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.
Bob_FJ, TonyB
Let’s don’t take it too hard on Peter.
He is obviously still struggling with the facts.
These do not support his firm belief of what should really be going on.
First of all, it has been cooling since 2001. Or, as the graph from Brute has shown, it has stopped warming since 1997 (i.e. 12 years ago), despite all-time record increase in atmospheric CO2 and no volcanic eruption to explain a cooling. Other records show this plateau since 1998 (which even IPCC Chairman, Pachauri, acknowledges).
Then there is the pesky logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature, which Peter is having a hard time coming to grips with. Why shouldn’t it be linear (i.e. every molecule of CO2 has the same impact as the previous one)? Apparently there are good physical reasons for this logarithmic relationship, as Peter is learning over at RealClimate.
But even more alarming are the physical observations.
Peter prefers climate model predictions to actual physical observations. Climate modelers are not too concerned with actual physical observations, either.
When physical observations show us that relative humidity does not remain constant with warming in the real world, but reduces substantially, the modelers are unfazed. In theory the relative humidity should remain constant with warming, so that water vapor should increase in lock-step, exerting a strongly positive feedback, so let’s forget about the physical observations that tell us that it is not actually so, because we know that it should theoretically be so. When IPCC tells us (SPM 2007):
let’s believe this statement without checking the physical facts, which tell us that this is not so, and that the measured atmospheric water vapor content has actually decreased significantly since the 1980s.
When studies show us that the net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly negative despite our theoretical assumption that it should be strongly positive, let’s ignore the physical observations in favor of our climate model outputs, which all assume that clouds should theoretically exert a strongly positive feedback with warming.
Sadly for Peter, this is where his whole premise of a rapidly warming future becomes unraveled.
There are no strongly positive feedbacks.
These are all based on the virtual world of computer model simulations based on assumptions, rather than the real world of physical observations.
The physically observed facts tell us that the warming we can theoretically expect from increased CO2 to the year 2100 is well below 1°C, so really nothing to worry about.
But Peter knows deep in his heart that it must be much, much higher (because otherwise his whole belief that AGW is a serious threat is refuted). Besides, James E. Hansen tells us that “positive feedbacks dominate” our climate system, so it must be so.
After all, mountain glaciers are melting. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (at least since 1979). Sea levels are rising. This must all be a result of human CO2 emissions, right?
So Peter will keep scrambling, in order to find a justification for his belief.
Regards,
Max
Hi Max
A few days ago I cxontacted ARCUS and received the following reply. My enquiry was spurred by a observation made in 1817 on a Greenland snow field that the temperature on the snow was very high. It set me thinking that a sunnier than usual summer there was likely to cause much more melting than a cloudy summer. To check this I really need to know the amount of sun hours per day from 1979 so it could be correlated against ice levels (although wind, currents etc will also have an effect)
Have you ever come across such an index?
Tonyb
“Hi tony – we don’t have access to that data – but the best place to contact would be someone from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – from their user services form ( http://nsidc.org/forms/contact.html) – they could likely point you in the right direction, at least.
Hello Helen
I am researching -from a history viewpoint- a series of blog articles on ‘Arctic ice through the ages.’
The first-just published- covers the 19th century with particular reference to the Arctic warming period from 1815 to 1860.
Whilst researching, I was struck by the considerable number of scientific expeditions to the region from 1817, and the number and quality of actual observations made, such as these ones contained in a book compiled by an 1817 expedition to Greenland .
“That the passage of those bergs southward is not in uniform time, many being recognized in particular situations for years, is argument also to prove that the seas in which they move are not always open, and consequently not always accessible to shipping ; and, with regard to this, the variableness of the winters in the north should be taken into account, some being dreadfully severe, whilst others are mild and fit to be endured by the human constitution. Thus the native inhabitants of Greenland are capable of enduring much severity of cold, but in very inclement winters they are comparatively as sensible of extraordinary cold as Europeans. Even the birds of passage and other migratory animals exhibit similar sensations. But here it is worthy of mention, that when the winter in southern latitudes is known to be severe, the subsequent or preceding winter in Greenland is mild, and it is then not unusual to see birds migrating to the northward from southern latitudes to enjoy the milder climate of Greenland.”
and also this one;
“This evidence of severity of climate does not therefore depend on the presence of ice ; it must be sought for in a far different cause : not but that where ice is present a greater degree of cold is experienced; but, from my own experience, I declare that the most intolerable heat I ever suffered was felt at a moment when I was standing up to the knees in snow on a wide field of ice in 70° of N. latitude, and such a recollection is impressed upon my mind from that circumstance, that I should not like to make the experiment a second time.”
With specific regards to the second quote, as a skier I do know that the amount of sun, its intensity, height, and the inclination of a slope, all play a major part in how fast an area melts. Obviously the same effect was noticed in the arctic nearly 200 years ago.
I wondered if there was any ‘sun index’ which showed the amount of sun and its intensity during the arctic melt season from the inception of satellite records in 1979? I have looked at the Arctic NOAA site but can not see it represented there.
Could you point me to a ‘sun index’ and would you like to make any comment on possible causes in variations of ice -other than man? For example there are numerous historical references to the effects of the gulf stream and wind speed and direction.
My next article will go back through the arctic civilisations of the Vikings, Ipiatuk and Independence people to a ‘virtually ice free arctic’ claimed for 6000 years ago. I will then look forward from 1905 to the present day to examine the arctic ice melt of 1915 to 1940 and try to put today’s situation into its broader historic context.
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Best regards
Tony ”
—
Helen V. Wiggins, Director of Programs
Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (ARCUS)
3535 College Rd., Suite 101
Fairbanks, AK 99709-3710
Phone: 907.474.1600 Fax: 907.474.1604
helen@arcus.org
Visit ARCUS on the Internet http://www.arcus.org.
All; I’m a VERY rare lurker over at RC, (I don’t like risking a break-out of hives or shingles), but with the news (thanks Jasper 6758), that Peter Martin has sought help there concerning his unique “intuitive” (?) hypothesis on the varying relationships of CO2 concentration and long-wave EMR absorption , I could not resist exploring it, starting from Pete’s RC post #580!
It is really quite entertaining, as Pete ploughs-on regardless of good advice given to him. (In addition to that previously provided here). Various RC posters that apparently all support AGW as of a real concern, have contradicted his hypothesis, and have for instance referred him to a book by that great AGW oracle Ray Pierrehumbert, that explains the ~logarithmic nature of the matter. (Ch.4)
And:
Remember our long departed blogo-buddy David Benson?
Here is what he has to say rather succinctly in his RC post #675:
Still not content; Peter Martin in his 684, is now locking horns with Mr. Benson himself, another true believer!
Surprising more, me being carried along with it all, I have even made a post earlier today on RC! (allocated # 677)
It is still held for mediation, as of a moment ago, but should be OK, but I’ll post it here if it evaporates.
Brute, why don’t you say hello to your old buddy Benson?
Max, Bob, Brute. My 6777
This is a picture of the North Pole daily sequence in which it can be clearly seen that -as you would expect-some days are much sunnier than others, and consequently ice melt is likely to be greater than others.
Ideally it needs to be combined with actual temperature and winds, currents, tides (and the effects of the Gulf stream eating away at the ice from underneath. Unfortunately, unless someone comes up with a very big grant for me to check all those elements this larger view will have to be left to one side.
Perhaps there is already an ‘all factors’ ice melt index?
If not it would be useful to try and examine at least the effects of the sun-somewhere the sun hours/intensity must be recorded. Any suggestions from anyone?
Tonyb
Bob
Of even greater interest than Peter swimming out of his depth over at RC (on this topic) is the comment in the leader at the top of the page. Tongue in cheek or a rare outbreak of realism?
“Alert readers will have noticed the fewer-than-normal postings over the last couple of weeks. This is related mostly to pressures associated with real work (remember that we do have day jobs). In my case, it is because of the preparations for the next IPCC assessment and the need for our group to have a functioning and reasonably realistic climate model with which to start the new round of simulations. These all need to be up and running very quickly if we are going to make the early 2010 deadlines.”
Reasonably realistic? The future proserity of the West- and by implication the undeveloped world- resting on reasonably realistic models?
Tonyb
functioning and reasonably realistic
Assuming that the new model is meant to be an improvement, one wonders what words should have been used to describe its predecessor. Dysfunctional and unrealistic, perhaps?
All, further to my earlier comments on Oz senator Steve Fielding’s probable balance of power in the upcoming vote on a government bill relating to AGW, his declared position yesterday was that he was still waiting for a satisfactory explanation for the alleged AGW from minister Penny Wong et al. (for instance, what about the recent decade or so of stasis or cooling)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, by way of some connection;
Let me introduce you to my favourite radio programme, (although I also enjoy some Deutsche Welle and BBC), and here is the agenda for tonight, Tuesday, perhaps my favourite night because of the weekly appearance of Bruce Shapiro:
***Bruce Shapiro reports from the U.S.A.
***The ABC’s Managing Director, Mark Scott, talks to Phillip about content, controversy and the challenges ahead for mainstream broadcast media.
***A look at the social history of lawns.
Late Night Live is broadcast Monday to Thursday, 10.05-11.00pm Repeated Tuesday to Friday afternoons, 4.05-5.00pm (6.05-7.00pm in WA) Classic LNL is broadcast on Friday, 10.05-11.00pm, repeated Sunday morning, 4.05-5.00am.
Visit our web page at http://abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/default.htm
for summaries and to hear recent programs.
Email us at http://abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/contact/
– all mail read, but not necessarily replied to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phillip Adams is in my view a great brain, with an astonishing RANGE of knowledge and contacts with very many influential/interesting people, and with a great sense of humour, although some find him controversial or can’t stand him. He is however an AGW alarmist. Nevertheless, I recommend that you “podie” or listen to him if you have time. He has apparently wide download and Email respondents around the world.
I have just Emailed him suggesting that he bring senator Fielding onto his programme.
He typically interviews religious believers very sympathetically, although emphatically him being atheist.
TonyB Reur 6780, James P Reur 6781:
Concerning Gavin Schmidt’s new “functioning and reasonably realistic climate model”; what a shocking admission, and therefore concerning thereto the prior implications of it!
Thanks for that! The reason I missed it was that when I saw the name of the author, I did not think it would be worth reading, and I only took the thread from Peter Martin’s #580.
James P
GS says the new model is:
functional and reasonably realistic
You opined that this implied that his previous models were:
Dysfunctional and unrealistic, perhaps?
How about:
dysfunctional and unreasonably unrealistic?
Max
ALL: further my 6782 concerning Oz senator Fielding’s sceptical views on AGW, his probable balance of power in the Senate relating to a bill, and my enquiry to the ABC Late Night Live (LNL) programme, I was surprised to receive very promptly the following verbatim staff response Email, which was copied by them to Phillip Adams himself via his private Email address.
Dear Bob,
We invited Senator Fielding on with Senators Milne and Xenophon last week. He declined.
Best, Chris Bullock, EP, LNL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I’m not surprised that Fielding would decline on such a debate, given that:
a) Senator Milne is a feroceous Green that rejects the government bill on the grounds that it does not go far enough.
b) Senator Xenophon, an independent AGW believer, (apparently), rejects the bill because, (apparently), following his investigative trip to Canada and the USA, he criticises the Oz bill in that it ONLY contains ONE “carbon trading” model scenario to consider, which may be economically damaging, whereas there are a bunch of other models out there that may be more appropriate, that he insists should be exposed and debated.
c) The chair; Phillip Adams, whilst typically very tolerant in his sessions with people that have contrary views to his own, is nevertheless an AGW alarmist
Consequently, I Emailed LNL staff and Phillip himself, pointing out that such a four-way debate would invoke chaos…. That Fielding’s views, coming from him being an engineer, should be a one-on-one scientific discussion with Adams without interference from others with conflicting political views, in order for them to be lucid.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a prompt response to my latest Email.
Watch this space!
Bob_FJ: here’s an article by Dr David Evans on the Fielding/Wong meeting.
Max
“How about:
dysfunctional and unreasonably unrealistic?”
I’m happy with that!
I tried posting a similar comment on this recent BBC thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/06/climate_meltdown_yet_fusion_la.html
where the comments are largely populated by the ‘house troll’ (not my words, but fitting) and the moderators have been getting a bit frantic. Clearly my reference to Real Climate upset them, as it wasn’t immediately followed by a compliment…
JamesP
Yeah. You sure are right about that house troll over there. Wow! That guy has a fantastic output level, yet he doesn’t say anything intelligent whatsoever.
Shot him a quickie, but it’s still in the “filter”.
Max
Bob_FJ: more from Oz. I suggest this article (from the Australian) is important. In it, Peter Schwerdtfeger (emeritus professor of meteorology, Flanders U Adelaide) reviews a book by Daniel Rosenfeld (cloud physicist, Hebrew U Jerusalem). Rosenfeld points out that the “most awful consequence” of burning carbon fuels is not CO2 emission but the injection of minute particulates into the atmosphere – particulates that prevent rainfall. Thus humans are changing the climate in a much more direct way than through the release of CO2, with dire consequences for water supplies throughout the world. But, Schwerdtfeger says, this important finding has been ignored
In other words, action targeted at specific pollution which could have a clear benefit is being ignored because it does not fit the politically correct paradigm that CO2 is the ultimate evil. Thus the obsession of so-called environmentalists is inhibiting practical measures that could actually improve the climate – thereby perpetuating the very problem they say they want to resolve.
I’ll try………I think I’m banned there also. If I remember, the hornet’s nest that is Real Climate is quite biased.
Maybe I’ll try to liven things up.
house troll
Good to see you on there, Max, but don’t get sucked in! He’s probably best ignored, even though he will doubtless then claim that we’ve all been persuaded by his rhetoric…
Why are warmists so bad-tempered?
particulates that prevent rainfall
I thought particles were necessary for raindrops to form. I daresay there’s more to it (particle size?) but I just wondered.
Robin, Reur 6786, concerning the article by David Evans, as he and other scientists backed-up senator Fielding in his sortie with Oz government;
Wow, now that is a good find, and I’ll follow it for any updates, and will try to find time to follow the blog on it too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robin, Reur 6789, concerning the worrying Peter Schwerdtfeger article that quotes mainly the work of: “…internationally acclaimed cloud physicist Daniel Rosenfeld…”
My gut reaction is that I don’t believe it, and I hope I’m right.
Briefly, I can understand that various species of atmospheric particulates, which are essential as nuclei for effective water vapour condensation into water droplets for the formation of clouds, will each have various levels of effectiveness. However, to hypothesise that such nucleation on certain species is negative in outcome, is extremely counter intuitive to me! …. so I should try and find-out more detail behind the hypothesis.
For instance, the suggestion that the resulting water droplets on these special particulates are too small does not make sense to me because these guys do not just sit there in splendid isolation surely? There is convection and stuff going on, and they should be in turbulence and bumping into each other with surface tension attraction annat. Unless there is some unexplained repulsion between them, they should coalesce, surely?
Another thing is that such phenomena in nature are very rarely attributed to just one cause. In this hypothesis, I would be looking to a number of combinant factors.
Perhaps CERN should take note?
Perhaps something may be learnt about more efficient cloud seeding?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Robin, are you becoming an Ozophile?
Robin, further my 6793
Oh, and what’s more, the various anthro’ particulate species are likely to be fairly well mixed around the globe. These, and also the natural ones are concensed to be beneficial to clouds.
Does the Rosenfeld hypothesis claim a concentration of bad species, and exclusion of the good in some parts of the globe?
Oh, and the formation of clouds does not necessarily result in rain!
It’s got something more to do with “the weather”, surely?
Brute, Reur 6790
My ISP allows me to have four Email addresses free, and I’ve severally exploited this easily to make new ID’s to overcome the difficulty of the type you describe, but on some other sites.
Don’t know about RC, (I’m surprising myself for actually being there), what their blocking method is. If they target your computer IP, you would need to use say your secondary laptop (notebook) computer, or change your current computer IP, but I doubt if the latter would be worth the effort and the possible unintended consequences.
JamesP
Reur #6791.
Some time ago, I learned something very basic from Robin (a guy who knows all about words, even if he is not a “numbers cruncher” or a technical type who draws impressive graphs).
Although he did not verbalize it in exactly this fashion it is simply:
Be the rational skeptic (in the scientific sense), and, as such, require that those who postulate that AGW is a potential serious threat provide the empirical evidence that this is really so.
Not one of the disciples of the premise that AGW is a serious threat can provide this basic empirical evidence.
This is true of the rather aggressive and infantile “house troll” we have discussed, as it is also true of the much more intelligent (and slippery) Peter Martin on this blog (or the more glib David Benson we had here earlier).
As Bob_FJ has correctly pointed out, the ploy of all these guys is to waffle, obfuscate, change the subject, etc., but to avoid (like the plague) the obvious tactic of providing empirical evidence based on actual physical observations that the premise is correct that AGW is a potential serious threat.
Why is this so?
Because there is no empirical evidence supporting this premise.
When it comes to the use and meaning of words, listen to Robin. That is his specialty.
Max
Thanks, Max. It’s nice to return to the relative sanity of HS! I do read Robin’s posts for the reasons you describe and will bear your advice in mind. You seem to be winding the BBC house troll up well with that point, anyway!
Max
FYI yeah whatever = Mark (RC)
Jasper
Thanks, Max, for the compliment (#6796). Of course, there’s no need for number crunching or impressive graphs to expose the inability of the proponents of the dangerous AGW hypothesis to produce empirical evidence supporting their position. I believe that is, by far, the most important issue. Although other issues can be interesting and important, they risk opening the door to waffle, obfuscation etc.
Cross posted on Tony’s advice , a new petition:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/
Unfortunately, I missed out the ” and data” and it will not allow me to edit. So if someone else feels like doing the dat one feel free.