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.
BTW, Peter, it would be interesting if 2009 were to be warmer than 2008 because (as you suggest) of El Nino – which is, er, a natural cycle. Then we have Ms Pope at last week’s UN “World Climate Conference” saying that recent Arctic melt was “partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming”. Seems natural cycles may be rather important after all.
Talking of the Arctic, it appears that last year’s recovery of Arctic ice has continued this year. You’ll remember that Al Gore has described Arctic ice as “the canary in the coal mine” whose death will be an advance warning of global warming. Well, the canary seems to be singing quite lustily. On WUWT, Roy Spencer said that “If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century.” He was, of course, joking … wasn’t he?
Robin
You will be interested to learn that 2009 was the 91st warmest summer in the CET records and was beateh by many from the Little Ice Age.
Winters have generally got warmer since the little Ice age(who would have thought that)rather than summers become warmer, with a resultant impact on mean average temperatures.
Tonyb
Robin, everyone, my knowledge of computer models (climate or otherwise) is minimal, but I’ve encountered plenty of analysis and comment about these on the web, appearing to focus mainly on the shortcomings of the models used in risk management.
In the field of climate science (if the recent New Scientist article is an indication) we are seeing some rather cautious stirrings of unease about the efficacy of climate models in the shorter term of a few decades (but not the longer term of a few more decades, which as a layman – and probably displaying my utter ignorance here – I still find hard to understand. If there were errors or unconsidered factors, no matter how small, I’d have thought these would breed and multiply like mice in an abandoned grain store, the longer the time span.) However, in the world of finance, as we know, (apologies for re-hashing this, if it has already done to death on this blog) there has been much criticism of the Wall Street computer models which failed to prevent the collapse of Lehman Brothers, et al.
Here’s a 2008 article by Saul Hansell I found on the New York Times blog:
“I called some old timers in the risk-management world to see what went wrong.
I fully expected them to tell me that the problem was that the alarms were blaring and red lights were flashing on the risk machines and greedy Wall Street bosses ignored the warnings to keep the profits flowing.
Ultimately, the people who ran the firms must take responsibility, but it wasn’t quite that simple.
In fact, most Wall Street computer models radically underestimated the risk of the complex mortgage securities, they said. That is partly because the level of financial distress is “the equivalent of the 100-year flood,” in the words of Leslie Rahl, the president of Capital Market Risk Advisors, a consulting firm.
But she and others say there is more to it: The people who ran the financial firms chose to program their risk-management systems with overly optimistic assumptions and to feed them oversimplified data. This kept them from sounding the alarm early enough.”
I wonder if it will eventually be appropriate to re-write that last sentence, from a climate modelling perspective (?) “The people who ran the climate models chose to program their systems with overly pessimistic assumptions and to feed them oversimplified data. This caused them to sound the alarm too early.”
I also like comment No.7 from “joe”: “all models are wrong, some are useful.”
Lastly, to counteract all this newfound caution and level-headedness, here’s a bit of good old-fashioned fire and brimstone to rouse the climate faithful, which I hope will entertain (if it doesn’t infuriate.)
Robin,
You don’t seem to have grasped this whenever I have explained it to you previously, so I do feel that I’m wasting my time trying, but, nevertheless, I’ll give it one more go.
Climate models are of the Earth, not the Sun. The sun does of course does have an effect too. It doesn’t make any sense to say that climatic influences must be either natural or anthropogenic. It can be both. The solar cycle modulates the earth’s climate at about +/- 0.1 degC per 11-13 years. This is about the same rate as anthropogenic warming which occurs in a linear manner. So, instead of the modulation being up and down from a long term average, it is up and down relative to a rising temperature.
Therefore it appears that global warming jumps at times and is flat at others.
The sun is at its quietest for over 80 years. It would be good if we could model the Sun too, but that is not possible. Solar cycle 24 was predicted to have picked up by now, but it hasn’t, and that has taken everyone by surprise. So it should be no surprise, either, that temperatures are in their flat phase. Does this mean we can forget about global warming? Total idiots would say yes. However, solar cycle 24 can kick off at any time soon and we’ll see another jump in temperatures. Even if it doesn’t, and in the unlikely event the Sun stays quiet for ever, which will not please the world’s radio amateurs, the respite will, at the very most, be equivalent to a decade’s worth of human CO2 emissions.
Alex Cull, I enjoyed your 7428, particularly:
I also like comment No.7 from “joe”: “all models are wrong, some are useful.”
Well yes, indeed, feed-in some assumptions (estimates/guesses/adjustments) that support whatever hypothesis is wanted to be “proved”, and, the outcome is “useful” for the author.
On the other hand, the following abysmal nonsense did not entertain me:
Lastly, to counteract all this newfound caution and level-headedness, here’s a bit of good old-fashioned fire and brimstone to rouse the climate faithful, which I hope will entertain (if it doesn’t infuriate.)
Nicely timed for Copenhagen of course, but maybe the growing swell of reason in some parts of the media may question it?
Re “abysmal nonsense”, Alex and Bob, you may like this from the Guardian’s environment editor:
The full article’s here.
Further my 7430 expressing my VERY low opinion of mainstream media, Anthony Watts has also just berated “USA 60 minutes” concerning Californian brushfires (bushfires):
More rubbish from 60 Minutes tonight. “The Age of Megafires” (caused by AGW)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/06/more-rubbish-from-60-minutes-tonight-the-age-of-megafires/#comment-183778
However, here is some shocking forgotten (?) pre AGW American history that came out in the WUWT comments:
Peshtigo Fire (Wikipedia):
“…The October 8, 1871 Peshtigo Fire in Peshtigo, Wisconsin, is the conflagration that caused the most deaths by fire in United States history.[1] Having occurred on the same day as the more infamous Great Chicago Fire, the Peshtigo Fire is mostly forgotten. On the same day as the Peshtigo and Chicago fires, the cities of Holland, and Manistee, Michigan, across Lake Michigan, also burned, and the same fate befell Port Huron at the southern end of Lake Huron…
Firestorm:
On the day of the fire, a cold front moved in from the west, bringing strong winds that fanned smaller fires and escalated them to massive proportions.[2] By the time it was over, 1,875 square miles (4,850 km² or 1.2 million acres) of forest had been consumed, an area approximately twice the size of the state of Rhode Island. Some sources list 1.5 million acres (6,000 km²) burned. Twelve communities were destroyed. An accurate death toll has never been determined since local population records were destroyed in the fire. Between 1,200 and 2,500 people are thought to have lost their lives. The 1873 Report to the Wisconsin Legislature listed 1182 names of deceased or missing residents. Peshtigo had an estimated 1,700 residents before the fire. More than 350 bodies were buried in a mass grave,[3] primarily because so many had died that no one remained alive who could identify many of them.
The fire was so intense it jumped several miles over the waters of Green Bay and burned parts of the Door Peninsula, as well as jumping the Peshtigo River itself to burn on both sides of the inlet town. Surviving witnesses reported that the firestorm generated a tornado that threw rail cars and houses into the air. Many of the survivors of the firestorm escaped the flames by immersing themselves in the Peshtigo River, wells, or other nearby bodies of water. Some drowned or boiled alive while doing so…”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notice the above all happened in one day…. Sounds familiar; like a weather front coming through? (See my earlier comments)
So, it would seem that both USA and Oz have a history of fires diminishing in size by an order of magnitude since around 1850. (although there seems to have been a shift in the most-fire-prone regions in USA from the Midwest/East to California?).
In terms of size, the more recent fires are relatively modest, but assets and human immersion density in risk areas has greatly increased. Population growth increases the risk since most fires are ignited by a variety of human accidents and arson. (both countries have had huge growth from immigration)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The trumpeting by the media and some blogo-alarmists that bushfires etc are increasing because of AGW is clearly an utterly simplistic nonsense!
Lucy Skywalker has put together on one page a set of temperature records from around the Arctic Ocean – going back to 1900 or earlier, using the excellent data provided by the late great John Daly. As she says, “reading thermometers is the most basic evidence you can get; moreover it is courtesy of NASA GISS and CRU”. Note: a lot of short term variation but barely any temperature change anywhere in the long term. Great stuff.
Robin, Reur 7431;
Groan…. I extract this tintinnabulation from your Guardian link:
How exquisite!
Didn’t the oracle James Hansen declare a year or more ago some words to the effect: It is no longer necessary to exaggerate on AGW. We can now concentrate on, and declare the actual science. Something like that?
Hey; hang-on a minute, has James (Jim) gone quiet lately?
Am I missing something?
James P, you seem to have an ability to interpret gobbledegook.
In my 7431, I quoted, from the Guardian as linked to by Robin:
Do you have time to translate this quote, such that mere mortals might understand what it means?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robin Reur 7433;
That’s all a tad inconvenient for the alarmists; What!
Bob – you’re too kind! I see two possible interpretations:
1) We believe this AGW stuff, and time is running out to do something about it, or
2) We know this AGW stuff is tosh, and time is running out to nail down our policies for more control and tax revenue before we get rumbled.
Not sure which, but it’s hard to see much middle ground…
Bob/James: re gobblegook interpretation (7435), I ran an agency in the UK Cabinet Office once so may be able to help. Try this:
That Robin Guenier? Respect!
With your local knowledge, can you say if such ‘spokesmen’ would be likely to believe the official line on AGW? I find it hard to believe that they would, but equally improbable that they would be cynical enough to support it they didn’t. OTOH, I do remember Sir Humphrey…
[A civil service ‘mandarin’ in the 80’s BBC TV satire ‘Yes Minister’.]
James: it’s not a spokesman’s job to believe or disbelieve things – but (whatever their private view) to present their political master’s position as best they can. However, when as in this case “the best they can” comes out as a muddle, I suspect they are, shall we say?, uncertain about the sense of it.
Peter
You opined to Robin:
The underlying premise here, Peter, is that CO2 is a major factor in determining our planet’s climate, and that, by extension, AGW is a serious threat.
Since CO2 has only been a minor factor over the entire time period covering the modern temperature record, it seems unlikely that it will suddenly become a more important factor.
The entire premise of serious AGW from CO2 is based on model projections, rather than observed empirical data. But let’s assume that Arrhenius (once he got his numbers straightened out), Stefan and Boltzmann plus Myre et al. (IPCC) got their CO2 / temperature relation right. We then have an expected 2xCO2 GH warming of around 1C.
All the carbon contained in all the world’ optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves would get us to an atmospheric CO2 level of around 1,000 ppmv maximum, as I showed you earlier.
Using the GH relation, this means that some day in the future (100 years, 150 years from now, when we run out of fossil fuels?) our planet will have been warmed by around 1.4°C higher than today.
This is really no big deal, Peter.
The impact of the sun and other factors will undoubtedly be much greater than this, based on our planet’s past climate history.
On top of that, colder periods in human history have almost always been accompanied by far greater challenges and hazards to human society and welfare than warmer periods.
So it is not true that those who say “we can forget about global warming” (as a potential threat to our planet) are “total idiots”.
They may just be rational observers of the facts, and the ones who are hysterically crying “Wolf!” because of AGW are the “total idiots”.
Have you ever thought about it that way?
Max.
Re Lucy Skywalker’s Arctic temperature records (my 7433), I should – in fairness – point out that one commentator has accused her of cherry picking. After all, she uses only stations with long records, that haven’t moved and are not located in UHIs. Typical denier!
Max,
Do you have any scientific references to support these assertions?
“The entire premise of serious AGW from CO2 is based on model projections, rather than observed empirical data. But let’s assume that Arrhenius (once he got his numbers straightened out), Stefan and Boltzmann plus Myre et al. (IPCC) got their CO2 / temperature relation right. We then have an expected 2xCO2 GH warming of around 1C.
All the carbon contained in all the world’ optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves would get us to an atmospheric CO2 level of around 1,000 ppmv maximum, as I showed you earlier.”
Coming back to cryogenic stuff; here again as introduction to the following images, is an attempted comment I made over at RC that was deleted after two days in moderation:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John P. Reisman, in your 163 you linked to a recent report [from NASA Earth Observatory]:
“…Accelerated thinning of the Pine Island Glacier represents perhaps the greatest imbalance in the cryosphere today, and yet we would not have known about it if it weren’t for a succession of satellite instruments …”
Has the work of the BAS, [British Antarctic Survey] published January 2008 been forgotten maybe?
“…the volcano erupted about 2,300 years ago yet remains active… …This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet,” Vaughan said. “The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades…”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here we see some interesting bathymetry and tectonic implications in alignment and comparative geology of the Antarctic Peninsular and that of Patagonia. Notice the deep subduction to the right of six volcanoes at the top right of the image!
http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcanoes/region19/19_map.png
Large red triangles show volcanoes with known or inferred Holocene eruptions; small red triangles mark volcanoes with possible, but uncertain Holocene eruptions or Pleistocene volcanoes with major thermal activity. Yellow triangles distinguish volcanoes of other regions.
From looking at this complex region, it seems reasonable to anticipate strong tides, which are a powerful cause of mechanical hinging failure of ice shelves. Funny how the iconic Larson ice-shelf failures are apparently in an area of significant tides:
http://www.esr.org/antarctic/m2_001.jpg
(there is more on this…. This is a quickie)
AND….. As has been seen in the earlier discussion on the Jakobshavn glacier, there has been no correlation between its ~150-year retreat and temperature, and, in that respect, there is great paradox in the NSIDC data. The predominant cause of retreat appears to be in the varying lead in the terrain and gravitational effects etc over a distance of some 50 km. (per NSIDC).
Here is an interesting image of topography of Antarctica, from which it can be seen that in the areas of reported greatest glacier/ice-shelf loss, the land/ice gradients are relatively severe.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/5000/5081/ICESat_AntElevation.jpg
That is keeping it brief
Interesting paper here by David Whitehouse (whose New Statesman paper was the trigger for this thread). His conclusion:
Nice to see that David Whitehouse is still batting (to preserve the cricketing theme). It does seem that the more doubts are cast on AGW, the more hysteria is generated by its supporters. Today, the news in the UK is of a 90% reduction in carbon emission by 2050, ostensibly to keep air transport aloft!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8243922.stm
I think I now know how Tom Lehrer felt when he abandoned satire…
Max,
A few posts ago, one of your faithful companions barked and bared his teeth at me, when I attacked his master. He said that I was willfully misrepresenting your opinions.
If you remember, I had taken you to mean with your statement about ‘salaries’ and ‘hard cold facts’, that you were advocating applying some financial pressure to scientists and that you would rather they gave you a story you wanted to hear, rather than a genuine opinion. Maybe Fido was correct, and I’d misunderstood what you were saying. I did ask for some clarification on the point.
Have I missed your posting on that?
Peter
Seeing as you seem to have instituted some sort of queuing system for replies, can I ask for your reply to the direct question I posed to you on the CHILL thread?
“A profile of Peter Taylor’s achievements are in the link close to the bottom of the post. So my question to you, Peter Martin, is what do you believe his political motivations to be?”
I appreciate that all of us on the Whitehouse thread here are right wing tools of big oil, and that you are the only independent and objective observer, so from your lofty perspective perhaps you can dissect what Peter Taylor’s political motives are in setting out his viewpoint?
He has spent a great deal of time in writing this book and will potentially alienate many of those individuals and organisations he has worked with over the years. Is he a closet right winger? Your analysis is awaited.
Thanks for your time.
Tonyb
Peter (7446)
I’m not sure I care for the analogy, but as the alleged canine, I seem to recall that you agreed that you “might have misunderstood” Max. I have no view on whether it was willful, but omitting the qualification “If I were the IPCC” from your original quote was undoubtedly misrepresentation.
You say that anyone can throw up accusations of misquotes, but that’s only true if they are there. All you had to do was leave in the beginning of a sentence – omitting it might have been a slip of the mouse, but you have to admit that it didn’t look that way.
Re my 7444, in the interests of balance, here’s an article by Mark Lynas (whose New Statesman paper was the second trigger for this thread). He invites us to consider the following:
He then asks us
Hmm – I’m flying to Los Angeles in a couple of weeks to visit my daughter and family. Seems I’m about to commit a crime against unborn generations.
Apologies – I omitted the link. It’s here.