Mar 172008

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.”

  1. BTW, I didn’t know that RC was set up by Al Gore’s PR company. The Register’s Andrew Orlowski is often provocative but not usually wrong, AFAIK.

  2. JamesP

    Real Climate was set up by Fenton who also acts as Al Gores PR co. I did a long post about the relationship some months ago.

    Whether there is anything sinister in this relatioinship I don’t know, as climate science is a very small world and -as in many other niche businesses- the same names will keep on doing work for others in that clique if they are considered effective.

    I find Wiki’s relationship to Wiliam Connelley far more disturbing, as I do Agenda 21-the thread that runs through almost everyone involved in the promotion of AGW, and the influence of Maurice Strong.

    tonyb

  3. Thanks Tony. I should have realised you would have covered that, but I just thought it was Gavin Schmidt’s baby.

    As you say, it’s not necessarily sinister, but I’d find it hard now to trust anything that Al Gore was connected with (and that doesn’t make me a rabid right-winger, Peter M – I thought AG was pretty straight when he was up against the Bush cabal).

  4. JamesP

    Al Gore had perfectly respectable environmental credentials initially. This genuine concern perhaps started to take a different path after he campaigned for the Mauna Loa funding to be reinstated(it had been cut and several months data was not collected) and was snubbed by his mentor Roger Revelle.

    I think he finally sold out when he wrote An inconvenient truth which contradicted his earlier book (Earth in the Balance 1992) which was pretty good, and then set up his carbon trading companies in London and Washington.

    By that time I suspect he knew what he was doing as far as pushing his own agenda goes.

    The Nobel prize was -on several of the voting committees admittance- intended to send a message rather than award ed because of the science involved.

    Wheels within wheels, most of which can be fitted on to the bandwagon called Agenda 21.

    tonyb

  5. Max,

    JamesP is still growling at me. But, I notice you’ve gone very quiet. So I guess we can all conclude that I hadn’t misunderstood you at all? Maybe the cat has got your tongue?

    You are really saying you’d rather hear what you’d like to hear than accept a genuine opinion, and you’d be prepared to apply financial pressure to get it! How stupid is that?

    No-one wants to hear bad news. Its not good for any of us that the best scientific advice is that AGW is a problem and that we need to curb CO2 emissions.

    Its rather like refusing to pay your doctor unless he gives you a clean bill of health, even though his truthful opinion may be that you have heart problems.

  6. Tempterrain (and James P).

    Have been away for a couple of days.

    James P has got it right, Peter.

    You have apparently totally misunderstood me when you write (7456):

    You are really saying you’d rather hear what you’d like to hear than accept a genuine opinion, and you’d be prepared to apply financial pressure to get it! How stupid is that?

    No, Peter, I am not saying that I, personally, “would rather hear what I would like to hear”, but rather that if I were the all-powerful IPCC I would make it clear to scientists (a) what I would like to hear and (b) that their jobs and future careers might depend upon delivering to me what I would like to hear rather than what I do not want to hear.

    Get the subtlety here?

    It’s really not that hard to figure out, Peter, if you put your mind to it.

    It appears quite obvious that many scientists have figured it out and the scientific reports reflect this understanding quite well.

    It’s really all about money – lots of money – with a promise of even greater sums of money flowing back to the politicians.

    But, hey, that’s what makes the world go around.

    Max

  7. TonyB

    You are right about Al Gore’s first book, “Earth in the Balance”.

    I read it at the time and found it very good.

    When his AIT film came out, I dug it up and re-read it.

    From delivering a broad, well-reasoned appeal to us all to consider our actions in light of their impact on the environment to putting together a blatantly one-sided scare mongering film concentrating on AGW alone was a major transformation for Gore.

    It got him a (political) Oscar and a (political) Nobel Peace Prize, and he hoped it would get him millions of dollars through his carbon trading firm (which looks a bit dicey right now, but who knows what will happen?).

    But during this transition he managed to amass over $100 million in personal wealth.

    So he moved from being a concerned “environmentalist” (in high political office) to becoming the “savior of our planet”, proving at the same time that one can do well by doing good.

    A great success story.

    Max

  8. BBC radio 4 at 1.30pm today, Vicky Pope of the Met office reluctantly admits the climate has been cooling against their expectations and models

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8248922.stm#email

    tonyb

  9. Peter

    You ask (7442):

    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.”

    Another “déjà vu all over again feeling”, but here goes anyway:

    Arrhenius Theory, early (high) and later (reduced) 2xCO2 estimates
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

    Stefan-Boltzmann Law
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

    Myhre et al. CO2 forcing factor
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

    Carbon content of all known and optimistically estimated reserves of fossil fuels, conversion to GtCO2 and increase in atmospheric CO2 above today’s level
    (See my post 7382 for the calculation and bases)

    Hope this answers your questions, Peter.

    Max

  10. TonyB, very good link and some very interesting things said in the Tim Harford/Vicky Pope interview:

    Tim: If the cooling that the Leibniz Institute predicts actually takes place, are you worried that ‘s going to take the wind out of some of the sails of scientists who are warning about the threat of global warming?

    Vicky: It’s very important to realise that there will be ten-year periods where the temperatures don’t increase or they even decrease as the Leibniz study is suggesting –

    Tim: We’ve just had one.

    Vicky: Yes, in fact we have, but that doesn’t mean that global warming has stopped, it’s simply a question of natural variability, giving a temporary decrease in temperature overlaid on top of a long-term warming trend, and in fact I believe that’s what the results of that study suggest –

    Tim: Sorry to interrupt but you say that were going to have ten-year periods of cooling. How can we be sure that the rapid warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s wasn’t the exceptional period?

    Vicky: This is the point really, is that 1998 was exceptionally warm because there was an El Nino, because there was a natural variation overlaid on top of climate change. So what you can see very clearly is a long-term trend and then these periods of rapid warming and less rapid warming or even cooling overlaid on top of that because of natural variations.

  11. TonyB: thanks for your 7460 referring us to the link to the BBC’s Tim Harford item (the link is found at the bottom of the box to the right of the item “Blowing cold, then hot”). And thanks also to Alex for the transcript of Harford’s interview with the Met Office’s Vicky Pope. In this context, I suggest that it’s worth rereading the recent New Scientist item (see 7414 and 7415) and listening to Harford’s interview with the Leibniz Institute’s Mojib Latif preceding the Pope interview. Also my 7420 (re computer models and climate science) is relevant – especially perhaps the January 2008 quote from Peter Martin!

    As has been discussed many times on this thread, the AGW hypothesis is unverified as it’s based, not on empirical evidence, but on computer models. We now learn that leading climatologists (and Peter) accept that even the models are wrong because they do not take account of “natural variation”. The hypothesis, already suspect, would appear to be in tatters.

  12. Robin and Alex.

    This is one of the first public admittances I have seen from one of the big players in the game, admitting that cooling is happening, that models are not as accurate as portrayed, that natural variability is little understood and a new generation of models is needed.

    The Met office are admitting to a fair amount of uncertainties at present. Do you remember their advert that I posted here for a glacier modeller in which they admitted the process was not very well undetstood?

    tonyb

  13. Alex

    there was a natural variation overlaid on top of climate change (Vicky Pope)

    That rather implies that she regards ‘climate change’ separately, and is trying to reinforce the idea that it is all man-made!

    I seem to detect an underlying irritation that the climate is not co-operating with their forecasts…

  14. Peter,

    You have really had a poor record on this thread in defending your premise on AGW. To summarize:

    · You claimed that the NW passage is open for the first time in history (due to AGW). Several posters refuted your claim with specific references to earlier crossings.
    · You claimed that human CO2 emissions will eventually “cook the planet”. I pointed out that all the fossil fuels on the Earth would only raise CO2 levels to around 1,000 ppmv, resulting in one or two degrees maximum theoretical warming, not “cook the planet”, which you were unable to refute.
    · Robin challenged you to explain why the IPCC models cannot explain early 20th century warming, yet they know that late 20th century warming is due to AGW. You were unable to come up with any explanation.
    · You claimed that the oceans are warming. Several posters (TonyB, Brute) provided links showing that it has actually cooled since exact measurements were installed in 2003.
    · You used a simple digital “red/black” analysis to claim that predicting 100 years in advance is easier than predicting 10 years ahead. This was shot down by several posters who cited the much greater complexity, “unforeseen factors” and “outliers” as the reasons why your claim is false; you had no answer to this.
    · You claimed that a significant portion of the GH warming which has already occurred is “hidden in the pipeline” and will become visible to us later when “equilibrium” is reached (using “pan on stove” and “swimming pool” analogies to back your statement). The analogies were shot down as false (by Brute and other bloggers) and Hansen’s “pipeline” hypothesis was shown to be based on circular logic, which you were unable to refute.
    · You first claimed that the effect of other GHGs must be added to the radiative forcing of CO2 to arrive at a higher forcing, then changed your story to claiming that IPCC stated that all anthropogenic plus natural factors other than CO2 cancel one another out. I pointed out to you exactly what IPCC states, namely that all anthropogenic factors other than CO2 cancel one another out.
    · TonyB (as well as I) pointed out that the IPCC claim of accelerated sea level rise in late 20th century is not supported by the long-term tide gauge record, but rather based on the “bad science” of changing measurement methods and ignoring the long-term record; Bob_FJ pointed out that sea level rise is not accelerating and challenged you to show otherwise. You were unable to refute this and validate the IPCC claim.
    · I pointed out that the temperature records show that the IPCC claim was false that the troposphere has warmed more rapidly that the surface thereby supposedly confirming the AGW cause of the warming. You were unable or unwilling to debate this point, which is one of the key weaknesses in the science supporting the AGW premise.
    · You claimed that the Mann “hockey stick” was given “the tick of approval” by scientific organizations. I showed the NAS statement plus the Wegman conclusion, both discrediting the “hockey stick”.
    · You claimed that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is 3°C, to which TonyB challenged you to provide empirical data to support your claim and I challenged you based on the Spencer et al. study showing a strong negative feedback from clouds (estimated by IPCC to account for 1.3°C out of the 3.2°C total). You were not able to provide any empirical data to support the 3°C claim or to refute Spencer’s study but tried to discredit Spencer personally instead.
    · I showed you several studies, which conclude that half of the observed 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity, leaving only around 0.3°C for anthropogenic warming over the entire century. You diverted to theoretical discussions of direct solar irradiance alone and of warming over only a portion of the time period, but were unable to refute the conclusion of the many solar studies cited with any real data.
    · You made the claim that there were at least 3 other 8-year periods of cooling since 1979 that were at least as significant as the current cooling period since 2001. I showed that there were only 2 cooling “blips” since 1979, but that neither of these came close to the current cooling period, and you were unable to refute this to support your claim.
    · You made the statement (a) that “all or most of the world’s scientists support the IPCC view on AGW” and then (b) that “many, many more scientists” support the premise that AGW is a serious threat than do not. When presented with a list of 200 qualified individuals who have stated that they do not support the AGW premise, you were challenged to back up your claim with names of 600 scientists supporting the premise, which you were unable to do.
    · Robin challenged you to provide empirical data to support your premise that AGW is a serious threat cause by human emissions of CO2. You cited many real and imagined signals that our planet has warmed, that sea ice is melting in the Arctic, etc., but no empirical data supporting the premise (a) that any of this is caused by AGW or (b) that AGW is a serious threat.
    · In our latest exchange, I presented you with 25 specific points outlining my beliefs in and understanding of the science surrounding the AGW premise, to which you responded that my points were “almost totally wrong”. When challenged repeatedly to specifically state which point is wrong for what reason, you waffled and tried to change the subject, but were unable to come up with anything specific

    Peter, I think you’ll have to admit that you have done a pretty poor job defending your premise that AGW is a serious threat caused by human CO2 emissions.

    I personally believe that this is not because you are a poor debater or an inadequate defender of the premise, but because the premise, itself, is inherently weak and based on flawed assumptions and bad science.

    So my challenge to you now goes back to an earlier one by Robin:

    Prove me wrong and show me that the premise (that AGW is a serious threat, caused by human emissions of CO) is robustly based on empirical scientific data rather than simply the virtual reality of computer model assumptions and outputs.

    And don’t just bring data that show it is warming or ice is melting somewhere on the globe. This is no scientific support for the AGW premise.

    If you are unable to provide these data to support a premise in which you so strongly believe, it is clear that these data do not exist, i.e. the scientific basis for the AGW premise is weak and the premise can be discarded.

    Max

  15. Robin

    You wrote (7463):

    As has been discussed many times on this thread, the AGW hypothesis is unverified as it’s based, not on empirical evidence, but on computer models. We now learn that leading climatologists (and Peter) accept that even the models are wrong because they do not take account of “natural variation”. The hypothesis, already suspect, would appear to be in tatters.

    Indeed.

    IPCC (SPM 2007) relegates “natural radiative forcing” to a very small direct solar irradiance, representing less than 8% of the “anthropogenic radiative forcing” (0.12 versus 1.6 W/m^2 since pre-industrial year 1750).

    To arrive at projections for the future, it then triples the estimated total anthropogenic radiative forcing with assumed positive feedbacks, primarily resulting from climate model assumptions on changes in water vapor content and clouds with warming.

    Now we hear that “natural variation” has overshadowed the anthropogenic forcing (including all feedbacks) since 2001, and that we have seen cooling at the rate of 0.1°C per decade, rather than warming at the rate of 0.2°C per decade, as projected by the climate models.

    Does this not automatically raise the question:

    If “natural variation” can more than offset the total anthropogenic forcing resulting from current all-time record increases in CO2, is it not reasonable to believe that these same “natural forcing factors” (rather than “anthropogenic forcing factors”) could have been the primary cause for the temperature change since 1750?

    Until the defenders of the AGW premise can point to empirical data to answer this question and robustly support the postulation that AGW was the primary cause for the temperature change since 1750, it appears that the scientific basis for the AGW premise is, indeed, “in tatters”, as you put it.

    Max

  16. The link I just posted for the WUWT translation of the Henrik Svensmark article needs to be copied and pasted into your browser to work (otherwise you need to search the “prisonplanet” site for Svensmark’s article)

    Max

  17. Hi Max

    As you know I think we have far more serious things to worry about than AGW (as does Peter Taylor) With 6 billion people I think we ought to be looking all round us for potential problems, instead of staring fixedly ahead and obsess about co2. As a result of our fixation at present we just have a Plan ‘A’

    I suspect we need about thirty different plans to combat potential problems and AGW wouldn’t figure in that list.

    Towards the top of my list of concerns would be a repeat of a Carrington event

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm

    I asked Leif-the solar scientist over at WUWT-how likely a repeat of this event would be and what affect it would have on modern civilisation.

    He said probable and disastrous.

    The trouble is we are far more reliant on all manner of electrical items than we were in 1859, and as far as I can see we don’t Carrington proof systems although we do watch out for them happening.

    So here we are chasing shadows when it is very likely something will come out of left field and destroy us.

    For that-and other-reasons I think we need to try to wean the world off their current fixation with co2 and make them look out for the other things that are likely to impact on us.

    tonyb

  18. Max et al

    Ths is a follow up to my post above on the Carrington event when I asked Leif Svalgaard the following questions and got these replies;I think it illustrates why we need more than a plan ‘A’that only covers AGW

    TonyB (10:59:59) :
    Can you point me to any recent paper on the likelihood of such an event and the likely dramatic impact. As far as I can see we are taking no measures to move to Carrington proof systems, although we are monitoring what is happening.

    Reply;
    It is hard to quantify when the next ‘500-year flood’ will arrive, except that it will come. Some of our thoughts on this may be found here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20-%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf
    I’m sure a google search will turn up much more.

    Tonyb Second question; How much notice would we receive of such an event?

    Leif;8 minutes and 19 seconds on average. Kid you not…

  19. Hi TonyB

    Yes, Tony, I agree with you that the major problem we will possibly have some day in the future will not come from human CO2 emissions, but will come from some totally unexpected natural cause, such as the one observed by Carrington in 1859.

    The current fixation with CO2 will be short-lived, especially if it continues to cool off rather than heating up as the climate models predicted. The Met Office and others can only cover up the non-warming so long before everyone realizes that there never really was any warming of any real consequence caused by human CO2 and that the model-based forecasts for the future were worthless.

    The recent statement conceding that “natural variability” has more than offset AGW since around 2001 is a major nail in the AGW coffin, for if “natural forcing factors” are so much stronger than AGW today (with all-time record CO2 emissions), is it not reasonable that they could well have been much stronger over the past century (rather than only 7% as strong as assumed by IPCC)?

    Solar scientists tell us we may be headed for a protracted period of even stronger cooling, which (if you believe Peter Taylor and the history books) would be a real problem as opposed to the non-problem of AGW.

    It will be a painful death for the multi-billion dollar AGW business, since there are now so many people profiting from it in one way or another, but most of these (especially the smarter ones) will be able to switch to something new.

    And there will certainly be something new (real or imagined) to replace it when it dies.

    Max

  20. Hi all, I agree re the possibility of a Carrington event; some months ago I read a rather sobering article about this in New Scientist (they still have some decent articles when not banging the AGW drum.) A Near Earth Object strike is also a possibility – we know these have happened in the past here on Earth, and we have also witnessed large objects hitting Jupiter in recent years. These, in my opinion, would appear to be more of a medium to long-term threat to civilisation, than a rise in average global temperatures of a couple of degrees.

    Something I’m still trying to get my head around is Vicky Pope’s assertion that we know more about the climate 40 years from now than we know about the climate 10 years from now. I understand the concept that the complex ups and downs of natural variability (ENSO, etc) might play havoc with any model trying to look only a single decade ahead.

    But surely the climate in 2050, 41 years from now will be the sum of what has happened over each of those 4 decades? (What follows will probably appear very simplistic, but anyway…)

    For instance, 10 years of flatlining, 10 years of cooling, 10 years of flatlining again and 10 years of mild warming will produce different results to 10 years of flatlining, 10 years of mild warming, another 10 years of flatlining and then 10 years of abrupt warming.

    So not being able to model the climate over the shorter term (one or two decades) would surely mean not being able to model it over the longer term (four or five years). Or so it would appear to me (please correct me if I’ve got climate modelling completely wrong..)

    There seems to be much talk of a rapid or violent return to warming once the flatlining or mild cooling periods come to an end. Which would seem to be vital, if the picture of a longer term warming trend is to be maintained. Global warming would need to quickly catch up, as it were, to make up for lost time, as if it were a shortfall in a pension plan. Has any scientist offered a plausible mechanism by which the climate would respond in this elastic way?

  21. Alex Cull,

    You are not alone in saying ” I’m still trying to get my head around is Vicky Pope’s assertion that we know more about the climate 40 years from now than we know about the climate 10 years from now.”

    Vicki Pope is quite correct.

    It’s about statistical variation. Think about it this way. Who are the best two teams in the Premier League? I’d say Chelsea and Manchester United. So ask yourself if it is easier, or harder, to predict that they will be first and second after 10 matches or 40 matches?

  22. Max,

    You seem to be an expert in “….. people profiting from it {AGW} in one way or another,…”

    Brute seems to have made use of energy efficiency in his business which is absolutely fair enough in my opinion. Can you give us all some tips? Set up solar panel businesses? It’s a bit too much like hard work, if you ask me. Having to climb on roofs, drilling holes etc. But you seem to know how to make a fast buck.

    For those who might like a piece of the action here, it would be good if you could tell us how to make lots of money from AGW without having to do much work for it?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha