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.
Peter #7291
Gosh Peter, thanks for admitting I made a ‘sensible’ comment thereby inferring that most of mine aren’t. As I often post material produced by the many scientific bodies you state are dispensing sound advice, perhaps you can confirm which of their pronouncements you disagree with?
* That sea level data derives from three North European tide gauges in which data has been heavily interpolated back to 1700?
* That sea levels in Uk need to increase immediately by 650% and remain at that increased rate for the next ninety years to meet the 1 metre rise predicted by Defra, and on which UK govt efforts are based?
* That sea surface temperatures are based on an artefact to create data where none largely exists back to 1850?
* Where global surface temperatures are calculated on 20 stations back to 1850 and are wildly inconsistent in numbers and location ever since?
* That glacial melt is a very poorly understood process?
* That arctic ice levels vary considerably and extensive melt is well documented for the 1920-1940 and 1815-1860 period, and the lack of Ice in Viking times is very well evidenced?
Which of these statements are not sensible Peter, so I can take it up with the scientific bodies involved?
Whilst I await your answers on this I will reply to your question.
I do not think there are any ‘deniers’ who post regularly on this blog. I think WUWT has acquired a few though following the publicity surrounding their elevation to science weblog of the year.
That is not to say that some on this blog are not more right wing than others but they are perfectly rational.
Tonyb
Max 7295
I think I would add a number of points.
* Those who point to the pioneering work of Arrhenius on co2 related temperatures, seldom mention he then recognised he had made some fundamental mistakes in his calculations and subsequently downgraded his estimate, and even these greatly overestimated sensitivity of temperature according to modern day calculations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/6995/
* GS Callendar took a very small number of ‘selected’ global temperature readings, took Arrhenius’ work at face value, and cherry picked 19th century co2 readings to prove his 1938 co2 hypothesis. This was comprehensively proven incorrect at the time by many experts including Giles Slocum.
* Callendar later had serious doubts about his own work and conceded he was wrong.
* Callendar influenced Charles Keeling who on starting his own co2 readings had no knowledge at all of climate science, nor of measuring co2, yet designed his own machine. He was persuaded by Callendar to support his 1938 co2 theory and ignore the tens of thousands of higher co2 readings made over the previous 120 years by highly competent scientists.
* Much of the IPCC base material is founded on computer models and extrapolated historic data. This includes sea levels, sea temperatures, global temperatures, arctic ice levels. Without highly imaginative and novel interpolation there are no reliable historic global records from which modern values can be parsed to fractions of a degree.
* It has been warmer many times in our past without the benefit of added co2.
Hope you can add these in.
Also I would be interested in your perspective to my #7263. I had hoped that Peter would be able to tell me why he implicitly believes Arrhenius-who was proven wrong with his co2 theory-yet disbelieves the hundreds of competent scientists who measured co2 over a period of 120 years. Why do you think he believes one person over the many?
tonyb
TonyB
Thanks for your input. You are 100% right (7302, including comments 7263).
Your comments just add to the shakiness of the current AGW premise, in that it is based on an inherently questionable foundation to start off with.
This is all probably too complicated for the average AGW-believer to follow or accept (like the creationist, who knows in his heart that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, because it is so written).
I would include Peter here, unless he specifically indicates to you that he that he is aware of and understands the inherent weaknesses of the “pre-industrial” CO2 value as assumed by IPCC and the data that are being used by IPCC to establish baseline values on sea levels, sea temperatures, global temperatures and arctic ice levels, as you pointed out (which I doubt he will do, because “it is so written”).
Another point I would add. It is strange that IPCC has arbitrarily “cherry-picked” the “pre-industrial” baseline date as 1750, a period following several active solar cycles rather than either 1700 or 1800, which were both much colder than 1750 and more “typical” of pre-industrial temperatures (due to the influence of the sun), admittedly with very sparse data, as you have pointed out.
You have to admit that these guys are slick, and they know how to posit their premise for maximum effect.
Regards,
Max
Further to my 7212 above, my most recent post on Oz-Victorian bushfires/grassfires in early February;
We did lunch last Sunday up at the Kinglake hotel, which inexplicably together with a small bunch of other businesses survived on one side of the main road through that town. ‘twas good! This was the township which suffered the greatest human losses, from the largest fire complex that progressed modestly for a few days before the winds came.
Here are some photos, which are very different to those earlier. The last three are on dry rocky ground where only the tougher trees abound and with little understorey. Different trees, and different, serious fire, this time!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/3873269407_dcec218851_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3459/3873269419_04661e6248_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/3873269427_ee683f90ee_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/3873269431_afc1a972af_o.jpg
JamesP,
Yes you are correct the warming due to the natural GHE is indeed 33 degC. This is also 33 degK as the incremental change is the same on both scales.
If you calculate the adiabatic lapse rate you will get a figure of 9.8degK/1000 as you suggest. This is the dry figure. If the moisture content is high the figure reduces.
If the GHE increased for any reason, say it went to 34 degC the lapse rates would not be much changed. It would change slightly due to increased almospheric water vapour.
Max,
“Please state specifically which of my points are wrong and what evidence you can provide that this is the case.”
This sounds rather boring. Haven’t we said enough on all this. I’m more interested in the psychology of denial which is where the real key to understanding you guys lies.
There was an interesting program on TV last night about the 7/7 bombings in London. It seems to me that the facts of the case have been well established but apparently not well enough for many people. Apparently we’ve all been ‘hoaxed’. Its a ‘con-trick’. We’re being told to wake up and use our common sense. There is no ‘proof’ that 4 suicide bombers were responsible. We are told that ‘they are all in on it’.
Stop it Pete……..you’re embarassing yourself. I’m embarassed for you.
Get back on track.
Peter,
Great attempted waffle (moving from “climate science” to psychology – wow!).
As Brute advises, get back on track.
You made an assertion that my beliefs on AGW are “almost totally wrong”.
So now, get specific and tell me which belief is wrong for what reason, or admit that your statement itself was “totally wrong”.
The ball is in your court, Peter.
Max
This seems like money well spent…………
Royal Society wants man-made volcanoes to fight climate change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/31/royal-society-wants-man-made-volcanoes-to-fight-climat-change/
Man Made Volcano Gone Wrong…………
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/06/sidoarjos_manmade_mud_volcano.html
“Die aktuelle globale Wärmeperiode endet”
http://www.umad.de/infos/downloads/Vortragsmanuskript.pdf
Max,
You’ve not answered my question about your football team and referees. It doesn’t have to be football, of course, it could be St Bernard dog racing or skiing. The Swiss are supposed to be pretty good at that. How do you react when the referee gives you what you might consider to be an unfair decision?
Brute,
Thank you for your concern. However, I think that I might live with your disaproval quite well for a little while longer yet.
What about you? How good are you at accepting a harsh decision?
Let me introduce John P. Reisman who is founder of an alarmist website, “The OSS Foundation”
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths
In my view, this is one of the most awfully dishonest websites that I know of. He just pontificates without inviting debate.
Here’s his mug-shot, (remember it for some other stuff to follow):
http://www.ossfoundation.us/about/john-reisman/image_mini
Here’s a brief extract from “about me”
John worked at the University of the World [?] with Dr. James Grier Miller, Author of Living Systems Theory and Dr. Martin Chamberlain, doing research in educational systems. While at the university, he wrote a simplified systems theory for understanding general systems operation and dynamics, and developed a methodology to help understand the health of a given system…”
He has been very active over at Real Climate, as Max may well attest, and he is fond of “assassinating” various scientists that hold a view contrary to his own.
Oh well, here is some more about him:
He is apparently the founder of a political party in the USA
http://www.uscentrist.org/about/people/john-p-reisman
This is by way of introduction to the individual…. And his activities at RC…. More to follow.
If the GHE increased for any reason, say it went to 34 degC..
Peter – I see you are still side-stepping my question about the contribution of CO2. I think you know that water vapour is responsible for most of the GHE, which itself is only a small part of the overall warming effect, but I’d still like to know how much of that is caused by CO2.
According to Hansen, Gore, the IPCC (and presumably, you) CO2 is the driver of the whole process, although evidence for this seems to be conspicuous by its absence.
While at the university, he wrote a simplified systems theory for understanding general systems operation and dynamics, and developed a methodology to help understand the health of a given system…
Impressive. Is it available in English?
Peter,
Your “favorite football team” diversion is both OT and a waffle to avoid getting specific on your statement that my beliefs on AGW (as expressed to you in some detail) are “almost totally wrong” (as you so eloquently put it).
Get specific, Peter, or admit that your statement itself is wrong.
Attempted sidetracks won’t do, Peter.
Come with some specifics (if you have any).
Max
Yep.
This Reisman cat is a rather abrasive type whose opinion of his own intelligence greatly exceeds his intelligence, itself. He talks in computer programmer riddles, and attempts to classify all those who have a different opinion of things than his own personal opinion as mentally constrained. A rather unpleasant bag of hot air.
Just my assessment.
Max
Brute
Thanks for link to Dr. Borchert’s paper “end of global warming”.
This guy has done an amazing amount of research to show how the sun has influenced our recent climate, and presented it very well with a lot of informative graphs.
I can only comment: “Ausgezeichnet!”
Too bad it is in German. It would be good educational reading for Peter.
Regards,
Max
JamesP,
It is a good question, but not such an easy one to answer, of how much of the GHE is caused by CO2 and how much by water vapour.
It is easy enough to calculate what would happen if all CO2 were removed and all other GHGs remained the same. The GHE is 9% less. However when the GHE becomes less, the air becomes colder. Colder air holds less water vapour. So this (all other GHGs remaining the same) isn’t a realistic assumption. If all other GHGs were removed and CO2 stayed the same the GHE would be just 25% of what it is now. So you could argue that its somewhere in between.
If you happen to believe Ian Plimer you could read what he has to say on the subject on page 366 of his book “Heaven and Earth”
“The Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15 degC. If the atmosphere had no CO2, far more heat would be lost from Earth and the average surface temperature would be -3 degC.”
This is a somewhat surprising thing for Ian Plimer to say. He’s saying that 18 degC of the 33 deg C of the GHE is caused by CO2. That is 54.5%.
I personally wouldn’t have put it that high. For reasons I won’t go into here I would have said about 10degC for all GHGs or about 8-9 degC for CO2 alone. Max reckons its about 6 degC but hasn’t managed to come up with a convincing reference. To be honest, I haven’t either, and I would like to be able to know the answer to this “what if” question.
But it is a difficult one. It depends on how the feedbacks operate and that is a major area of uncertainty.
However, whatever the true figure: 6 degC, 9 degC or Ian Plimer’s 18degC; it isn’t that hard to believe that doubling the CO2 level will produce an increase in temperature of 3 degC. In fact it sounds like it might be somewhat of an underestimate.
Max and Brute,
So, you can’t give me an answer on how you generally tend to react to the Referee’s or Umpire’s tough decision?
I’d have said that you would be quite unlike like, say, a Bjorn Borg who expressed hardly any emotion whatever, and just got on with the next point. I’d say you’d be more the John McEnroe types. What would you say if you had an opportunity to directly harangue the umpires of the IPCC? Would it be something like?
“Anthropogenic Global Warming? Man,you-cannot-be-serious! Look I’m wearing a sweater and it’s …er…. January. And its definitely colder than it was in January 1998. It’s all to do with the sun anyway. And if it isn’t, it’s a good thing that is warming, but it isn’t. Have you guys never heard of the Urban Heat Island effect? Man, you-just-cannot-be-serious!!! “
Peter
Thanks for latest “referee” waffle addressed at Brute and me.
Of course I would stay cool and hope the next close call goes my way.
If I were the IPCC, I might even remind the referee that I am indirectly involved in whether or not he receives a salary, and that I would appreciate due consideration of this hard, cold fact when he makes his next call.
But this is all a meaningless sidetrack, Peter.
Get back on topic, Peter, and tell me why you think my detailed belifs on AGW (as I posted them to you) are “almost totally wrong”, as you put it.
If you are unable to do this, then it is clear that your comment was “totally wrong”, so the ball is in your court (as said earlier).
Max
Max,
You say ” I might even remind the referee [The IPCC] that I am indirectly involved in whether or not he receives a salary, and that I would appreciate due consideration of this hard, cold fact when he makes his next call.”
You’d be prepared to apply economic pressure, if you were given the opportunity to do so, to groups like the IPCC, and also presumably NASA, NOAA and the NSIDC, to ensure that they gave you a favourable call?
You’d rather have them tell you what they think you want to hear rather than what they would consider to be their genuine opinion?
It is easy enough to calculate what would happen if all CO2 were removed and all other GHGs remained the same. The GHE is 9% less.
Of 33 degC, or of the GHE’s contribution to it?
Your reference to Ian Plimer: “He’s saying that 18 degC of the 33 degC of the GHE is caused by CO2” implies that you think the GHE is responsible for all of it, but that doesn’t fit with your suggestion of: “about 10degC for all GHGs or about 8-9 degC for CO2 alone.”
Perhaps you could expand? If it is ‘easy enough to calculate’ CO2’s contribution, please show how, then we can all have a go.
A rather unpleasant bag of hot air.
That rather fits with his appearance, which reminds me of nothing so much as a used-car salesman. I notice (on his website) that he fails to do Professor Plimer the courtesy of spelling his name right…
In case you thought the recent post from Brute was a spoof
“…the Royal Society wants man-made volcanoes to fight climate change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/31/royal-society-wants-man-made-volcanoes-to-fight-climat-change/
***
You will be relieved to hear that this one is the proper Royal Society version.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2023&Itemid=59
tonyb
I retaliate one hundredfold with overwhelming might and vigor…….eradicating all opposition mercilessly until there is nothing left except a greasy spot.
Then I go after the family members…………sort of the Genghis Khan “subtle approach” don’t you think?.
How bout you Pete?
Stomp your feet and whine?