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.
Brute (7098)
I only have 3 words to say to your link to comments by UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon.
“FIRE THE BUM!”
Max
4 months to secure the redistribution of wealth agenda more like it.
It’s interesting that the reality of the costs of reducing CO2 emissions is finally being understood around the world now with New Zealand and Australia amongst other changing targets and putting conditions in place that will in reality allow them to do nothing. No real questioning of the science yet, something that puzzles me as it is so weak and would surely be the easiest way out.
Just like to offer my congratulations to the aussies out there on having one of the more sane governments in the western world.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/12/australia-rejects-climate-cap-and-trade-bill/#more-9886
Ian Pilmer on the Australian cap and trade program
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2655036.htm
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Energy Leader
God help us……….
Another Ecochondriac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
Again, God help us……………
They seem to be giving Pilmer a hard time after his unleashed article. Trouble is the respondents don’t really understand what he is saying, and certainly if they actually read the book as I am at present they would realise that some of his arguments are quite compelling and well constructed. Of course it’s not the whole story as he is constructing all this by interpreting proxy data, but it makes more sense than the CO2 driven climate nonsense.
Hi Guys
Sorry I have been absent for so long but I have been on holiday then finishing off a few articles/gathering information on global temperatures and sea levels.
Thought you might be interested in an exchange I made with a poster over on WUWT. There was a long piece on BBC news about a rapidly melting glacier. The poster found some photos of it now and six years ago.
I queried these because if we want to make a complaint over bias we need to ensure we are comparing like with like -in this case that the photos were taken around the same time of the year-six years apart.
Interested in the reaction from everyone -especially the Brits in particular. Did anyone see the piece on the ten o clock news last night. There is way more ice this year in complete contradiction to the bbc item
Links follow.
Tonyb
“A few links above to the BBC article on the melting ocurring on the Pine Island glacier in Antartica.
Here is 2003 versus 2009. (open in a new tab or a new window and click back and forth.)
2003.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/ICESHELVES/modis_iceshelf_archive/pinei/images/pinei_2003071_1615_modis_ch02.png
2009.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/ICESHELVES/modis_iceshelf_archive/pinei/images/pinei_2009074_1645_modis_ch02.png
SEcond post
“Pine Island glacier pics come from day 71 (2003) and day 74 (2009), so,
– same time of the year,
– at the very end of Antartic summer when there will be a minimum of sea ice and snow so it is the best satellite pic of the just/(mostly) glacial ice only. (It looks like there is still some sea ice off-shore in the 2009 picture).
Tony:
Definitely worth pursuing. The sound bite from a scientist was, as I remember it, very brief (as if it was the only bit they could use), very cautious and very nuanced; as though he was trying to put the brakes on Shukman’s enthusiasm.
While you are about it you might ask about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8197191.stm
Why no mention that the Mann in question is well known for a very famous graphic, or the NOAA research, published only a few days earlier, showing that the supposed increase in hurricanes can be explained by improved reporting. Did Richard Black not know this when he wrote the piece, and was he just dutifully copying out a press release without doing any of the things that journalists are usually paid to do?
Did I hear someone murmur the word ‘balance’?
TonyN
Another poster came up with a snippet (reproduced under) so it appears the BBC is comparing apples and oranges in talking of thinning whilst showing pictures of the outlet to make their point when that is definitely more icy this year
“The Pine Island glacier:
-mean temperature -30 C
-snow accumulation 1m/year
-thinning(in a location at 55 km upstream of the grounding line):
1991-2001 1m/year
2003-2006 1.5m/year
2006-2007 2.5m/year
2007-2008 3.5m/year
Speed: 2075 m/year
Speed increase:6%/year
Mass loss:46 GT/year.
Source:Scott&Gudmundsson .”
The BBC are presumably referring to this report 55km upstream but showed photos of it melting as it entered the sea contrary to the official data. How a glacier can be melting at these sorts of temperatures seems strange as there is no warmer sea involved here which can melt from underneath.
As for the Mann hurricane report it defies belief the BBC could forget to mention the other report re better reporting. I will let this play out before deciding if to make a double complaint!
tonyb
Tony:
Did you get the name of the scientist? If so it might be worth tracking down an email address for him (not usually difficult) and asking whether the reporting was balanced and accurate. The impression that I got was that he was trying to add a cautious note to what he must have realised would be a hyped report. And this is not the first time that I have seen such a thing in a Shukman report. I can think of two other instances were scientists have shown signs of disgruntlement with his facile generalisations. Such things may please the BBC, but they are unlikely to go down well with colleagues in the scientific community, and this guy is likely to be a competent glaciologist, not an ecologist or a climate scientist.
Just an idea.
TonyN
I didnt get the name as I was too busy shouting at the tv! Good idea though-I will try to track it back.
Tonyb
Tony:
Just watched it again here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8200680.stm
and I’m not so sure of what I said about the scientist (Shepherd) although his use of the term ‘quite surprising’ after ‘unprecedented’ (how far back do the records go?) is, in itself, rather surprising.
In the Greenpeace section of the report it is fatuous to attribute year-to-year variations of ice amounts in channels west of Greenland to receding ice; a subject that I know you are familiar with.
Good luck.
TonyN
The plot thickens. I have attached a link to the BBC report and to the actual scientific paper the BBC is reporting on. The TV piece clearly makes a link to AGW by juxtaposing the Antarctic piece to the Greenland item where someone actually talks of climate warming.
However this is a very clever sleight of hand as I can’t see anywhere in the actual scientific paper any reference at all to the Antarctic situation being the result of climate warming.
This is quite deliberate splicing of two unrelated (but similar) items in order to create a perception that the two events have a common cause.
What do you think. Another Obamagate?
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/3/223/2009/tcd-3-223-2009.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm
tonyb
Tony:
Seems strange certainly, but I notice that the BBC refers to a paper published in GRL. I wonder what revisions were made, if any?
Don’t know if you guys have been keeping up with US domestic news, but Commrade Obama has been catching serious hell here over his Marxist government run health insurance scam.
It seems that they’ve bitten off more than they can chew and the Cap & Tax legislation is (looks like) dying. The year started out with nervous trepidation and now the people have had a eye opening look at what this guy and his Socialist policies will entail and they don’t like it.
Climate Change Measure Should Be Set Aside, U.S. Senators Say
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah3CTKEw4HQc
I just thought I’d drop by to say Hello. And also to make sure that you hadn’t missed this little gem.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019457.php
Apparently the Investors Business Daily are of the opinion (I bet they are climate sceptics too !) that:
“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”
There is much mirth over this on the UK blogosphere. Especially as Prof Hawkins has announced that it is the “Marxist” NHS that has kept him alive all these years.
I know the American “Liberal Left” are often criticised for treating the American Conservatives are intellectually challenged. But do they, the Conservatives, have to make it so easy for them?
I don’t think it is politically correct to tell “Irish Jokes” in the UK, or ‘Polish Jokes’ in the USA, any more. But they could well be rehashed into American Republican Jokes if you guys in the USA don’t pull your socks up.
TonyN: Welcome Peter! But that doesn’t mean that the blog rules don’t apply. This isn’t the place to discus health reform.
I gather that James Delingpole (who wrote the Spectator article) and Jonathan Porritt are scheduled to be on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Any Questions’ next week. Should be interesting…
James:
I certinly won’t miss that one, but I wonder whether Auntie, in her wisdom, will allow a question about AGW or anything that might lead to discussion of that subject?
The post reproduced below (together with the ones I made above-probably confirms that the BBC report was not only deliberately misleading in juxtaposing two reports on global warming, but that the reporter would have known the history of the Antarctic glacier acceleration
“Pine Island glacier has experienced sudden accelerations toward the sea twice in the past few decades. Topography of the bedrock around the volcano indicates that meltwater would flow off the mountain’s flanks and beneath the glacier, lubricating its base and speeding up the movement of the ice.”
http://www.volcanolive.com/hudson2.html
Tonyb
Interesting posts re the BBC, and I’m intrigued by the corporation’s stance towards AGW, these days. On the one hand there’s the David Shukman Pine Island/Greenland article and Richard Black’s “‘Many hurricanes’ in modern times”, which are basically the sort of thing we’ve become used to, over the years. On the other, there are instances where individual presenters have asked awkward questions and displayed something resembling a sceptical attitude. Kirsty Wark’s questioning of Hilary Benn over the Met Office’s UKCP09 methodology back in June, comes to mind. More recently, Dr Gerd Leipold, the outgoing Executive Director of Greenpeace had quite an uncomfortable time being interviewed by Stephen Sackur on BBC’s HARDtalk.
Here’s the link to that interview on BBC iPlayer (bearing in mind not everyone will be able to see this, and it might not be available for very long.) Sackur visited Greenland earlier, and mentions a Greenpeace press release from July that states “as permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the arctic as early as 2030”, calling it misleading and alarmist. Sackur: “…the ice sheet, from which I have just come, is 1.6 million square kilometres, it is 3 kilometres thick in the middle, it has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. It has survived previous warming periods much warmer than we see today or will see tomorrow. There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear.”
Later, he says: “If you exaggerate, if you use alarmism, then the public, over time, is going to get sceptical.”
Leipold says: “What we have said, by and large, over the last 20 years, I think, was wise, and was rational and reasonable too. And we were confronted with a world that, unfortunately, only recently has woken up to it. And we, as a pressure group, have to emotionalise issues, we’re not ashamed of emotionalising issues, I think it’s a fact.”
Sackur’s response: “You call it emotionalising, others would call it scare tactics.”
I suppose neither of the above examples (Kirsty Wark, Stephen Sackur) demonstrate an actual scepticism towards AGW, but to my mind they do show that not everyone at the BBC is willing to always give the government and NGOs an easy ride on the subject.
Tony,
I’ll probably be accused of going off topic. I s there any other thread we can use for this topic. I’ve just about run out of things to say on AGW and its a waste of time trying to explain the science to people like Max.
Unless he moves from his position that the forcing constant is different for solar and GHG effects, or at least can justify why he himself thinks they are different then I’ve nothing else to say on the topic.
Brute,
It is interesting that you have labelled President Obama’s health reforms as ‘Marxist’. [Snip:Sorry Peter, see my note on your #7117].
TonyB:
Even if the BBC crew didn’t know about that, and one might wonder if Shukman has any background knowlege of the stories he reports on, the scientist who they inrerviewed (Shepherd) must certainly have known. I still think that it would be worth contacting him to ask how much of the inreview they filmed was used in the programme, whether he said anything about volcanism in the area of Pine Island that was not used, and whether he considers the report as broadcast to be accurate.
Re: Alex, #7121
I think that Leipold will be a very hard act to follow. His command of the brief is impressive and very well polished, which must make it difficult for a reporter who is not a specialist to nail the flaws in his arguments.
It would almost be worth transcribing the interview to pinpoint precisely where these are, particularly the sections concerning the failure of the Greens in the Euro Elections, misleading claims about the science (and GP’s funding of science), the ambivalent attitude to the democratic progress and the obvious restrictions that their policies (if ever implemented) would place on economic growth. The latter is a particularly hot potato given the present state of the world economy.
If Sackur failed to really land a punch, he can hardly be blamed in the face of such an accomplished performer. Only when the BBC have specialists who are prepared to study the sceptical arguments in as much detail as the orthodox dogma will there be any chance of opening a proper debate in their coverage of AGW, and I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
But this interview is a very interesting and revealing development nonetheless.
Hi Peter,
Welcome back!
You say to Tony (7122), “its a waste of time trying to explain the science to people like Max”.
Yes. You have done a poor job of explaining “the science” (as you call it).
You have been unable to provide empirical scientific data to support your premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused largely by human emissions of CO2. Both Robin and I have repeatedly asked you to provide this.
If you want to “explain the science”, Peter, then you have to use the scientific method to do so.
This requires empirical scientific data to support the theories, hypotheses, postulations, suggestions, which lie behind your premise.
Model study outputs won’t do here, Peter, as they are not “empirical scientific data”, as they are only as good as the assumptions fed into the computers. Media press releases, political reports or “sales pitches” by IPCC will also not do.
I am still waiting for you to “explain the science”.
To your next point: “Unless he moves from his position that the forcing constant is different for solar and GHG effects, or at least can justify why he himself thinks they are different then I’ve nothing else to say on the topic.”
Sorry, Peter that is not my position.
I have explained this to you several times on this thread, but you appear to have difficulty grasping it, so I will try once again.
Empirical observations show that there was a major recovery in temperature following a period of very low solar activity, called the Maunder Minimum. Based on these data, solar scientists have estimated that around half of the observed 20th century warming can be attributed to changes in solar activity.
This physically observed recovery can only be partially explained by the increase in direct solar irradiance, yet there is no question that it did, in fact, occur. So there must be another mechanism other than simply direct solar irradiance by which changes in solar activity result in temperature changes on our planet. IPCC has missed this point entirely, basing its estimate of solar forcing entirely on measured changes in direct solar irradiance. There have been theories proposed, which IPCC has chosen to ignore.
In a study for which I have already provided the link, Georgieva et al. state: “We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity, which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.”
In another study for which you have also gotten the link, Shaviv and Veizer examine the suggestion that CO2 was the primary driver of Phanerozoic climate by comparing the warming to changes in the cosmic ray flux (CRF) and introducing a seawater pH correction to the temperature reconstruction. This study shows that variations in the CRF can explain 70% of the changes in temperature, while CO2 plays only a secondary role.
The authors write: “We only would like to point out that these publications implicitly assume that the various radiative forcings at play do not include an amplifier to solar activity. However, a large body of empirical evidence, published mostly subsequent to the IPCC summary (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Neff et al., 2001; Solanki, 2002; Rind, 2002; Foukal, 2002; Usoskin et al., 2003) suggests that such an amplifier exists, and it is most likely in the form of solar modulation of the cosmic ray flux (CRF) (e.g., Tinsley and Deen, 1991; Svensmark, 1998, 2000; Marsh and Svensmark, 2000, 2003; Palle Bago and Butler, 2000; Egorova et al., 2000). Note that Royer et al. do not dispute the existence of the CRF/temperature correlation of Shaviv and Veizer (2003), only its role relative to that of CO2. The CRF effect should therefore be incorporated as a complementary factor into the existing climate models.”
Relating this to 20th century warming, the authors write: “Once this solar amplification is included, the paleoclimate data is consistent with a solar (direct and indirect) contribution of 0.32 ± 0.11 °C toward global warming over the past century. While these results imply different conclusions than the IPCC scenarios, they are not necessarily contradictory given the differences in basic assumptions.”
As NASA has reported, measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s-the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
Quoting Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, and Arik Posner, NASA’s Ulysses Program Scientist in Washington DC, the NASA report states:
‘”The solar wind isn’t inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to,” says McComas. “That means less shielding against cosmic rays.”
In addition to weakened solar wind, “Ulysses also finds that the sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s,” says Posner. “This reduces natural shielding even more.”
Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%.
These extra particles pose no threat to people on Earth’s surface. Our thick atmosphere and planetary magnetic field provide additional layers of protection that keep us safe.
But any extra cosmic rays can have consequences. If the trend continues, astronauts on the Moon or en route to Mars would get a higher dose of space radiation. Robotic space probes and satellites in high Earth orbit face an increased risk of instrument malfunctions and reboots due to cosmic ray strikes. Also, there are controversial studies linking cosmic ray fluxes to cloudiness and climate change on Earth. That link may be tested in the years ahead.’
Yes, indeed. That link will be tested (in the CLOUD study at CERN in Geneva). This may help explain why the observed empirical impact of the sun on our climate is much greater than that currently attributable to direct solar irradiation alone.
So the issue is not “that the forcing constant is different for solar and GHG effects”, as you incorrectly state. I do not think that they are different.
It is simply that the currently measured direct solar irradiance is only one of several possible mechanisms by which the sun has impact on our climate. And, as a result, your statement is incorrect that I have taken the “position that the forcing constant is different for solar and GHG effects”.
I truly hope you can understand this now.
Max