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.
Robin
Thanks for info on Monbiot/Plimer debate (which will probably never take place).
Plimer does have a few silly errors in his book, but his thesis that the recent warming has nothing to do with man-made CO2 is a valid premise, which he should be able to argue fairly convincingly with Monbiot, who (based on what I have seen) tends to get too emotional in defending the opposing AGW premise.
I hope such a debate can really take place, but I am afraid that it will not.
It would be a good exchange for everyone on both sides of this issue to witness.
Max
Max: you won’t be surprised that I agree with your views on Monbiot. But did you read the exchange of emails between Monbiot and d”Ancona? Although I thought it ridiculous that Monbiot should insist on his preconditions, I thought Plimer and d’Ancona got into an absurd muddle leaving Monbiot logically in the right.
TonyB
NEWS FLASH
I have just gotten a top-secret tip from an unnamed but reliable source in Oklahoma that US Senator Inhofe is putting together a “public interest group” (with funding from various oil interests), which will make a bid for the UK Met Office.
The vision of this group is to provide accurate temperature measurements (with the goal of demonstrating that CO2 emissions emanating from the combustion of petroleum products are not responsible for any potentially dangerous warming of our planet).
The mission statement of the group will be “temperature truth through transparency”.
Forecasting of future temperatures will be discontinued, as this effort has been shown to be totally worthless and detrimental to the scientific credentials of the group.
The group has stated that Dr. Vicky Pope will be asked to act as Managing Director and CEO of the newly privatized venture, reporting directly to the group Chairman, with Dr. Phil Jones acting as Chief Technical Advisor, reporting directly to Pope. Senator Inhofe will act as Chairman of the Board, and a yet-to-be-named representative from Exxon-Mobil will be appointed Chief Quality Assurance Officer, to ensure that all published temperature readings meet newly established quality guidelines in accordance with the group’s new mission statement.
In order to support efforts to stop global warming, the company officers and managers will be rewarded through an appropriate bonus system, directly tied to the reported global temperature results.
My secret informant explained that this move would be a first major step in institutionalizing the current flat temperature trend, thereby saving our planet from temperature tipping points leading to runaway warming and making any proposed future direct or indirect taxes on carbon emissions unnecessary and redundant.
Let’s see how this plays out.
I am sure that if this bid is successful, Peter will be more than pleased, because runaway warming will have been mitigated simply by improvements made to the reporting process, and Peter will no longer have to fret about the future of our planet, freeing up time for more worthwhile pursuits.
Max
Max
That is exciting news!
The potential Met office takeover team seems wonderfully balanced and I have every confidence they will be just as accurate with their forecasts as the present incumbents.
By the way, I don’t know if you noticed that Peter Taylor has made some very interesting comments on the ‘Chill’ thread. Hope you will feel able to respond.
tonyb
Re curly light bulbs, I’ve found that the earlier CFLs (given away free in large numbers by our energy suppliers – we still have a stack of them in our cupboard) were not that wonderful. We still have one in our spare room – supposedly equal to a 60w incandescent bulb, it gives out a sickly, dim yellowish glow which takes a few minutes to warm up to a more acceptable level of brightness. The newer ones are better – we now have one in our stairwell which is not bad and really does emulate a 60w incandescent bulb. (Ironically, I just read an article which doesn’t recommend them for stairwells.)
I’m also thankful they’re not (yet) banning halogen bulbs, as we have some excellent bright halogen lamps for reading by, also a good 500w halogen security light at the back of the house. We also bought a solar-charged LED security light earlier this year, attracted by the fact that it doesn’t need wiring up to the mains – however, it turned out to be far too dim for our needs.
In my view, LEDs will be the natural successors to the incandescent bulb, although agree with James that they still require some development. When the price, the appearance and the functionality (fittings, etc.) are right, people will buy them, and in normal circumstances incandescent bulbs would probably be going the way of the music cassette tape over the next 20 years or so. In my view, the problem with CFLs (aside from Robin’s point that in the grand scheme of things they don’t actually save energy, and also the mercury issue) is that an artificial sense of urgency – the top-down drive to lower CO2 emissions – 1) caused an inferior product to be subsidised and pushed at consumers, leading to complaints, poor levels of lighting, possible hazards and lingering resentment, and 2) has caused the banning of a perfectly good product, before the market could develop an equally good (or better) replacement product.
TonyB
Really enjoyed the Met Office release (assuring us that “global warming” is still happening, even if the thermometers tell us the globe is cooling). Hmmm…
[Yep, folks, you may think that you are seeing some rather embarrassing private parts there, but, believe us, the emperor really is wearing a very exquisite and fashionable gown.]
The Met Office even assures us that there were other “decades” (since the late 20th century warming resumed around 1976), which showed cooling comparable to the current trend. The problem with this statement is that anyone can download the published Met Office temperature record and confirm that it is not true. Ouch!
Met Office needs to turn Jones et al. loose on “adjusting” the past record so that a past cooling “blip” can be created retroactively, which is comparable to the current one. Shouldn’t be that hard to do, since ex post facto “corrections” are made all the time.
Just for fun, I’ll come back in a separate post to one that was made after the early 2008 temperatures came out “too low for comfort”.
Max
Tonyb,
I just sold a job and switched over a 300,000 square foot office building from 35 watt quartz halogen to 6 watt LED. The cost per unit of the 50Watt MR-16’s was almost $5.00 whereas the cost per unit of the LED’s was $50.00. The energy saving is considerable (90%) and they life span of the LED’s is much longer (saving labor/replacement costs).
This is our first go with LED’s on this scale……as time wears on, I’ll let you know how it works out.
Any insight you can provide regarding LED’s would be appreciated.
Better luck next year Pete…..can’t win em all…..
Is the polar ice cap supposed to grow due to global warming?
Max: further to my 7527, you may be interested to read the latest post in Delingpole’s blog – especially the comments. Despite Delingpole’s protests, it seems that d’Ancona (ex Spectator editor) has handed Monbiot an unnecessary (and undeserved) victory.
BTW, Max, regarding our beloved emperor’s wonderful new clothes, shouldn’t someone silence that small boy who keeps saying that he’s naked? Tell him to grow up and learn to be a tailor. Then he might be qualified to comment – unless, that is, he disagrees with the clear consensus of Court tailors.
I’ve just heard, on the BBC’s flagship Today programme, a remarkable discussion about global temperatures between Professor Philip Stott (London University) and Dr Vicky Pope (of the Met Office). It was short, to the point, balanced, calm, reasonable and not remotely alarming. Here’s a quick summary from memory:
The presenter opened by commenting that (to his obvious surprise) Mojib Latif (a “top climate modeller”) had reported recently that global temperatures were cooling and that models now indicated that that might continue for “one or two decades” – he had suggested that that might harm the “fight against global warming”. Dr Pope agreed about the models, stressing however that the Met Office models, now much improved, were clear that the long term warming trend would resume after the expected cooling period. Asked if he agreed, Stott said that really no one knows. But current ocean patterns and the extraordinary dearth of sunspots suggested that a period of cooling was likely. But his real interest was in how politicians and policymakers would react to that – it begins to look, he said, rather like the non discovery of WMDs in Iraq and, as such, is likely to have significant ramifications. As for long term warming – well, yes, he said there had been a warming trend for the past hundred years or so and it might well continue; but he stressed again that no one knows. He added, however, that the trend was unlikely to be attributable to a single cause. Ms Pope did not express a view on that but made no attempt to dispute it.
Hmm – a very different tone from the BBC. Might attitudes be achanging?
Robin: “Might attitudes be achanging?”
Robin, I’ve noticed this too. Tucked away behind the more noticeable, glaring pieces (“Failure to agree a new UN climate deal in December will bring a “global health catastrophe”, say 18 of the world’s professional medical organisations.”, “Climate change will be a serious barrier to growth in poorer nations and must be curbed, says the World Bank.”, etc) there has been, of late, a steady trickle of low-key, balanced and quite sensible debates and discussions, like the one you’ve highlighted. It’s an interesting development and one to be watched over the next few years, I think.
Which brings me to this month’s Met Office press release (TonyB’s link.) “However, the Met Office’s decadal forecast predicts renewed warming after 2010 with about half of the years to 2015 likely to be warmer globally than the current warmest year on record.” After 2010 there are five years up to and including 2015. “About half” could obviously be either two years or three years. I understand that the current warmest year on record, globally and according to the Hadley Centre, is 1998. So, for the decadal forecast to be accurate, there will need to be at least two years, up to and including 2015, to be warmer than 1998.
Bearing in mind that their short-term forecast in January 2007 (“2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office”) was not accurate, this decadal forecast looks to me like a bit of a hostage to fortune. And unlike lots of other climate change predictions being batted around, which talk about AD 2030, 2050, 2100 etc., we won’t have very long to find out!
Robin
I agree that the current Met Office position as presented by Vicky Pope is curious.
It appears that the Met Office is bracing itself for an extension of the current cooling trend by two additional decades or even more.
Let’s say it started January 2001 (as confirmed by HadCRUT readings). It has continued for over 8-½ years to date. If it continues for 20 more years, this will mean that the AGW premise (that AGW is a serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 emissions) is definitely a “dead duck” (since the early 21st century cooling period will have lasted longer than the late 20th century warming period upon which the entire AGW scare was based, i.e. 1976-2000),
The interesting thing here is that the Met Office has apparently shifted its strategy from issuing annual warnings of impending record warmth for the next year (which never materialize, thereby eroding public confidence in Met Office climate models and scientists) to one of “setting low expectations” (so that things might hopefully turn out “worse” than predicted).
To me this shift of strategy seems like a rather desperate move, which could very easily backfire as everyone is made aware of the fact that global warming has, indeed, stopped.
It sort of reminds me of a corporate CEO who has issued repeated glorious forecasts to his shareholders in the past (which never materialized), who then suddenly shifts to issuing a “gloom and doom “ forecast for the next period (in the hopes of being able to do better in fact). Not a good formula for ensuring longevity in office.
And, rather than being able to acknowledge that the current cooling is due to changes in natural forcing factors related to solar activity (which would invalidate the whole AGW argument that solar factors have not played a significant role in past warming), the Met Office is forced to issue mealy-mouthed rationalizations discounting the cause as “natural variability” (whazzat?).
When one has invested one’s entire reputation into a glorious theory (as the Met Office has into the AGW premise), it must be frightening to observe that the facts on the ground (as reported by the Met Office, itself) no longer support that theory and that the premise is beginning to unravel.
Max
Robin
Let me get this straight. A Met Office modeler tells us that:
Hmmm… Global warming has stopped. And this “might harm the fight against global warming”? Seems like a bit of an oxymoron here. If global warming has stopped, hasn’t the fight against global warming been won? Shouldn’t we all rejoice and move on to something else?
Or does the “fight against global warming” really have nothing to do with “global warming”, but rather with something else? If so, what?
Let’s ask Peter for an explanation here. Maybe he can figure this one out.
Max
Max: in fact, that comment was (as I recall it) made by the BBC presenter. Or possibly, he was quoting Mojib Latif (the “leading modeller” for the IPCC). Either way, I daresay the Met Office public position is to agree with it because it expects global warming to continue (“with a vengeance”?) after the now expected cooling. But its private position may be less certain.
In that connection, it’s interesting (as Alex observes) how the Met Office is adjusting its decadal temperature forecasts. In 2007, it said this: “Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004. At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.” This year’s prediction, as Alex and TonyB noted, is for “renewed warming after 2010 with about half of the years to 2015 likely to be warmer globally than the current warmest year on record.” But now Vicky Pope seems to be preparing us for quite radical change – possibly even decades of cooling.
It’s instructive to compare all this with these comments (“Fact 6”, page 7) from another Met Office publication, this time from 2008:
Hmm … that doesn’t read so well now. As Max points out, the Met Office seems to be shifting its strategy. I wonder why.
Robin (7536)
the Met Office models, now much improved
Of course, no-one (least of all the MO) suggested that the earlier ones might be in need of improvement, and that it would be wise not to give them too much credence…
Professor Stott is one of the few sceptics that the BBC can bring itself to talk to – he even appears on ‘Costing the Earth’ from time to time, although I notice that they try and avoid mentioning GW in his presence.
Who next, I wonder – it would be nice to hear David Whitehouse again!
The ‘listen again’ file for this morning’s interview with Stott and Pope can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8258000/8258459.stm
Just listened to the Today link and have to say it was the same old stuff dressed up with some weak caveats. I thought that Pope was trying to make an excuse for the climate and it’s the weakest I have ever heard Stott speak. John Humphries was trying to dramatise it in an almost childish manner. Sorry but they all have to get a little more serious about this subject, if they are to be taken seriously.
What Vicky Pope was saying about long term warming could be true, and most probably is, and entirely within what we are seeing as the natural recovery from the little ice age. It could also just as easily be wrong, as her premise is that mans emissions of CO2 are causing the warming. A drop in atmospheric CO2 concentration that may occur after 5 years or more of cooling would throw a spanner in the works though.
But she will be in the ground before anyone can prove her right or wrong. She is adamant that her models are correct, when all the evidence is they haven’t a clue. But even if there is 10 to 15 years of cooling, and then warming again it proves nothing, it certainly does not endorse the notion that CO2 is the driver of the climate and nor does it answer any of the questions about where all the atmospheric CO2 comes from.
Robin Guenier,
Your tips are somewhat underwhelming . You are saying that the AGW problem is just invented by charities and newspapers so they can make a few dollars out of it?
What about the multi-billion dollar industry of AGW? How do we join Max’s “fat cats” and get a significant piece of the action?
Robin,
You’ve made me reconsider my previous opinion that lawyers were quite smart people. You want an simple explanation of what the Met Office are saying?
Up until 1850, some would say later, there were no signs of any anthropogenic influences on climate. Temperature rose at times. They fell at others.
Fast forward to the early 21st century. Add an anthropogenic influence to the natural changes. At times temperatures will rise , but even sharper, than before. At other times they will be flat, or might fall. Just slightly, nowhere near as much as before.
Of course the disinformation spreaders, and total idiots alike, will take their opportunity during these flatter periods to say “hasn’t the fight against global warming been won? Shouldn’t we all rejoice and move on to something else?”
Peter #7545
You have always been reluctant to acknowledge the realities of climate history, even though you said once that Michael Mann had exaggerated his case. (You can disagree if you want, I don’t feel inclined to trawl through the preceding pages).
We have continually asked you to put things into a longer historic context. Temperatures rise and fall. During the Holcenes, Roman Optimums and the MWP they rose considerably to levels above today’s and there were other slightly lesser warming periods also. Equally there were cooling periods of which the LIA is the most notable example.
We are within half a degree of the decadil temperature experienced during the depths of the LIA in the 1730’s. Mean average temperatures then were dragged down by cold winters. Summers in many years were similar to todays. This last summer has been the 91st warmest in the record beaten by numerous ones in the 1700’s -the earliest is a date from 1669.
Surely it is really not surprising that temperatures are warmer than in the LIA which ended at the period from which ‘global’ records commenced?
In the broader historic context current temperatures are not out of the ordinary. The AGW hypothoses only works if you can abolish the MWP period and others.
In addition you need to make a link to supposedly increased co2 levels in the past which ignores that past warming and cooling periods didn’t have the benefit (apparently) of increased co2 levels. To do that you insist on believing that a global temperature has a meaning and that the datasets back to 1850 are precisely accurate on a global basis even though they are based on a tiny number of datasets from which huge assumptions have been made.
tonyb
TonyB,
I think I said that there were other ‘hockey stick’ graphs which showed a less flat stick than Michael Mann. But even if it does turn out that MM had exaggerated the flatness and the MWP wasn’t quite as cool as claimed it doesn’t alter what is happening now.
Your statement that “The AGW hypothoses only works if you can abolish the MWP period and others.” is completely unjustifiable.
Even if it was warmer than MM claimed in the MWP it is now even warmer. Unless you can show some scientific reference to show otherwise.
Part of a comment fromm Max addressed to Peter M on the Taylor thread here:
Please keep Plimer comments on this thread. See here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=220#comment-27701
@PeterM
Surely you are not being serious here Peter. If he did exaggerate it, it suggests either his work was sloppy or dishonest. And while i agree it has no impact on current temperture measurements. It has a vastly significant impact on how we interpret modern temperature trends
TonyB / Barelysane / Peter Martin
To your discussion about the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
For a recent study that shows that the global MWP was slightly warmer than today check:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
This study concludes:
There are other studies coming to the conclusion that the MWP was warmer than today, most notably the one for China by Zhang (2005):
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
“
There is also the study by Broeker, showing that the MWP was part of a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, which were likely global.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/5508/1497
Broeker points out that the magnitude of the temperature drop over Greenland from the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 A.D.) to the coldest part of the Little Ice Age (1350 to 1860 A.D.) was approximately 2°C. And he notes that as many as six thousand borehole records from all continents of the world confirm that the earth was a significantly warmer place a thousand years ago than it is today.
Then there is the study by Keigwin for the Sargasso Sea:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503
There are many other regional studies confirming a MWP that was warmer than today, but the most comprehensive summary of much of this work was presented in the study of Soon and Baliunas:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
The evidence that the MWP was both global and slightly warmer than the late 20th century is overwhelming.
This shows clearly that long-term cyclical natural factors play a major role in determining our planet’s climate, a point that both Professor Plimer and Dr. Taylor made in their two books, which questioned the global warming theory.
It is clear that a MWP warmer than today presents a real dilemma for the postulation that the warming of the late 20th century is unusual and can be attributed to AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, and thus for the premise that AGW is a real future threat.
This is why the supporters of the AGW premise try everything possible to cover up the MWP or to downgrade it as “a purely local phenomenon”.
But no matter how many spaghetti “copy-hockeysticks” are published and cited by IPCC, a global MWP warmer than today just won’t go away.
Max