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.
Pete,
You Wrote:
“This is a rather naive question and shows a lack of any concept of statistical variation.”
I Say:
Alright, I’m naive and obtuse……explain it to me. Are you falling back on the “global warming causes global cooling which causes increased Arctic ice” argument? Or is it the “global warming causes decreased global temperatures which causes record cold winters and record snowfall” argument? Or is it the “wait till next year” argument. Or is it the “precautionary principle”, “even if the facts don’t support the predictions we should still wreck our economies because it feels good”. How about the “global warming causes more frequent and more intense hurricanes except during years when they are less intense and less severe” argument. Wow.
Face it, Al Gore and James Hanson were/are wrong and they are back-peddling to save face. The recent announcement by the American Physical Society was a step in that direction……APS will gradually, subtly and incrementally “adjust” their position over time and then 5 years from now will begin trumpeting the next perceived end of the world doomsday prediction……they claim it was a “leak” and a mistake and doesn’t “represent” their position; but it’s a chink in the armor a opening in the dike and soon the flood will come.
These people are “so enlightened” and supposedly possess some ancient wisdom that the rest of we slobs couldn’t possibly understand……please.
The rest of these prophets of doom jumped on the bandwagon to secure grants/government handouts and because it was chic to do so. Scientists are people and are subject to the same influences as everyone else………. Classic group-think and cover your ass, go along with the program, don’t rock the boat, bureaucratic followers…..not a backbone in the entire spineless bunch.
Now, if you’d like to discuss lessening civilization’s dependence on oil, (without subsidies), I’m all ears. But to attempt to link fossil fuels with the weather, considering the information posted here during the last 8 months, is deceitful, (as well as sanctimonious).
I apologize if this sounded harsh but I recent being lied to……it insults my intelligence.
Misspelled “resent”, (I was agitated).
Tony,
I’d like to use an analogy referencing religion to refute the global warming precautionary principle with Peter. (Maybe you guys can see where I’m going with this).
Where may I do that?
TonyN: That probably depends on how you do it.
Hi Peter,
Sorry for jumping into your exchange with Brute, but your response (698) to Brute’s question astonished me.
The question: “If rising CO2 levels are causing the global temperature to rise, why is there a greater amount of Arctic ice on July 22nd 2008 than there was on July 22nd 2007? Wouldn’t the rising temperatures cause the ice to diminish over time?”
Your response: “This is a rather naive question and shows a lack of any concept of statistical variation.”
After putting in an irrelevant analogy with oil price fluctuations, you added: “It is exactly the same principle at work with changing ice levels and a warming climate.”
Let’s analyze this.
The record shows a long-term shrinking trend in Arctic ice of around 0.3 percent per decade with a reversal of this shrinking over the past year, back to the extent of the early 1990s, depending on which month one selects.
At the same time the record shows a growing trend in Antarctic ice extent, with the global extent of total polar ice increasing slightly over the long term.
Records prior to satellite readings (around 1980) are sketchy for both locations, although there are some records showing more rapid shrinking in the Arctic during the 1930s.
The global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly as published by Hadley has shown a linear increase of around 0.7C over the 20th century, with several multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles along the way. The two warming cycles of the 20th century occurred from around 1910 to 1944 (0.53C linear warming) and from around 1976 to 1998 (0.37C linear warming).
We only have sketchy information about sea ice during the first warming cycle, but the limited information does tend to show correlation (not causation) between rapid warming recorded during the 1930s with shrinking sea ice. Not much correlation with CO2, but this is outside our discussion.
But let’s concentrate on the record since satellite readings of ice extent have been available.
Temperature rose globally since 1979 (at least until 2001, when the record shows that it flattened out and then started cooling in late 2007).
Arctic sea ice shrank since 1979.
Antarctic sea ice grew since 1979.
So we’ve got a 50% “correlation rate” between global temperature and ice at the poles. A 50% correlation rate weakens the argument for “causation”, but let’s leave that aside for now.
Now let’s take a more ”granular” view of the past year (as Brute suggested).
Hadley shows us that temperature is falling today. The first 6 months of 2008 are significantly colder than the average for these months over the previous 10 years and colder than the same period in any other year except 2000.
Arctic sea ice has started gaining extent (will this continue – who knows?).
Antarctic sea ice is continuing to grow (will this continue – who knows?).
For this “short term” view we have a 100% correlation factor (still no “causation”, and over a very short period, as well, so probably meaningless statistically, as you pointed out to Brute).
The “shortness of the period” doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the miniscule magnitude of the temperature change (measured in tenths of a degree C), for both the longer-term warming and the even shorter-term recent cooling. Another fact that would bother me with a “causation” conclusion is that we are talking about “global average” temperature, rather than local temperature where ice is either melting or refreezing.
After all, significant portions of the ice melt and refreeze every year as the seasons change (and temperatures fluctuate by 30C or more locally, rather than 0.7C globally), and there I believe we can establish a strong seasonal “correlation” and even deduce a “causation” between seasonal ice melt/refreeze and the actual local temperature.
But Brutes question: “Wouldn’t the rising temperatures cause the ice to diminish over time?” doesn’t sound that naïve to me after all, if one believes in the AGW theory.
In effect this question raises the more basic question of whether or not there is true “causation” (between rising global average temperature and polar ice melting).
Isn’t this the key argument used in support of the AGW impact on climate, i.e. warmer global temperatures will cause melting sea ice which will cause rising sea levels? (Just read IPCC 2007 SPM and you will see this stated pretty clearly).
Whether a few tenths of a degree in “global average” temperature will “cause” ice to melt on one end of the globe while not “causing” it to do so on the other end raises some serious doubts about IPCC claims of “causation” and about your statement “it is exactly the same principle at work with changing ice levels and a warming climate”.
But the question raised by Brute seems logical to me, Peter, and really not that “naïve” at all.
Regards,
Max
“The record shows a long-term shrinking trend in Arctic ice of around 0.3 percent per decade with a reversal of this shrinking over the past year , back to the extent of the early 1990s, depending on which month one selects.”
As Wiki would comment: “citation needed” for this.
2007 was a particularly bad year for Arctic ice. Just because 2008 may not turn out to be quite so bad, although it is still likely to be one of the worst years on record and much worse than any of the 90’s, doesn’t mean that the long term decline of sea ice has ceased.
There are natural fluctuations from one year to the next. Only a fool would look at two data points and make an argument around them.
Peter,
Are there natural fluctuations that last decades? How about centuries? How about Millennia?
I understand your point about oil prices rising over the long term with intermittent peaks and valleys……..but we aren’t talking about the stock market or the price of oil.
According to the theory and the predictions regarding Anthromorphic Global Warming, the ice pack should be melting; shrinking ever smaller year by year. It’s growing, and global temperatures are dropping like a dress on prom night.
Something else occurred to me today……….We have submitted something in the neighborhood of 4000 comments which are discussing +/- ½ of one degree Fahrenheit averaged over the entire planet, over a period of 150 years with measurements that have been demonstrated repeatedly to be “adjusted”, “corrected”, subject to bias heat sources, analyzed and interpreted by people of dubious credibility and motives with little oversight and personal/political agendas. These same people are being paid to provide and promote flawed information in order to insure their livelihoods. ONE HALF OF ONE DEGREE OVER A SPAN OF 150 YEARS ON THE LAND AREA OF THE ENTIRE PLANET WHICH REPRESENTS ONLY 2/5THS OF THE SURFACE AREA!
This is not a “climate crisis” no matter how you slice it. I had a greater crisis at work today.
These same people have dismissed the largest heat source…… the heat source that provides heat, light, weather and life to the entire planet and solar system as being inconsequential to this miniscule ½ of one degree temperature anomaly and found that human progress and well being is the culprit?
You suggest, as a society, that we entrust these same people with controlling the weather of the entire planet? These people can’t even balance a budget and you want me to put my trust in them, (and my money) and actually depend upon them to control the weather of a planet?
Get real.
Jul 17, 2008
“Gore says Climate Tax is as important as Moon landing”
Americans for Prosperity
To compare Gore’s challenge to that of John F. Kennedy’s moon landing pledge proves that Gore suffers from illusions of grandeur. Instead of making America more prosperous, Gore wants to bankrupt the American people to fill the pockets of his environmental cronies with money. Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection estimates that “the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money.” Gore then explains that: “This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over.” “Investment” is the Orwellian name Big Government politicians use for tax. His so-called investment is effectively a tax hike that will cost Americans more than $3 trillion! The worst part is that Gore challenges the American people to meet his climate goals in 10 years. However, we are not allowed to build more nuclear power or drill for domestic oil!! It is impossible to accomplish what he has proposed without denying most Americans automobiles and reliable electricity. If Al Gore and his alarmists really cared about the American people and wanted to lower our gas prices, they would not handicap our ability to produce domestic sources of energy.
By the way, Al Gore, who Obama if President wants to make into an environment/energy czar is advising us on hydrogen cars as the way of the future (they only emit water vapor a far more important greenhouse gas). He had these grades in relevant subjects at Vanderbilt (before he left for greener pastures).
Natural Sciences 6- D
Natural Sciences 118 C+
Math Avoided Completely
College Boards Physics 488/1000 ( 48.8% ) = F
College Boards Chemistry 519/800 ( 64.8%) = D
No wonder he’s such a noted authority on climate science and atmospheric chemistry.
I’d probably better skip it; but it did remind me of a guy who went to church every Sunday “just in case”.
Using the Alarmist’s logic, I’d expect to see them in the pews every Sunday….”just in case”.
Brute,
One of the valid points that Freeman Dyson (physicist), who you do seem to approve of, made in an earlier link you posted was that it is a mistake to think just in terms of a global average temperature rise. The temperature rises in the Arctic region have been much higher with increases of several degrees rather than the 0.8 deg C which is the average for the earth as a whole.
Because 70% of the earth is covered by ocean, most of which is very deep, there is a large thermal mass or delay which slows down the rate of warming generally. But, it will catch up in the end.
The Arctic is the shallowest of the earth’s oceans, surrounded by land, and therefore shows a higher degree of thermal sensitivity. It is a good early warning indicator of what lies ahead.
Max,
Who do we believe on Arctic ice loss? You, who claim it is only 0.3% per decade? Or, the NSIDC who say that it is 10% per decade or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year?
Do you just make these figures up? Or is your maths no better than Al Gore’s?
My reference for the 10% figure:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
Brute (705) wrote “Are there natural fluctuations that last decades? How about centuries? How about Millennia?” Yes. Yes. Yes.
Peter,
Man, you Alarmist guys are all over the place.
I wrote several months ago that (I think it was 1934) was the hottest year on record in the US, not 1998. Someone, (I think it was you) said that didn’t apply because the name of the game is GLOBAL Warming. Now you are writing that freezing cold temperatures in the Arctic and greater sea ice extent is not an indicator of global warming?
Further I wrote that more high temperature records were broken before 1950 than after, and someone, (I think Benson), said that didn’t pass the Alarmist smell test either.
I was looking through previous posts today trying to find your statement regarding Arctic Ice where you wrote……I’m paraphrasing….”Arctic sea ice will disappear this summer and the Northwest Passage will be open to conventional shipping”. You may have even offered a bet…..(wager). The Northwest Passage is still
IMPASSABLE. That isn’t to say that it won’t open in the future, but it won’t be due to where I set my thermostat.
I distinctly remembering posting eye witness accounts from the 1940’s that provided evidence (with photographs) of the Northwest Passage open for conventional shipping.
Look; if you Alarmists simply want people who make more than average money to pay more taxes to float lazy, unproductive malcontents, than just say that, but don’t make up fairy tales about a half of a degree temperature change worldwide or point to some tree hugger’s opinion of disrupted mating habits of the South American Wiggling Tree Frog and claim that the frog can’t have a good time with Mrs. frog because I drive a 8 cylinder pick-up truck.
My data is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center also, (and is current).
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
It clearly shows that the Arctic ice extent is greater than last year when the opposite would be true if the global warming theory were accurate. No caveats, no stipulations. The Arctic ice waxes and wanes….just as it has since the beginning of time. Some years greater, some years not as great.
Let’s review:
Hurricanes have been no more intense or more frequent recently than any other time in recorded history.
The global average temperature is currently where it was in 1980.
The snows of Kilimanjaro are still there.
Droughts and floods occur as they have for time eternal.
Record U.S. snow pack this year.
The Great Lakes water levels are higher than average.
The Arctic sea ice extent is greater than last year and global ice extent is greater than at any time in recorded history.
Sea levels are rising 1-2 millimeters per year as they have since the last ice age.
Ocean water temperatures are stable.
Record snow extent/coverage in the Northern Hemisphere this year.
Record low temperatures recorded worldwide during the winter of 07-08.
Polar bear populations are at record high levels.
All of this as evidence despite CO2 levels rising constantly since the Industrial Revolution.
Gore and Hansen are wrong.
Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/prejudiced_authors_prejudiced_findings.html
“…1940’s that provided evidence (with photographs) of the Northwest Passage open for conventional shipping.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
None of the ships who have made it through on their own can be described as conventional ships. Even the cruise ship you mention was ice fortified.
It was possible last year, though, for the first time on record but I don’t think any ship actually did it. The opening of the passage, North of Banks and Victoria Islands, was a complete surprise, even to us ‘alarmists’. I guess that maybe we need to learn to be more ‘alarmist’ than we actually are.
Brute,
Yes of course its Global its just that some parts of the globe are warming more quickly than others.
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/arctic_climate_impact_science_1.pdf
You’ve probably paid for this report with your tax dollars from running that big V8 of yours so it would be a pity not to read it and get your full money’s worth. :-)
“Northwest Passage open for conventional shipping.” ?
Not until last year. I think even the example of the cruise ship that you gave wouldn’t count as conventional. It was ice fortified. Maybe not fortified well enough though – it sank a couple of years ago in the Antarctic.
Peter Martin,
You are obviously not aware that it is actually quite difficult to define ‘sea-ice coverage‘. It is a bit like asking what is the length of a piece of string.
I put to you that it is only since 1979 that we have had fairly good description and record of it. I think it is NOAA that describe sea-ice as being water that contains at least 15% of visible ice….. Something like that.
Whatever, the ESA intend to launch Cryosat 2 early next year when it is hoped to properly measure both grounded and floating ice for the first time. An earlier attempt in 2005 was a total wipe-out. Its taking about ~3 years to build the new satellite
You might care to further your education with an introduction to the topic @:
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/SEM7WFMVGJE_LPcryosat_0.html
Hi Peter,
Do yourself a favor and check out the facts on Arctic sea ice: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
I erroneously told you the trend was -0.3% per decade (this is the trend per year, not per decade, but the latest year actually shows growth, rather than retreat).
But assuming the long term trend were to continue despite the currently sinking global temperatures, this would mean the Arctic sea ice will disappear in around 300 years, while the Antarctic sea ice keeps growing relentlessly, resulting in a net global increase of sea ice.
Good news! Right?
No need to program in a “positive feedback” from albedo changes due to melting ice, since (on average) it is not melting but growing, which I am sure you will be pleased to learn.
Regards,
Max.
Max,
You’d get a better understanding using a graph that showed area on the vertical axis against time on the horizontal axis. It’s much clearer that having a % on the vertical axis.
Like this:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071001_septembertrend.jpg
It’s always good to add a few words of explanation to your graph too:
Such as in the case of the graph above:
September ice extent from 1979 to 2007 shows an obvious decline. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year.
Once you get your figures right you can understand the NSIDC when then say:
“We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes. The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030.”
That’s just 22 years away not the 300 years that you claim.
Max,
Just on a point of information to improve your eduction:
The sea ice minimum occurs in late August/earlt September. You can’t prove anything with figures for June :-)
Re: 707, Brute
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Incidentally, your link at GlobalWarmingHoax is working.
Another call for feedback on the Admin thread about how you want the NS Continuation to be set up for the future. Only two of you have responded so far.
I’ve got Friday penciled in for sorting this out and by then the number of comments will be around 750. WordPress is groaning under the strain.
It would be good to hear from some of the people who read the page but don’t comment too.
Tony,
RE: #719……How did you know I did that??????? Wow, spooky…..Orwellian. ?
TonyN; No, just WordPress WebStats which tells me where hits are coming from.
I mentioned yesterday (696) a comment on a David Aaronovitch article in the Times. Here an extract on a take on it by Tom Nelson (link) re countries that ratified and countries that did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol:
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “Just on a point of information to improve your eduction:
The sea ice minimum occurs in late August/earlt September. You can’t prove anything with figures for June :-)”
Wrong again, Peter. The NSIDC publishes a monthly record of Arctic sea ice, covering that month for every year since records started and showing the linear trend.
This gives a good picture on a month-by-month basis of what is going on.
You don’t have to wait until August to see what long-term trends are.
Check it out to improve your own education.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
And incidentally the linear rate of decline over the various months measured and reported shows a decline of 3.4% per decade over the entire measurement period, although the cold winter 2007/2008 (i.e. the period truncated from your September 2007 chart) added more ice than normal.
At that long-term rate it will take around 30 decades (or 300 years) for the ice to disappear completely.
A tip: You have to keep up-to-date on things, Peter, and not come with 9-month old charts and statements to prove a point.
Regards,
Max