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. Hi Peter,

    You ask me:

    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?

    Don’t ask me, Peter. I haven’t earned a penny from it.

    Ask Al Gore, who is earning millions (and even collecting a Nobel Peace prize and Oscar along the way).

    He’ll be able to answer your question better that I could.

    Max

  2. Hi Peter,

    Not being a UK football fan I can only comment on your erroneous logic when you write to Alex Cull (7474):

    “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?”

    First, let’s change that to 10 years and 40 years.

    Then, let’s acknowledge that a fairly digital “win/lose” statistic translates directly into determining who will be “first” and who will be “second”.

    Now let’s consider all the many variables that can affect our planet’s climate over the next century:

    · Let’s agree that human CO2 may theoretically be one of these and then let’s make a realistic assessment of how large this effect could be, based on the past record rather than on computer model assumptions and outputs
    · Let’s agree that we believe that the net impact of clouds on our climate is one of cooling, but that we have no notion whether or not clouds will have an increased cooling or warming effect with a warmer climate
    · Let’s agree that low cloud cover and cosmic ray flux appear to show a correlation over a longer time period, but that we are, as yet, uncertain exactly how the cloud seeding process works and how this correlation affects our climate
    · Let’s add in the photochemical reactions between ozone and variations in UV flux and their potential impact on our climate
    · Let’s also consider the global electrical current and magnetic flux and how it may be affected by changes in the solar wind
    · Let’s add in the empirically observed cyclical variations in solar activity, which have affected our observed climate over our planet’s history
    · Let’s add in the many oceanic circulation oscillations, which may be linked to variations in the sun
    · Let’s go a step further and admit that we are very far from knowing everything there is to know about the many “natural variability” factors that affect our planet’s climate (and are more than offsetting the theoretical GH warming today), so let’s add in an “unknown” factor for that

    Get the picture, Peter?

    It is absurd to compare 100-year climate projections with 10 or 40-game football league predictions.

    If the Met Office (or IPCC) are unable to predict a few years in advance (as has been demonstrated with their dismal record since 2001), then there is no reason to believe that they will do any better 100 years in advance.

    We have gone through this whole discussion earlier on this thread, with the same conclusion. It is really silly of you to keep bringing up such absurd comparisons, Peter.

    Max

  3. Peter: I’ve advised you before to avoid argument by analogy – it’s nearly always a bad idea and your recent post gets it particularly wrong. To be closer to reality, your analogy would have to be that, although Ms Pope’s computer model has been saying for some years that Bolton and Hull are poised to dominate the Premiership and she now admits that was wrong and that the model is being modified to show that, over the medium term, Man United and Chelsea will continue their leadership, that doesn’t invalidate her insistence that the model is correct in predicting that Bolton and Hull will storm to the top of the table in the longer term.

    As for tips about who profits from AGW, here’s one: if you’re a scientist looking for government funding (there’s not much else), ensure your chosen discipline is climatology. Here’s another: if your a climatologist looking for government funding, don’t say you want to research natural causes of climate change but insist your work will focus, in particular, on anthropogenic causation.

  4. Alex Cull

    Let me start off by saying that, like Peter Martin, I am neither a climate scientist nor a computer programmer attempting to “crystal ball” our future with climate models.

    You stated:

    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.

    This makes good sense.

    For a good theoretical treatise in logic and statistics, which addresses this phenomenon (not related specifically to climate science), read “The Black Swan”, by Nassim Taleb. He explains why a forecast made over a longer time period is more likely to be totally false than a shorter-term forecast. He also explains why “experts” are statistically no better at making long-term predictions than non-experts. This is not because of “what the experts know”. It is precisely a result of “what the experts do not know” and the fact that they “do not know what they do not know”. A good read.

    But back to our topic of climate trends.

    I believe that Peter is trying to cover up the poor forecasting record of the Met Office (and IPCC) with his oversimplified “football” analogy.

    For a real look at the actual long-term temperature trend versus IPCC projections and a continuation of the most recent trend see the chart below.
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2461/3915641920_3d38c7ddd4_b.jpg

    Predicting the long-term future weather (or climate) is a dicey proposition at best, for the many reasons outlined previously. I would follow my grandfather’s advice, when he told me, “Don’t ever bet on the weather, boy”.

    But it is very likely that neither the IPCC projection of extended rapid warming nor the continuation of the current cooling trend gives a realistic forecast of what is most likely to happen over the next several decades.

    The most likely bet would be a continuation of the actual long-term underlying trend of slight warming, including the cyclical variations we have observed since the modern climate record started in 1850.

    But even that could be “kicked in the head” instantly by a newly strengthening natural forcing factor or an unforeseen cataclysmic event.

    So your logic is 100% correct here, as far as I can judge.

    Max
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2461/3915641920_3d38c7ddd4_b.jpg

  5. Max and Robin,

    The footballing example isn’t an analogy. Its a an illustration of exactly the same statistical principle. That is, over time, random errors will cancel out.

    Here’s another one. The tide changes from its minimum height to its maximum in the space of about 6 hours. Say measurements are made every 20 seconds. But these vary due to wave action. But if you take enough you’ll get the right answer. Except the tide is rising so you can’t take an enormous number.

    Now if you tried to predict the amount the tide changed in 6 minutes according to your measurements, starting when the tide was at a low point, you’d end up with a more inaccurate answer than than if you tried to predict the answer for a six hour change.

  6. Peter

    As Robin has pointed out, you are beating a dead horse with your silly analogies. The tide goes in and out, and, as such, is quite predictable, as is the relationship between wins/losses and standing in a football league.

    The weather (and the climate) of our planet is not at all predictable. The Met Office couldn’t even get it right for the first years of the new millennium. I pointed out to you some of the many reasons for this unpredictability.

    The Met Office is now also acknowledging these uncertainties, which it has dubbed “natural variability” (to avoid the more damning title “unforeseen natural forcing factors”).

    Call it what you want to. That’s Vicky Pope’s specialty. But the truth of the matter is that the Met Office failed to project the current cooling trend.

    It has avoided mentioning that these natural forcing factors were strong enough to more than offset the GH warming from all-time record CO2 emissions over this period.

    The Met Office press release carefully avoided this because it raises the question: “If these natural forcing factors are now having such an overwhelming cooling influence, why could it not be that they (instead of anthropogenic factors) were also the root cause for past warming and cooling cycles?”

    A very difficult question to answer. Would you like to try answering it, Peter?

    Max

  7. Peter: yes, it’s a statistical principle that “over time, random errors will cancel out”. But, in asserting that it applies to faulty computer models of the climate, you’re making, as is your wont, a basic logical error. This time, you’re begging the question – i.e. you’re assuming the truth of the matter in contention (i.e. that dangerous AGW is a long term certainty) to demonstrate that, despite short-term evidence to the contrary, dangerous AGW is a long-term certainty. That’s why your analogy was inaccurate.

  8. This weekend, the Independent, Telegraph, BBC (etc.) have carried a scary story. The Indie, after the headline, “A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind“, reported on the “first commercial navigation of the fabled North-East Passage” demonstrating (it claimed) a “vivid sign of climate change in the Arctic”.

    But a little internet research revealed the following:

    o The Finnish/Swedish explorer Nordenskiöld successfully navigated the NEP (W to E – Europe to the Bering Sea) in 1878, as did the Russian Vilkitsky (E to W) in 1915. From 1877, commercial interests were exporting Siberian agricultural produce via the Kara Sea – 75 convoys succeeded between 1877 and 1919. From 1911, steamboats ran from Vladivostok to Kolyma once a year. In the early 20th century, various scientific/cartographic expeditions (Nansen, Amundsen etc.) were completed.

    o After the Russian Revolution, radio, steamboats and icebreakers made the Northern Sea Route viable – although the Soviet Union excluded other countries. In 1932, a Soviet expedition sailed from the Bering Sea to Arkhangelsk (aka Archangel) without wintering en route and, in 1935, the Northern Sea Route was officially open to commercial use.

    o After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Route’s use declined. But now it is being reinvigorated and, having invested massive resources in powerful icebreakers and icebreaking cargo ships, it has become Russia’s main transport line in the Arctic. Today, ships from Russia, Latvia, Finland, China, Japan and Thailand use the Route.

    o So all that was unusual about this story was that it was about German ships – as was clear from the original Reuters story. Yes, it was a first – for the Germans. That’s all. The Indie’s “No commercial vessel has ever successfully travelled the North-east Passage … Explorers throughout history have tried, and failed; some have died in the attempt” is nonsense.

    o Even so, these German ships had to be supported by a Russian nuclear icebreaker and needed help from Russian ice pilots as today conditions are more difficult than they were in, for example, 2005 when the Route was passable without icebreakers.

    So the story demonstrates nothing about climate change. Nor is it (as claimed by Greenpeace) a “cause for immediate action” nor (per the Independent editorial) is it “confirmation of just how rapidly and dangerously our climate is changing”. It’s yet more pre Copenhagen hype happily promulgated by lazy journalists.

  9. Further to the above, I’ve just become aware (from WUWT) of this story. The headline: Polar bears ‘face extinction in less than 70 years because of global warming’. Groan.

  10. Robin 7485

    Good work. I had read of the routes frequent use since world war two before declining again, but I hadnt realised the route had been open so long and was so well travelled.

    7486

    Don’t worry-even Peter Martin wouldnt believe polar bears are endangered.

    tonyb

  11. Peter: you asked (7475) for tips about how to profit from AGW. In 7480, I gave you two.

    Here’s another: if you’re a Chinese manufacturer take advantage of dopey Westerner governments’ insistence that their citizens abandon florescent light bulbs and adopt “low energy” alternatives and tool up your factories to manufacture vast numbers of the new bulbs for export (in carbon emitting ships) to the West – don’t worry that the toxic mercury used in these bulbs can poison your workers or that your factories run on energy produced by increasing numbers of coal burning power stations. And, needless to say, you needn’t be concerned about the thousands of Western factory workers made redundant as you destroy their jobs.

    Here’s another (again for Chinese manufacturers): start making huge numbers of solar panels for the credulous West. Don’t worry that 40kg of coal will be burned to produce a one metre by 1.5 metre of panel – i.e. enough coal to generate over 130 kW hours of electricity, enough to keep a 22W LED light bulb going for 12 hours a day for 30 years (whereas a solar panel is designed to last for 20 years). Nor should you be concerned that the 10kg of polysilicon needed for a one kW panel (i.e. a panel that would cool a fridge for a day) means burning 2 tonnes of coal, enough to keep that fridge running for 20 years. The fact that polysilicon and panel production will add massively to CO2 and to genuinely toxic chemical emissions is obviously not your problem any more than are the “green” jobs lost as Western solar panel plants are displaced as you and your enterprising colleagues get going.

  12. Here you are Robin (Re:7486)

    Global Warming May Kill Off Polar Bears In 20 Years Says WWF
    May 31st 2005

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jan/31/climatechange.endangeredspecies

  13. This article gives polar bears an extra 5 years…..

    http://thesop.org/activism/2009/06/20/us-polar-bears-extinct-in-75-years

  14. Send money now before it’s too late!

    Polar Bears will become extinct within 50 Years?http://motherearthbeats.com/2008/02/15/polar-bears-will-become-extinct-within-50-years/

    Most Polar Bears Gone By 2050, Studies Say
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070910-polar-bears.html

    Polar bear ‘extinct within 100 years’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2642773.stm

  15. Hi all, meant to come back earlier but was out all day in London. I kept thinking about and playing with the football analogy, in the meantime, so (with apologies) …

    Peter, yes I think both teams (Chelsea and Man U) would probably be a good bet for top of the League; as well as past performance, we also know what players are in each team, we know how these individual players have performed in the past, and we have an idea of the budget for each team and the ability of the manager to pick good players. So these are pretty much “known knowns”, to use Donald Rumsfeld’s expression.

    If each of these teams were more like black boxes – let’s say that we knew nothing of the players, the manager or the budget, and all we knew was a history of match scores and League position – we could still make reasonably confident predictions based on past performance.

    However, not fully understanding the interactions of players and manager, and not being aware of the team’s budget or other factors, would leave us more open to getting it wrong. We might, for instance, confidently predict that Manchester United would be top of the League (or among the top three) in 2015. However, unbeknown to us, let’s say the manager has been keeping the team afloat for the last fifteen years with a combination of dodgy business deals and the proceeds from organised crime (this is pure fantasy, by the way – as far as I know). Not proven yet – suspicion falls on the manager though, good players start to leave, the fans start deserting them. The short term performance starts to dip.

    It’s a worry, we don’t know why exactly, at first, all we know being based on the scores and the record of past performance. Statistically (if these variations were random), they should recover – the long term winning trend will overcome short term variability, and they will be back on form within a few years. Then, in fits and starts, let’s say we start to get more information. Two star players have left suddenly – why? The shareholders appear to be very unhappy – again, why? A bigger and more complex picture would begin to emerge, as we got better and newer data.

    I’m wondering how (and when) this would affect our confidence in our long-term predictions for the team. At what point would all this short-term variability start to have a serious long-term impact? Let’s say that a few years ago we were confident that they would be top of the League in 2015. When would we start to downgrade their chances?

    Max, thanks for the Black Swan recommendation – this is a book I’ll definitely set about obtaining.

    It’s late but I had to mention the polar bears. Yes, poor things – not only facing extinction (according to the Telegraph) but going deaf as well, and even shrinking! Climate change is also apparently shrinking sheep on one of the Scottish islands, so I suppose the tiny mutated polar bears could be introduced to hunt the minuscule sheep if they started to get out of hand. (The bears would need to be fitted with hearing aids, though, of course.)

  16. Max,

    But I am asking you. You seem to know all about this. Just how do you know that Al Gore is making millions from AGW? I guess he’s made a bit from his film, which is fair enough. Probably the Great Global Warming Swindle did Ok financially too.

    So is that it , or do you have any more information?

    Or, maybe you don’t know and are just making it up?

  17. The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

  18. Peter: you asked (7475) for tips about how to make money from AGW. In 7480, I gave you two and, in 7488, two more. Here’s another: if, like me, you’re involved with charities trying to help disadvantaged people and you’re bidding for public money, you can increase your chances of success by showing how your project can help to reduce peoples’ “carbon footprint”. Also, if you’re a journalist, you can improve your career prospects and hence your financial security by writing scary stories about the effects of climate change – and, with Copenhagen approaching fast, now is the time to do it.

    That’s six tips, Peter – do you want more?

  19. Peter

    Robin has given you some good tips how to make a fast and easy buck from the AGW scare.

    Read Brute’s attachment(7494) and you’ll see how some big-time fat cats are doing it.

    Follow the money trail, Peter, and you’ll see what really drives the AGW hysteria (and it has nothing to do with “science”).

    Max

  20. Peter,

    Re ur question 7493.

    Read Brute’s 7494 for the answer.

    Enjoy!

    Max

  21. Further to my post yesterday (7485) about the North Sea Route, I’ve come across yet more data – see this detailed paper. It provides a lot more information with photographs and maps. From it we learn, for example, that commercial vessels plying this route have been visiting Vancouver since 1979 and that even the Germans have been there before: the “commerce raider” Komet (a converted merchantman) did it with Soviet assistance in 1940 (nearly 70 years before the story breathlessly reported by the Independent). The Times also has a story – it’s headed “Cargo ships navigate Northeast Passage for the first time” and talks of “a voyage considered impossible until a few years ago” advising its readers that “environmentalists say that the opening of the route shows the speed at which the polar ice caps are melting”. Yet none of this is true.

    See the last of my six tips for Peter (post 7495). Oh dear.

  22. Here’s the big problem with the polar bear story.

    It’s not that they are shrinking or becoming deaf (everyone does that with age), it’s that:
    (a) they cannot read
    (b) they do not have any lawyers representing them

    Now, before you all shout that there are thousands of lawyers representing all the environmental activist and lobby groups using the “disappearing polar bear” ruse to extract money from innocent dupes, consider this: these lawyers are not representing the polar bears per se, they are representing various groups that are making money by using the plight of these hapless beasts for their own nefarious purposes.

    So to save the polar bears we have to

    (a) teach them how to read
    (b) send a few of them to law school (preferrably in the USA, where tort law has reached the highest level of expression)

    Any volunteers?

    Max

  23. Looks like South Africa is also balking at agreeing to carbon emission targets.
    http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2078

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha