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.
Further to my 7573, I see Peter Taylor has offered to debate with George Monbiot. His offer was made at 5:04pm yesterday in the comments following Monbiot’s recent piece in the Guardian here.
I have suggested, on the Delingpole/Plimer thread, that the Speccie should make efforts to get Taylor and Monbiot along to their debate.
Max,
Of course it is very convenient for you to declare that 1979 was some sort of Maximum in terms of Arctic sea ice on the flimsiest, if any, evidence.
We have to remember that what matters is global temperature which was just about the same in 1979 as it was in 1940. So, whereas ships could break through the NW passage sea ice in 1940 , in September 2007 there was no ice to break through!
It looks like 2007 was an outlier in graphical terms. True, there were those who were concerned that the decline of Arctic Sea ice could have accelerated from its previous linear decline, but the events of the last two years have decreased the likelihood of that interpretation being correct. The decline still looks linear and it should be noted, especially by Peter Taylor, that there is zero evidence of any any recovery in Arctic sea ice levels. There would have to be at least three years of data above the 30 year trend line, for that to be even a possibility, and so far there hasn’t been even one.
But of course if you guys know differently and you are confidently predicting a 5 year recovery there is some easy money to be made!
Peter,
Don’t know who is “confidently predicting a 5 year recovery” in Arctic sea ice. Not me.
I’m just saying that if the present 2-year recovery were to continue for another 3 years at the 2007-2009 rate, we would be back to the 1979-2000 baseline level by then.
This points out how relatively small the medium-term shrinking trend is in comparison with the wide fluctuations from year to year.
Obviously this would be an extremely fast recovery from a rather slow decline, so it is highly doubtful that this will happen.
It looks like the much-ballyhooed low of 2007 was, indeed, an anomaly in itself, so the recovery from this outlier may not be all that unusual. It is certainly getting a lot less attention (especially from NSIDC)!
But as far as whether the 2007-2009 is a “recovery” or not, I believe the facts speak for themselves, Peter. It is by definition a “recovery” and it is “significant”, even if it is way to soon to call it a “trend”.
The observed pre-1979 cyclical nature of Arctic temperature as well as sea ice extent leads me to believe that we are in for a longer period of gradually increasing Arctic sea ice and slightly decreasing temperatures as this natural cycle swings back to the 1950s/1960s mode. But who knows what will happen?
Is CO2 really driving our climate, or is it a combination of several natural cyclical forcing factors (or possibly a combination of all of the above)?
Peter, I think if you are totally honest with yourself you will have to admit that neither of us really knows the answer to that question, as much as we would both like to.
Max
Peter #7577
Have you actually read ANY of my or Max’s links?
From 1920 to 1940 ships also encountered very little ice. They also encountered very little ice in 1817-1860. The Vikings encountered very little ice for 400 years, when they did they died out. The Ipatuk encountered very little ice 1000 years earlier. Several thousand years before that the arctic was virtually ice free.
Do you think that history is trying to tell us something? Please READ the evidence for past arctic warming events and stop relying on the snapshot that the satellites provide.
tonyb
Peter Martin
From the Russian study I cited, it looks like Arctic sea ice shrank and expanded over three distinct periods during the 20th century:
From a high level around 1915 to a low level around 1945
From a low level around 1945 to a high level around 1975
From a high level around 1975 to a low level in 2007.
Arctic temperatures appear to have risen and fallen over these same time periods.
The past two years may or may not be the beginning of a new period of expanding sea ice.
This all does not prove anything, but it does open the possibility that the most recent shrinking cycle (from 1979, when satellite records started) is part of a longer-term oscillation, with an underlying multi-century warming trend, as we are recovering from the Little Ice Age, rather than simply a result of greenhouse warming from anthropogenic CO2, as the climate models cited by IPCC have assumed.
I believe that the lesson to be learned here, Peter, is to not oversimplify things by essentially ignoring natural forcing factors, as IPCC has unfortunately done, in its myopic fixation on human CO2.
Interestingly, the Met Office is now acknowledging the existence of these natural forcing factors, which are currently more than offsetting any greenhouse warming caused by the current record human CO2 emissions. For lack of a better term, these are now being called “natural variability”, but, so far, neither the Met Office nor IPCC have acknowledged that these forcing factors may have caused all or at least a significant part of the recent warming attributed to AGW.
As Peter Taylor has written in his post #65 on the other thread:
Yes it is both disturbing and curious.
What do you think of all this Peter?
Do you agree with the Met Office that there have been natural forcing factors (i.e. “natural variability”), which are strong enough to more than offset the expected greenhouse warming from 2001 to today?
Do you see any valid reason why a reversal of these same natural forcing factors may not have been the cause for a significant part of the 1976-2000 warming?
If so, what is this valid reason and how can you exclude this possibility?
Max
Robin,
If you stop near Washington DC, (Dulles International Airport), let me know. I’d like to buy you and Mrs. Robin a cup of coffee.
I’ll bring my British born friend along to translate.
God speed you……..
Thanks, Brute – but, sadly, we’ll be nowhere near Washington DC so I’ll miss your hospitality. Next time …
Max/Tonyb,
I’d also venture to say that there is a extremely high level of scrutiny concerning Arctic Ice now as opposed to any other time in history.
As far a ships moving through the Arctic, the structural integrity and reliability of an ocean going vessel now, compared to even as recently as 50 years ago, is night and day.
Advancing technology in aircraft, satellites, etc have also opened a window on this segment of the world that was unheard of 40 years ago.
We simply know much more of the conditions that exist in the Arctic than we did at any other time in history.
Re Arctic ice, I’m now reading Surface at the Pole, written by James Calvert, commander of the USS Skate. I haven’t yet got to the March 1959 voyage; however, they certainly found open water near the Pole in August 1958:
“Only 40 miles from the North Pole we found the largest polynya of our cruise – nearly half a mile in diameter. We surfaced in it easily …”
TonyB,
Do you have any references for “From 1920 to 1940 [also 1817 to 1860] ships also encountered very little ice”. You mean in the NW passage or the English Channel?
If you mean the NW passage you could read up on the voyage of the St Roch. Even though the vessel was modified to withstand ice it was still far from an easy journey.
If you mean the NW passage you might also want to read up on the Franklin expedition in 1845. Very little ice? They literally couldn’t move for the stuff!
Max,
You’ve obviously swallowed whole this one Russian reference. One test of a papers credibility is to look at who else references it and what they have to say about it.
Have you any other references to support this?
It looks a bit to ‘glossy’ to be a proper scientific paper.
BTW How do you decide if a paper is credible? If you like the conclusions it must be OK and if you don’t, it isn’t?
You’d happily fire James Hanson and replace him as head of NASA’s climate research program with someone like Lindzen or Spencer for the same reason presumably?
Peter Martin #7585
I have already given you the reference-my
#63 on the Chill thread ‘link 1 and 2’
I also posted links 5, 6 and 7 separately as one post as the spam filter would not let me make a longer post comprising all seven links.
I have tried to post links 3 and 4 at least five times but presumably the spam filter spits them out when it realises the link comes from the IPCC!
tonyb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8265974.stm
Some weasel-speak from the PM. As there is no money for this adventure I see our PM is already laying the groundwork to blame someone else, but rather than come out and say that climate change is not that important, and we need to shelve it for now, he keeps up the absurd pretence that we are doing critical damage to the Planet. I use to accept the notion that he was an academic, but I’m inclined to think of words like buffoon have more legitimacy in describing our PM.
Peter Martin
I gave you a reference to a Russian paper showing that the Arctic temperatures and sea ice extent has fluctuated in a 60-year oscillating pattern prior to reaching a high level around 1979, when satellite measurements started.
To this paper you ask me:
I gave you the reference to another paper (by Chylek), also confirming warmer temperatures than today in the 1930s and 1940s.
I also gave you a graph showing the long-term temperature record at Illulisaat, Greenland, which also confirms the early 20th century warming with temperatures higher than those of today.
Sorry, Peter, the shoe is on your foot to present a paper that refutes the conclusions of these independent papers, not for me to present yet another paper that confirms them.
(Your statement on Hansen, Lindzen and Spencer is so ridiculous it does not warrant an answer.)
I am also looking for an answer from you regarding my question (7580) on the natural forcing factors (a.k.a. “natural variability”) that are now more than offsetting AGW from record CO2 emissions (which Peter Taylor has also questioned and which I will repeat below, for your convenience):
The ball is in your court again, Peter.
Max
No, Peter Geany (7587) I think you’ve completely misunderstood: the Great Gordo says that the Copenhagen climate change conference in December is “in grave danger of failure” and that we will have, as he told Newsweek, no second chance to undo “catastrophic damage … if we miss the opportunity to protect the planet”. But fear not. He has offered to go to Copenhagen himself to “help seal the deal”. Wow: saving the world (from financial meltdown) was amazing enough. But now he’s going to save it from climate meltdown as well! Superhero or what?
Peter M
I have followed your exchange with TonyB on Arctic sea ice in the past, based on ship records.
There are obviously many records of ship crossings in the past, providing clear evidence that the current Arctic sea ice condition is not that unusual.
As Brute has pointed out, these were made without the benefit of all the modern navigational tools of today, so are all the more remarkable.
I believe the most striking example of past variations in Arctic sea ice is the documented and archived surfacing of the USS Skate at the North Pole on March 17, 1959, to which Alex Cull makes reference (7584).
Peter, your line of reasoning here is a losing proposition for you. We have gone through this earlier on this thread. and it is obvious (based on all the evidence cited then) that the current ice situation is not at all unprecedented.
At that time evidence was provided (in addition to the famous Admundsen crossing of 1906) of NW passage crossings in 1940, 1942, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1985, 1988 and 2000, and I advised you:
My advice to you again: give up on this one and move on to something else, where you have a better chance of making your point without falling flat on your face.
Max
Robin, Peter G
Tbh, it would probably be a good thing if he went to the conference in person, hopefully he’d take the Jonah Brown curse with him and the conference will be called off due to unseasonal blizzards or similar.
PeterM
Regarding artic ice, Max has already made the point i would have.
Robin
Does the great Gordo have no humility? I suppose it’s something to be thankful that he saved the world from a financial meltdown he helped to create. This must be one last attempt to convince us here at home that only he can run the country. It would be a laugh if the whether were to oblige us and close the airports. It’s always a possibility at that time of the year, perhaps Gore will turn up and it will defiantly happen.
Copenhagen will not succeed, we all know that now, and I just wonder if Gordo has misjudged this completely and if the other Western leaders are going to leave him “hung out to dry” and looking stupid (not that he has to try hard) taking the heat off themselves in front of their own electorates. He is perhaps behaving like General Galtieri.
Hey Guys,
I’m no rocket scientist, but it appears a bit less than “swift” to schedule “global warming” sessions for December in Copenhagen (or “global warming civil disobedience” rallies for February in Washington, DC).
There’s the “big weatherman in the sky” that loves to show his muscle at these events, by dumping inordinate amounts of snow on the anthropocntric participants and creating travel havoc, etc.
OK. The Bali boondoggle avoided this by picking a lush (and plush) tropical location (for which the organizers were later criticized).
But Copenhagen? In December?
That’s really courting disaster (and ridicule).
Are these guys so removed from the actual world around them that they don’t know that Copenhagen stands a good chance of being cold and snowy in December?
Duh. You don’t need a battery of multi-million dollar climate models to figure that one out.
Max
perhaps Gore will turn up and it will definitely happen
It really needs Hansen…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/hansens-coal-and-global-warming-protest-may-get-snowed-out/
I’m relying on Private Eye to produce a ‘Prime Ministerial Decree’ at the appropriate moment, explaining how the Supreme Leader will finally put an end to environmental boom-and-bustism and rescue us all from the jaws of the abyss/solar furnace.
At least it will take our minds off the latest revelation of ZanuLabour ineptitude, however temporarily…
But PeterG – sorry to disagree with you again, but the Copenhagen conference will not fail. Or, rather, it will not appear to fail. Whatever the real outcome, a communiqué will be issued showing how all nations are resolutely standing together, setting “binding” targets for emission reduction (in the future) and for providing (unspecified) help (from once rich countries) to enable “developing” (i.e. many newly rich) countries to overcome projected difficulties. Or some such tosh.
I think GB should go. Then, when there is a record snowfall, the heating fails, fighting breaks out among the delegates and the whole thing goes titsup, they can all blame him. It’s no more than he deserves.
peter geany,
Now just one minute!
Barack Odisaster singlehandedly saved the entire planet from economic meltdown, I’ll have you know. He said so a couple of weeks ago when he was addressing a crowd of out of work citizens while explaining how the unemployment rate being at 10% was not his doing and would be much higher had he not spent 787 BILLION on his “green” jobs program……(which has yet to produce a single “green” job or any other type job).
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/carbon-emissions-fall-with-global-downturn-report-20090921-fxqf.html
Is there an actual decline, or is it a slow down in the rate of increase of co2 as measured ar Mauna Loa?? Any actual figures or a graph anywhere?
tonyb
Meanwhile at the Guardian, the race is on to find a suitably emotive phrase to replace “climate change”. Article author Jonathan Watts suggests “global burning.”
The writer draws a comparison with the recovery of the ozone layer following the campaign to ban CFCs.
“”The media made a big contribution. The coining of the term ‘ozone hole’ was amazing. It made people feel there was a hole in the roof of their home,” said [Rajendra] Shende. “But it was not a hole at all. It was higher rate of depletion in the Antarctic sky.”
So there you have it. A term that was scientifically imprecise, but emotionally powerful made all the difference. Could the same happen with climate talks?”
Is the “ozone hole” really filling up, and has the CFC ban really done much (if anything) to affect it?
NOAA’s David Hofmann, talking about the ozone layer in 2006: “the patient hasn’t recovered, but it’s not getting any sicker. We really have not seen any recovery in Antarctica.”
Until the CFC ban is shown to have done anything much (or at all) to affect the “hole” over Antarctica, I think they’d better put that comparison on hold and stick with “climate change” – at least it’s technically accurate, in that the climate does change.
PeterG, TonyB, Brute
Will “Copenhagen” fail?
I believe this depends entirely on how you define “fail”.
Will it “fail” to get binding commitments out of China, India, Brazil, Russia (and possibly the USA) to cut CO2 emissions by a clearly defined percentage below a clearly defined level by a clearly defined time deadline?
This is almost 100% certain to “fail”.
Will it “fail” to get statements from all nations that each is individually committed to the concept of reducing CO2 emissions in order to stop future global warming?
This is most likely to “fail”.
Will it “fail” to result in a beautifully worded communiqué, signed by all nations, which states that all nations are resolutely standing together to stop climate change, with the firm target of limiting anthropogenic greenhouse warming to 2°C by the year 2100?
Here it will most likely not “fail”.
And it will be hailed as a great success by one and all (except possibly by those hoping to benefit more from AGW or by those few individuals who truly fear AGW, who will see the Copenhagen result as “inadequate” and, therefore as “failed”).
I can even see the headlines: “Copenhagen attendees commit to no more than 2°C global warming by 2100! Future of planet is saved!”
The rest of the communiqué will sound much like Robin’s “draft” (7595).
Break out the shovels…
Max