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.
Robin:
Ironically, our best hope is that the militant environmentalists will be so outraged by what they will see as a betrayal that they will drag this reality into the open.
You may be right. Already the warmer’s assertions are getting ever more strident and unconvincing in view of the lack of political action and a climate that seems reluctant, at present, to follow the predictions of the models. There’s an utterly cold-blooded take on the prospects for Copenhagen in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124691243941002053.html
And, Max, I agree that China and India have no intention of curbing their fossil fuel use. But they won’t, I think, make a public fuss about – they’ll simply ensure that Copenhagen doesn’t bind them to anything. Once that’s settled, the public rhetoric is easy.
Hi Max
Will be interested in hearing what you think of ‘Chill.’
The first part is completly about the science and is very good in its own right. The second part deals with motivations and it just sums up Good old PeterM and the RC crowd perfectly.
Tonyb
Robin
You are certainly right at least about the Chinese.
It is not their way to make a fuss of things. Noncommittal smiling is much nicer, because everyone’s “face” is saved, while the desired objective is still reached.
I do not know the Indians so well, but I believe they also prefer non-confrontational solutions, especially if confrontation is not required.
Pachauri will have a hard time convincing his countrymen (and women) to abandon their dream of economic equality with the West in order to cow-tow to a European pipe dream, which may (or may not) be reluctantly supported by the USA.
And, if the Copenhagen weather does what it normally does in December, things will get even chillier for those who want to sell “cap and trade” globally.
A record cold snap with delayed flight arrivals and meters of snow (as reported by the fickle press) would be the perfect “climate” for a “stop global warming” conference (like Hansen’s catastrophic call for an anti global warming disobedience rally during a blizzard in Washington, DC last year).
“Timing is everything” and I cannot understand why the Copenhagen organizers did not opt for Madrid or Milano in July.
Max
Max, Reur 6863 concerning mysterious happenings at RC, you wrote in part:
In addition, I have noticed that the “AGW-groupie trolls”, who used to chime in with personal insults aimed at all skeptics have become less prevalent on the site.
So, at least for now, it makes blogging there a bit more rewarding than it used to be.
If I can express an opinion, Mark is a bit hard to take, and I think you should ignore him, like I do. He deserves no encouragement. Patrick 027 is very rewarding and interesting to engage though.
I’m finding semantic misrepresentations by some of them, of things I’ve said, to be rather irritating.
QUESTION:
On my computer, the comments block and everything to do with it has disappeared, just as I have a post ready that I’m rather pleased with.
Are you also unable to post for this reason?
Hi Bob
No. I get the post submitted and it pops up as “under consideration”, but then never passes through the “input filter”.
But looks like you have Patrick 027 engaged in an interesting exchange, and I agree with your comment that Mark is hardly worth spending much time on, so I am essentially backing off for now.
Max
Jasper (6871)
Thank you! I hadn’t been back to look, since my post seemed to vanish, but presumably that’s part of their moderating process. A message to that effect would have been useful!
As you say, the model now has more stuff, which must be good, I guess.. :-)
Still, it was nice to get a considered reply.
All, I’ve just looked again at the RC site and it seems they are having performance problems that still prevent me posting. However, one of the posts I’m wanting to place there has some relevance here WRT:
We have discussed that Wikepedia is not reliable on emotive issues, but I’ve recently been RC pointed repeatedly to one entry at Wikipedia that is er uhm “unreliable”?
Here is my post:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James 1052:
You commented on my “d) Do you believe that it is a common perception of people at large that the sun does NOT have uniform brightness across what appears to be a flat disc?”[XXXX]
You responded with:
Do you know many people who look directly at the sun? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_darkening for an overview, or if you care to see for yourself, pick a somewhat hazy/smoky day when the sun is just setting, so you can look at it, and you should be able to see the limb darkening for yourself.
No, I don’t know anyone who looks directly at the sun, and that would be rather foolish, which is why I wrote originally: “…using eye protection; Take a look at the sun, and you may notice that…”
However, I DO know people, including myself that have looked at the sun using eye protection, and that they have NOT commented on limb darkening.
Concerning your reference to the image of the sun at Wiki’, may I point-out that it is of low definition at only 9.65 KB
If you want a better quality image, go to the SOHO MDI Continuum giving more visual detail at 151 KB:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
In comparing the two, it would seem that the Wiki’ image has been tricked-up to enhance the impression of limb darkening. Furthermore, in the case of the superior SOHO image, darkening is seen as less obvious and only really apparent in the last few degrees towards the limb, or visible periphery of the sun. I would suggest that this SOHO image is for real, and that in the case of an equivalent eyeball job, this slight darkening would not be noticeable. (and neither would the cellular temperature variation on the apparent surface in the SOHO image).
As for looking at the sun near the horizon on a hazy/smoky day, I would suggest that if you think that you can see peripheral darkening, that you need to think about what is it that you are actually seeing. Maybe there is some other stuff that could be going on such as halo effects? I’m not sure, and cannot recall such an impression that you describe. Certainly, you would be looking through a diffuser, rather than a non-distorting optical screen, which is a bit dodgy.
James P Reur 6882:
You responded in part to Jasper:
As you say, the model now has more stuff, which must be good, I guess.. :-) Still, it was nice to get a considered reply.
James, let me guess; you are an English gentleman of fine breeding: very polite and courteous. …. and that is NOT a criticism.
However, let me give it to you how it is in Oz lingo:
More shit in = more shit out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All; anyone interested in trying a kamikaze job over at RC, in a day or two when they sort their apparent (?) software(?) problems (?) out?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The “Ashes” (Oz versus England cricket) at Cardiff, day 1, game 1, (I watched the first innings) was interesting! (We have it live here, and I’ll rejoin viewing in an hour or so for day 2)
Bob (6884)
That’s overstating it somewhat, but it’s a kind thought!
Of course, being English, when I said (on RC) that I didn’t mean to be rude, that really implies the reverse. It’s like prefacing an answer ‘with respect’ – it allows you to say what you mean, but prevents the original speaker from punching you in the face. :-)
WRT the cricket, I daresay we’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as usual…
Another take on the recent MetOffice “projections”, with a pretty scathing hammering of Chief Scientist, Professor Julia Slingo.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/met-office-fraudcast/
Bob
My most recent experience at RC tells me that “pro-AGW” posts (even some that border on being both silly and rude) slip through the “moderation process” (i.e. censorship) very rapidly, while those that raise serious questions (in particular, “difficult” questions) get thrown out. This makes an attempt at any kind of a dialogue with another poster rather wearying and unrewarding.
Occasionally the censors will let an AGW-critical message slip through, so they can put their own “words of wisdom” as a moderator’s note on the bottom, but this is the exception.
As a result, these sites become places where like-minded individuals reinforce their own opinions by bouncing them off each other. (See Robin’s article on “How to become an extremist”).
Max
Max:
Gavin has always allowed posts from the outer reaches of AGW scepticism to appear on RC. There is nothing new in this policy which simultaneously allows him to pretend that he runs an open forum and also represent mindless ranting as being typical of sceptics.
There is a way of having a little harmless fun at RC. For an example, go to this link and search for TonyN:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/bbc-contrarian-top-10/
and then here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2378#comment-161551
The only dividend in this case was a private chuckle, but perhaps the technique could be developed to produce more interesting results.
Interesting article in New Scientist this week (4 July p 17).
In 2008 [Boeing] found that the 787’s carbon-fibre “wingbox” … was not strong enough and needed stiffening …
Then last week, other stress tests on an airframe showed that the plane needs strengthening at 18 points … where the wing attaches.
“Data from the test did not match our computer model” says Boeing vice-president … [!]
I see, from this BBC story (and elsewhere – especially the Independent), that at the G8 conference,
King Canute took his sycophantic courtiers onto the beach to teach them an important lesson: that even a great leader could not command the tide. Yet the current crop of leaders is strutting the world insisting that they can command global temperatures. So much for humanity’s “progress”.
I see from this BBC story that the “US hopes to lead climate debate“. I wonder what debate that might be.
Also it’s interesting that the Obama regime blames its feeble efforts to reduce US emissions on George Bush’s eight “wasted” years. That’s not quite how Jim Hansen sees it. In his article “G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change” he says that “the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course” set to “ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back”.
Yet the mainstream media largely ignores this, lavishing praise on the “refreshing” change of attitude under the saintly Obama. How the greens must regret the passing of those golden days when the MSM joined them in excoriating the wicked George W Bush.
Some less than enthusiastic press comment about the G8’s declaration on AGW here:
The G8 in La-la land: warm words but no promises
Even The Guardian seems to be sceptical.
Actually the G8 leaders are already well on their way to realizing the 2 degree goal (maximum warming by year 2100). Since the beginning of 2001 it has cooled by a bit more than 0.1 degree (1 degree COOLING by year 2100).
Just see what a change in US Presidency can do!
This is truly “Change we can believe in!” (sorry for that preposition at the end of the slogan, but we can fix that by “Change we can believe in, folks!”)
Max
Only when the MSM begin to mention the decade long temperature stand-still in the same breath as the targets will the tide have turned. But I wonder if the outcome of the G8 summit in L’Aquila may have been a step closer to that happening.
Here are two extracts from the Epilogue to Gillian Tett’s excellent book on the financial crisis, Fool’s Gold – in which she examines in wonderfully telling detail how the bankers got things so badly wrong.
I think no comment is needed about the parallels between this and the world of the dangerous AGW proponents.
Robin
And Sunstein’s groups?
No coincidence that Tett started off in life as a social anthropologist.
BBC tells us:
This is great news that actually fits in perfectly with “global warming” (oops!, I mean “climate change”).
Studies shows that food crops will flourish with slightly warmer temperatures at higher atmospheric CO2 levels:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
In addition, many food plants significantly improve their water efficiency as CO2 levels increase.
The above report concludes that the vast majority of food crops will benefit considerably by increased CO2, and even more so by increased CO2 coupled with warming. Some excerpts:
So it looks like increasing CO2 levels with a resulting slight increase in global temperatures will be a major step in helping the G8 nations achieve their goal to “boost food supplies to the hungry”.
Let’s hope this good news gets spread around by the media for all to rejoice.
Max
In my previous post on the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 on food plant growth I only cited one general reference.
I have read specific studies made for the following foods, all showing a beneficial effect of higher CO2 levels, many made at levels of 600 ppmv:
Soybeans, rice, lettuce, oranges, maize, grapes, apples, wheat, barley, avocados, bananas, tomatoes, melons.
In addition there are studies showing the same benefits for both pine and deciduous tree types.
I doubt that this good word will get spread by a press that has been frightened into believing that a CO2 level of 450 ppmv is “dangerous”.
Max
The G8 nations have boldly committed that they will limit the temperature increase by the year 2100 to 2°C over the 1900 level.
Let’s see how bold this goal really is.
Hadley tells us that the temperature anomaly in 1900 was –0.142°C.
For the year 2008 it was +0.312°C
For a total temperature increase since 1900 of +0.454°C today.
[Note that this is an average decadal rate of: 0.454 * 10 / 109 = +0.042°C per decade]
386 ppmv = 2008 CO2 level
560 ppmv = projected year 2100 CO2 level (with no measures to reduce)
If we accept the IPCC estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of +3.2°C
(strong positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds)
The 2009-2100 increase in CO2 will result in:
560/386 = 1.45
ln(1.45) = 0.3721
ln(2) = 0.6931
dT (2100 compared to today) = 3.2 * 0.3721 / 0.6931 = 1.72°C
[Note that this is an average decadal rate of : 1.72 * 10 / 91 = +0.187°C per decade]
dT (2100 compared to year 1900) = 1.72 + 0.45 = 2.17°C
So if we essentially do nothing to curb CO2 emissions below today’s levels, we will almost reach the G8 commitment (at least as closely as can be measured anyway).
Besides, who’s going to still be around in year 2100?
Hansen and Gore must be very unhappy with the G8 pols.
Max
Hey folks.
We have just seen that the G8 commitment to hold global temperature by year 2100 at no more than 2°C higher than 1900 temperature is not really that bold.
But wait!
Some of the G8 leaders may be able to calculate (or have someone on their staff that can do so).
The not so bold G8 commitment is based on the rather bloated IPCC estimate that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is 3.2°C.
So let’s check that against what has actually happened to date.
290 ppmv = 1900 CO2 level
386 ppmv = 2009 CO2 level
386/290 = 1.33
ln(1.33) = 0.2860
ln(2) = 0.6931
dT we should have seen from 1900 to 2008 (if IPCC estimate is correct):
= 3.2 * 0.2860 / 0.6931 = 1.32°C
But hey! We only saw an actual increase of 0.454°C (or around 1/3 the IPCC’s theoretical value).
Either there is still an awful lot of this temperature increase “still in the pipeline” or the IPCC value for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is way too high.
[Where is Peter Martin, when we really need him to explain this?]
So the smart pols know that their 2°C commitment is very unlikely to happen, no matter what.
But hey, let’s go for a carbon tax (or cap and trade scheme) anyway. Could help finance a lot of good projects.
Max