really contributing anything yet thinking all the time that this is cute and cool.
Max
Nefastus,
A tip………Cut and paste comments that you’d like to quote into your comment box, highlight them, and click on the B-Quote (Blockquote) button above the comment box and they’ll end up looking like my quote of your 6280 above.
It won’t make your comments insightful (a lost cause in and of itself), but will help the rest of us wade through your ramblings……..
Hey nefester,
What are you trying to say with your incoherent messages #6278, 6279, 6280?
Is there supposed to be some sort of hidden meaning there?
Interesting in the NASA blurb about the K-T extinction is this notice:
Duh!
nefester
Oreskes got refuted fairly conclusively. Forget it.
Really ?
Any evidence, or just another assertion ?
Prieser ?
nefester
Oreskes got refuted fairly conclusively. Forget it.
30 minutes and counting….
In the meantime….
http://www.simonhinkler.com/flight/fc1.html
No, as usual, no evidence.
Try again.
Hi Brute,
Reur 6290
The correlation between CO2 and temperature is as clear as mud.
We are doomed!
I’m sure nefastus agrees (I’m not too sure about Peter, though).
Max
Hey Brute,
nefastus has told you that the current actually physically observed temperature (even those overheated thermometers next to AC exhausts) is “no evidence”, and that the Mauna Loa readings of “global” CO2 are also “no evidence” (as long as the two do not show a correlation, as they did during the previous late 20th century warming period).
This is also true for the 30+ year period 1944-1976, when CO2 went up during the post-war economic boom, but temperature did not. More “no evidence” for nefastus.
Then there is the pesky early 20th century warming period, that actually showed more warming than that of the late 20th century, but there was hardly any increase in CO2. More “no evidence” for nefastus.
Your long-term curve shows another warming period in the late 19t century, when there was essentially no increase in CO2.
This is more “no evidence” for nefastus, since it also does not substantiate his firm belief in AGW as the principal driver of our climate.
From all this we now know what nefastus means by “no evidence”
He means <strong>”no evidence that CO2 is driving our planet’s climate”.
And he is absolutely right.
Regards,
Max
The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within the same interval the Earth’s average temperature as indicated by the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C. Even the finer structures in the two curves have similar appearances.
(Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar
cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate,
Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).
Greenland ice core 1550-1974
Dansgaard et al. (1975) compared temperature variations derived from the 18-O concentration in snow fallen in Central Greenland with temperatures in Iceland through the interval 900-1970. They concluded that most of the pronounced medium frequency (60ï 200 yr periods) oscillations back to 900 are essentially in phase, so that the 18-O curve is representative of climatic changes far beyond the Greenland area. In accordance with their conclusion we show in Fig.11 that the temperature data derived from the ice-core in Central Greenland like the variation of sea-ice extent at Iceland have varied in concert with the medium length solar activity during most of a 500 year period.
Hey Max,
Nobody cares what Nefastus thinks………
Max
Did you see the article I posted about fraud in physics? It might be worth posting this on the Guardian site and see if it is deleted. My factual ones were deleted and then my comments taken out of context. What closed minds some of them have got. Not Nefastus of course, for as you say in his very lucid posts he seems to be agreeing that there is no evidence that co2 is driving our climate.
Brute
Interesting graphs especially 6290. It will be intriguing to see how these develop
Peter
I think you will have been embarrased by the antics of your fellow warmist here. If you care to take a trip over to the Guardian blog you will see that there are a lot of closed minds, bile and a generally unpleasant tone. To your credit you do engage in intelligent discourse with those you disagree with, (glove puppet moments excepted of course) but I am afraid the green mind seems to be increasingly closed and defensive. Hope to see you back here soon
Tonyb
Nefastus reur 6278
Junk In Junk Out is common to any field, a little irrelevant in this context.
You didn’t answer the question, if excel is an invalid means of presenting data, what method do you prefer/use?