Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Hi Peter,

    In your last post you wrote:

    Lets be charitable, maybe you do know something that the rest of the scientifc world doesn’t, maybe you do know what you are talking about and you aren’t just an ignorant buffoon.

    This kind of talk will get you nowhere, Peter.

    Rather than implying that I am “just an ignorant buffoon”, you would do better to answer questions directly that are asked of you in order to regain your credibility.

    Some friendly advice: Drop the “ad homs”, Peter, they only make you look silly to anyone who reads this thread.

    Regards,

    Max

  2. Max,

    We can all call on independent studies. And incidentally, it is worth pointing out that the solar studies, which you have mentioned, are very valuable in their own right. As you yourself have quoted, they show that you need to multiply the climate forcing , as measured in W/m^2 by approximately 0.8 to obtain long term temperature rise in degC. That applies to all climate forcings. Equally.

    So, for the 2 x CO2 calculation:
    3.7 x 0.8 = 2.96 degC. Not 0.9 deg C as you have erroneously claimed.

    That is all described in your independent studies. But what do you know? You yourself? Max Anacker? What contribution can you bring to the debate? Not to put too fine a point on it Sweet F.A! You can’t even give a rational explanation of results that supposedly you have presented to support your own case. You don’t have the wit to see that they do nothing of the sort, and that they do quite exquisitely contradict it.

    What is the point of arguing with you? You clearly don’t have any understanding of the science but you still say it is incorrect. Its like someone who has to count on their fingers and toes claiming that Maxwell’s four partial differential equations which form the basis of electromagnetic theory are all wrong! You’ve just got to be some sort of nutter to think like that.

    Yes I’ve known it for a while of course but you are just an ignorant buffoon. A clown. You really don’t know what you are talking about at all.

  3. Hi Peter,

    By calling me an “ignorant buffoon and clown”, rather than answering simple questions I have posed, shows that you are not thinking rationally, but rather emotionally.

    This makes your arguments sound very weak, Peter, as I am sure you must know.

    Berating me as follows is silly, Peter:

    But what do you know? You yourself? Max Anacker? What contribution can you bring to the debate? Not to put too fine a point on it Sweet F.A! You can’t even give a rational explanation of results that supposedly you have presented to support your own case. You don’t have the wit to see that they do nothing of the sort, and that they do quite exquisitely contradict it.

    This raises the embarrassing question: “What contribution can you [Peter] bring to the debate?”

    You are in the hole on this debate, Peter, and now you start the “ad hom” approach to try to dig yourself out of the hole.

    But this gambit never works, Peter. It only gets you deeper in the hole and makes you look stupid (even if you aren’t really).

    To salvage your credibility here, Peter, I suggest that you answer my questions on your sidetrack topic (6750) first, and then answer the basic questions surrounding the dilemma between the model-assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C and the actual physical observations, which support the theoretical 2xCO2 greenhouse sensitivity of around 1°C, which I asked you repeatedly with no response except denial, waffling, weasling and side-tracking to another topic.

    If you do not answer now, I will assume that you cannot resolve the obvious discrepancy and that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, as assumed by the IPCC climate models, is, in fact, a gross exaggeration of the physically observed facts and can be ignored.

    It’s up to you to stop the silly rhetoric and “ad homs” and get with it, Peter, if you want to be taken seriously at all.

    Regards,

    Max

  4. Max, I see that in his 6752, Peter Martin has had climax with:

    Yes I’ve known it for a while of course but you [Max] are just an ignorant buffoon. A clown. You really don’t know what you are talking about at all.

    My word! Pete seems to be morphing into the spawn or clone of Nefastus, MeFinny2, Onthefence, Deconvoluter, Joe Romm, and the like on some alarmist blogs. Previously, I had judged Pete to be a tad more rational (intelligent?) than Bioluminescence, but it would now become insulting to Bioluminescence for me to continue with that view, and I retract it so.

    Poor Pete; now totally devoid of any credibility!

  5. ALL; Further to my 6754, to Max, I was inspired to sniff-around on my two most favourite “fruitcake profiles“ over at the Guardian, and found that:

    1) Onthefence last made comment there on 11 June on a Gavin Schmidt article:
    Climate change groundhog day. However, it was quickly closed at 190 comments. (dammit)

    2) Deconvoluter last commented on 16 June on an article by Björn Lomborg … raised on Monday 15 June:
    Scared silly over climate change; We are frightening children with exaggerations – they believe they don’t have a future and that the world is going to end
    As of a moment ago there were some fast moving 542 comments, and here is page #11.

    Of course the usual fruitcakes such as Mefinney2 are there, but there are nevertheless many very interesting rational comments that are well worth a read!

  6. Hi Bob_FJ

    Reur 6754. Yeah. Peter did get a bit carried away with his rhetoric.

    But I don’t hold it against him.

    Anyone can have a bad day now and then.

    Regards,

    Max

  7. Max

    You are being very charitable in saying intemperaterrain (formerly known as Peter) had a bad day. I had always considered him a cut above some of the other irrationalists we are faced with, so I hope he can muster a mumbled apology and return to the debate in a better humour.

    Incidentally, I am told that on “18 June 2009 the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) will publish their latest scenarios, setting out how the UK’s climate is expected to change over the next hundred years.

    The report (UKCP09) is the fifth generation of UK climate change scenarios and will employ recent advances in climate science to better quantify some of the uncertainties associated with climate modelling.”

    http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=251&Itemid=345

    Watch this sace for the latest in long term forecasting.

    Incidentally, it is apparent that the IPCC have ignored the huge volume of evidence on climate change in the Arctic in the periods 1815 to 1860 and from 1920 to 1940. As I mentioned on the previous page the latest Polyakov studies came too late for the fourth assessment which -like the previous three-relied on models rather than on observations made by competent people at the time.

    This omission has so many similarities to the 19th Century Co2 readings-as per Beck-that
    it seems difficult to believe that it was accidental and was merely because no one made the IPCC aware of the information.

    Tonyb

  8. TonyB

    When the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) publish their latest scenarios on 18 June, please give us the link to their report.

    I hope this will not simply be a business development report to promote the many marketing programs of companies and organizations who hope to earn some money from mitigation schemes, products and services.

    And I also hope this group does not try to sell the myth that, while the forecasts for next week, next month or next year may be completely off the mark, the long-range forecast for the next twenty or hundred years will be more accurate, since the impact of “natural climate noise” will be reduced and the underlying AGW trend will be more apparent.

    Keep us all up-to-date, please.

    Thanks and regards.

    Max

  9. Hi Max

    Jeff Id over at Air Vent asked me to write something on Arctic ice variation.

    I wrote about the melting of the Arctic from 1817 and put it into perspective of other reports of this occurence that happened during the next 40 years.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/#comments

    It is intended to have an additional article on the Melting of the Arctic in 1920-1940 and also one on civilisations who inhabited the region in times past, including the Independence people of 3000 years ago, the Ipiatuk from 2000 years ago and the Vikings from 1000 years ago. Hope you will find the time to have a read.

    Will keeop you up to date on the UK Climate report.

    TonyB

  10. TonyB

    Thanks for very interesting article on changes in Arctic sea ice over historic times. I have taken the time not only to read your summary, but also to check all the references you have cited.

    It is, indeed, a fascinating story of the coming and going of Arctic sea ice and of courageous human beings who have charted and recorded all this information.

    The early 19th century work of William Scoresby is very interesting, as is the story of the unsuccessful mid-19th century Franklin rescue attempt and the late 19th century papers by Robert Brown.

    You write:

    “It is as well to try to relate the observations compiled over nearly 200 years – clearly showing great variability in ice extent and temperatures on a monthly, yearly, and decadal basis- to the IPCC’s scientific understanding of Arctic melt prior to, and since, the start of satellite records in 1979.”

    The IPCC chapter on Arctic sea ice, etc. is very weak on any data prior to 1979.

    I think there are two basic problems with the IPCC writers:
    1. They are basically only interested in data that support the premise of (and sales pitch for) potentially dangerous late twentieth century anthropogenic global warming, and
    2. Historic evidence is written off as non-scientific “anecdotal” background information, often in favor of paleo-climate reconstructions, which actually tell us far less than the historical data, but sound more “scientific” (viz. Mann hockey stick versus thousands of historical records and chronicles on Medieval Warm Period).

    Looking forward to more info from you on this.

    Regards,

    Max

  11. HI Max

    Thanks for your comments on Arctic ice.

    Here is a link to the UK climate reports-out today, already we have had Mark Lynas on the BBC pontificating about them although Roger Harabin was much more circumspect than usual.

    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk:80/

    Tonyb

  12. Nice to know that even Harrabin has his limits. Overstatement by the warmists will be their undoing, I think…

  13. ALL: You me be interested, that come a week or so ago, an Oz senator, Steve Fielding, from a minor party returned from a reportedly self funded trip to a sceptic’s conference on AGW in the USA, and apparently has had meetings with various US and Oz policy makers behind the scenes, discussing some “inconvenient issues”.
    Here is a recent post and busy blog of considerable relevance:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/fielding-the-hard-questions-on-climate-change-part-3/

    Here is another interesting one that mentions some impressive sceptical scientific heavy artillery that Fielding took along with him to the governmental discussions:
    With Senator Fielding were David Evans, a former carbon modeller for the former Australian Greenhouse Office; Stewart Franks, an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Newcastle; Robert Carter, an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University; and William Kininmonth, a long-serving member of the Bureau of Meteorology.
    (note; see also page 2 in that link)

  14. ALL, further my 6763: Oh BTW, I forgot to headline that senator Fielding may very well hold the balance of power on this issue in the Upper House. My gut-feel is that the bill will be a la rigor mortis, for a variety of reasons arising from the various political party agendas. Consequently, all seems likely to be put on hold until after Copenhagen…. So let’s wait and see what the others will do over there!

    Watch this space!

  15. Bob_FJ

    That’s a very interesting story about your Senator Fielding’s simple and straightforward questions to your Climate Minister, Penny Wong.

    Let’s see if she (or her Chief Scientist) can do a better job of answering straightforward questions than Peter has done on this thread, or whether they fall into the same mode of denial (i.e. “the real anthropogenic climate trend is being hidden by natural climate ‘background noise’, so temperature is really rising”) or just try the waffle bit (a few of the comments on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog show the kind of double-talk that might be used to fog up the issue rather than answer the simple questions directly).

    One I did not see (but might well be used to counter Fielding’s question why climate models have failed miserably in predicting early 21st century climate trends) is the myth that the “models do better on long range projections of 100 years or so than they do on short term forecasts of a few years (again due to the effect of “natural weather background noise” which can “mask the real underlying climate trend”).

    Break out the shovels!

    Keep us advised how this plays out.

    Regards,

    Max

  16. Hi Peter,

    After your last outburst, you have been unusually quiet.

    “Cat got your tongue” (as they say)?

    Regards,

    Max

  17. I’ve put up a post about TonyB’s neighbours in Exeter here:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=197

    It looks as though there may be a very public row brewing over the predictions in their new report.

  18. I see Peter Martin has appealed to RE for help (Groundhog day #580).

  19. Don’t know about you guys, but it has been a noticeably cool spring here in the US so far. Farther North and West, they are describing it as “the year without a summer”. Farmers can’t get started on the planting season for the cold.

    We don’t normally run the air conditioning as I use a whole house fan and start the mechanical cooling on only the hottest, humid days, but we haven’t had to start it yet…………Quite unusual for this area during this time of year. We haven’t been able to use the swimming pool!

    Apparently last week, debate in Congress regarding the “global warming” legislation ended in near fisticuffs……maybe we don’t need to spend the $8,000,000,000,000,000,000 after all……the climate seems to be “cooling” all on its own even with this massive increase in plant food (CO2).

    Postscript: Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion……………

  20. This graph displays 12 years of cooling……

    12 Years Of Cooling

  21. Tony B has been featured on Ice Cap…….Good job!

    http://www.icecap.us/

  22. This graph displays 12 years of cooling….

    Should read: No warming………

  23. Jasper Gee

    Thanks for your #6768 with link to Peter’s question on the RealClimate ”Groundhog” thread.

    Looks like Peter has started a discussion there, and has gotten a good explanation of the logarithmic (or near-logarithmic) relation between atmospheric CO2 and theoretical greenhouse temperature impact, which he and I have been discussing here.

    This came from a blogger named Patrick 027 (#604):
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/

    Yes. The relationship must be approximately linear at low concentrations. CO2 optical thickness decreases away from the approx. 15 micron wavelength center of its absorption band. That is really a general trend over fluctuations across small wavelength intervals between absorption line centers and gaps between them, but the trend can be traced through the line centers, through the minima between line centers, etc. When there is a high enough concentration, the effect at the tropopause level is saturated at the most opaque wavelengths near the center of the band – meaning that adding more CO2 makes little direct change to net upward longwave radiative flux at those wavelengths at the tropopause level (the troposphere and surface, coupled by convection, tend to warm up and cool off together in response to radiative forcing at the tropopause level, evaluated after stratospheric equilibration but including further stratospheric feedback to the changes below the tropopause – with variations in this pattern over seasons and latitudes, etc.) (Stratospheric equilibration is the temperature response in the stratosphere in the absence of changes below the tropopause – it is generally a cooling effect for increased greenhouse gases because it increases the stratosphere’s opacity to space (it can be seen more from space – it radiates more to space) while blocking more radiation from the surface and warmer lower tropopshere. The effect for ozone is complicated because ozone can recieve radiation from the surface and warm humid airmasses or low level clouds at wavelengths in which, absent clouds, the air in the troposphere (except in low level warm humid air) tends to be somewhat transparent (because of the reduced concentration of ozone relative to the stratosphere); its dominant effect is in aborbing solar radiation.) However, additional CO2 continues to have an effect at other wavelengths. The shape of the CO2 absorption spectrum is such that after some amount of saturation in the center of the band, the intervals of wavelengths of moderate opacity (where the greatest change occurs when more CO2 is added) shift outward from the center of the band as the central high opacity interval widens approximately linearly in proportion to the logarithm of CO2 concentration.

    This blogger explains in detail the logarithmic relation between CO2 and temperature, pretty much the same way as many other explanations that are out there. Some others refer to saturation or to the Beer-Lambert Law.

    There is still some ongoing discussion, but it appears that the near-logarithmic relation between CO2 and temperature is pretty much confirmed.

    Max

  24. Max

    it looks like Peter is being given a harder time than over here!

    “You ask me why I want to know? That seems a very strange question to ask. How about scientific curiousity? Will that do for an answer?

    I’m not a contrarian if that is what is concerning you. I do accept that the dangers of AGW are very real and I am concerned that an overuse of the logarithmic function is allowing certain groups to understate those dangers”

    The debate continues in the usual fashion with Peter being accused of not answering questions..

    Brute

    There was the old one/two from HS with TonyN’s article on WUWT immediately behind mine.

    Tonyb

  25. Max, Reur 6773, and Peter Martin’s attempt to gain support for his “non-logarithmic hypothesis” over at the high alter of truth.
    I doubt if Pete had the slightest clue what Patrick was talking about in his 604, per your quote, but he ploughs on regardless

    I rather liked the less complicated explanation from 622 Chris Colose:

    “You are correct [Peter Martin] that the CO2 forcing is not logarithmic at very low concentrations (or very high ones, in fact) but such conditions are not relevant at Earth-like climates (at least over the last few hundred million years or the forseeable future) and thus the standard formulas for forcing (e.g., Myhre et al 1998) are suitable over the terrestrial climate regime. The reasons for this logarithmic forcing involve the exponential decay of the absorption in the principal bands, and this is explained in Ray Pierrehumbert’s book in chapter 4.”

    I also enjoyed this one from 632 Mark, concerning an analogy of lagging on a hot water pipe

    “…It shows that linear wouldn’t be right.

    And that a doubling of thckness could well result in half the loss of energy, making the lagging and energy loss reduction logarithmically dependent.

    And so much effort has been wasted and you haven’t answered the queries.

    We still don’t know if the full-on quantum explanation will sail straight over your head. We still don’t know why you think it isn’t logarithmic (e.g. why do you believe a handful of scientists but not a roomful?). And so on.”

    I wonder how long it will take Pete to describe Patrick, Chris Colose, and Mark, to be buffoons or whatever

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha