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. TonyB,

    OK Forget Wikipedia if you think its run by subversives.

    You quoted “Current sea level rise is estimated at 0.4mm per year (University of Colorado) plus or minus 15cm (yes cm) error from satellite altimetry”

    Maybe its not being fair to expect you to reference these sort of statements, given your lack of scientific background, but I’m not feeling in a very fair mood at the moment, so I’ll ask you to just that. Where is your reference to back up this statement?

  2. Peter #7851

    I will not forget Wikipedia. Their much viewed graph cuts of at 2003. The last 6 years contradict their claim. The claim by William Connelley-an associate of Real Climate-is based on a series of assumptions which Max detailed chapter and verse in ~7845, together with a graph showing overall trend.

    It is nothing to do with science and everything to do with a manipulation of statistics.

    As for satellites, this has been given to you before but you just don’t read anything that conflicts with your view. Here is

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf

    Go to page 431 section 5.A.4 ‘estimation of sea level rise’. This is an imprecise science whose margins of error are very large
    This has been studied numerous times.

    Both the following sites give a good description of the satellite process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be resolved.

    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
    http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html

    The following sites deals with problems of satellite accuracy and data;
    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859

    This with reliability;
    http://lightblueline.org/satellite-tracking-sea-levels-set-launch

    For local information it is preferable to use long standing reliable tide gauges. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats and who know what is really happening.

    Modern Sea level rises- where happening- are not being seen in context as another of those regular cycles that stretch back much further than the satellite records into the depths of recorded time.

    tonyb

  3. PeterM

    Believe TonyB answered your question (7851) in his 7849.

    The current annual rate of rise is around 1 mm/year, not 0.4 mm/year.

    Annual or even decadal values are meaningless due to high multi-decadal swings (see my 7850).

    The whole exercise is meaningless over measurement time periods of less than 50 to 100 years, due to the high level of error, which is many times the reading itself.

    Over the last century, sea level rose by around 17 cm (Holgate).

    One expert (Nils-Axel Morner) estimates a rise of 10 to 20 cm over the 21st century.

    Almost three years ago (SPM 2007) IPCC estimated a 21st century sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm. I believe the experts are now putting this estimate a bit lower (believe I read 20 cm).

    In any case, these are all guesses.

    Max

    Max

  4. PeterM

    Looks like the latest post from TonyB and mine crossed.

    I see he has provided the link to the 2009 Ablain et al. study that points to a current rate of sea level rise of around 1 mm/year based on a “new error budget assessment of the global Mean Sea Level (MSL) determined by TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 altimeter satellites between January 1993 and June 2008”.

    Max

  5. PeterM

    To summarize the many posts on sea level.

    What have we learned?

    Sea level measurements over time periods shorter than around 50 years are meaningless, due to the large multi-decadal swings.

    Satellite altimetry is a questionable method for measuring sea level today, due to its high margin of error and its low level of reliability.

    There has been no observed acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the late 20th century, as claimed by IPCC AR4 SPM, almost 3 years ago.

    This has remained around 17 cm per century, with the rate slightly higher in the first half of the 20th century than in the second half

    In the same 2007 report, IPCC predicted a 21st century rise of 18 to 59 cm

    Other experts said this was more likely to be between 10 and 20 cm.

    The current rate of increase is around 1 mm/year (10 cm per century), but this short-term value should not be confused with a long-term trend due to the factors mentioned above.

    In summary, the empirical data show that sea levels are not rising more rapidly due to AGW, despite IPCC claims (SPM p.13).

    Max

  6. I sent this privately to several of those here. It concerns the politics of climate change. It has been suggested I post it also as it is highly relevant to the Advert debate.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments

    I was asked if all parties would continue to support the AGW hypothesis after the election.

    We all know about Labour, John Prescott visited Al Gore in 1997
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo971205/text/71205w11.htm

    David Cameron and 80 Tory Mps met Al Gore in the UK in 2007 and were enthusiastic supporters.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545133/Cameron-recruits-green-warrior-Gore.html#

    Debate on Climate-this week-House of Commons-much enthusiasm by the Lib-Dems.

    On the surface the support will continue. Cameron seems to have back-pedalled a little. Peter Lilley might be having an influence there.

    If the treaty gets signed I think it would take a glacier at the door of the House of Commons for any party to renege on it.
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091021/debtext/91021-0021.htm

    Tonyb

    [TonyN: See here. Sorry about that]

  7. Max,
    I’d be interested to see what Gavin Schmidt, following his nasty remarks, snipped from the remainder of your 443 at “Why the continued interest?” at RC.

    TonyN,
    Ditto, for Peter Taylor’s second post.
    Has Peter decided to stop posting there, or has he been excommunicated?

  8. Max

    This is an effective confirmation of the 1984 approach of the UK govt regarding the politics of climate change that I outlined in my #7856. Press ‘count me out’ and see what happens.

    Truly sinister

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

    Tonyb

  9. TonyB,

    Maybe you could add this graph to Wiki to bring it up to date:

    I hope you’ve noticed its from the University of Colorado.

    Wiki’s policy is that anything added should be publicy veriable from a reputable scientific souce. Sorry, but Wattsupwiththat and Icecap don’t get included in that category. What a pity!

    But, if you’re memory isn’t playing tricks on you, and you can find that Colorado Uni reference to 0.4mm +/150mm for sea level change then that should certainly qualify. But none of us are getting any younger and we can never be sure if we really did see these figures written down or whether we just dreamed them up.

  10. Max,

    Its curious that you feel that the “mighty” are these days “the politicians, the media and the various industrial interest groups that stand to reap profits from the AGW movement”.

    True, there are sections of the US and world ruling classes who do understand the science of AGW and the urgent need to tackle the problem. So, yes the scientific world does have some mighty allies in that respect. Maybe its just my own politics, but I have always considered industrial capitalism should be considered differently from financial capitalism. The former generally plays a progressive role in our society. Financial capitalism could play a progressive role if it limited itself to supporting the industrial sector but instead it has taken on a life of its own with far too much emphasis on acquiring short term speculative gains in Real Estate, and the stock and bond markets. The financial sector are certainly nervous about the implications of accepting the scientific case on AGW as you can read nearly every day in the Wall Street Journal. They may be wounded but they have the money and can well be described as ‘mighty’.

    It’s not correct, in any case, to assess the veracity and correctness of the scientific case by looking at who does and doesn’t support it but nevertheless it does shed some light on the politics of it all.

    You obviously don’t like governments per se. Even democratically elected ones. Or maybe I should say especially democratically elected ones. Democracy is far from perfect but at least your “little guy” has an equal vote to the richest and most powerful in any democratic society.

    That doesn’t worry the rich and powerful too much though. They know that their power isn’t proportionate to the number of votes they personally cast. Americans have a good democratic system. In fact they have the best democracy that money can buy. I’m told that there are 3 or 4 paid lobbyists for every elected Congressman in the US. If you want to know what the rich and powerful want in the US just take a look at the activities of their lobbyists. And are they lobbying for Governments to listen more carefully to scientific advice? I don’t think so.

  11. Hah. Mrs. Brute just walked in and remarked:

    “Are you still arguing with those guys?” It’s been three years!”

    I mumbled:

    “Yes dear, you’re probably right”……

  12. Lobbyists you say Pete?

    Here’s a good one……The “environmentally concerned”,” holier than thou” Democrats in the US Congress draft a cap and trade, global warming bill that exempts their buddies that just happen to be building a…………COAL FIRED POWER PLANT.

    I’m certain that this “situation” was simply an “oversight”.

    EXCLUSIVE: Lobbyists help Dems draft climate change bill

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/04/green-lobby-guides-democrats-on-climate-bill/?page=3

  13. I urge all to listen to this.

  14. If you cannot access the link I provided at 7863, the text is here.

    I fear Clive James may be jeopardising his position at the BBC.

  15. Brute,

    Yes this is exactly the sort of thing I’m saying corrupts democracy.

    “Duke Energy donated $11,000 to Mr. Dingell and $10,000 to Mr. Boucher during the 2008 election cycle. Mr. Dingell and Mr. Boucher still held their respective chairmanships at that time.”

    Would I be right in saying that unless US politicians – and I’m making no distinction between Democrat and Republican – are multi-millionaires in their own right, its virtually impossible to get elected to any significant level of office without having to take these sort of ‘donations’? A better word would be loans, an even better one might be bribes, which have to be repaid by political favours once the politician is elected to office.

  16. Clive James is succinct and to the point.

    “A conjecture can be dressed up as a dead certainty with enough rhetoric and protected against dissent with enough threatening language, but finally it has to meet the only test of science, which is that any theory must fit the facts, and the facts can’t be altered to suit the theory.”

  17. Peter your 7875

    Peter, please read your own links and those of others and stop playing games. We were both looking at the same line of the same article of the same wikipedia link that you had given.

    The .4 reference was to satellite altimetry error as you clearly knew from subsequent posts. Either you didn’t understand or my post was not clear. Let us be charitable and assume it was the latter.

    Since that exchange numerous references have been given to demonstrate that this margin of satellite error is much too low, including from IPCC TAR4 itself.

    Wiki also quotes IPCC on tide gauges but IPCC themselves put in all sorts of caveats about the reliability, which wiki does not. Did you read them?

    Both Max and I demonstrated the true history of made up tidal gauges data-using IPCC information-which are spliced onto unreliable (according to the IPCC) satellite material, so one mistake has been heaped on the other.

    This is all clearly referenced in the IPCC TAR4 in the chapters and figures I gave you.

    The current official sea level rise since 2005 is .96mm per year, plus or minus an error of 0.4mm per year(derived from satellites). This sea level estimate starts from an unknown base- according to the IPCC- and according to the same source is subject to a margin of error far greater than the measurement it has taken.

    Which part of this don’t you understand? You must know as well as I do that the information you quoted in Wikipedia does not stand scrutiny. Have you ever read the full 800 page IPCC assessments or do you stick to the sanitized ‘Assessment lite’ written for policymakers?

    Your pointless attmpts to parse away at this matter and put your own interpretation on it fools no one on this forum. Wikipedia’s attempts to do likewise are much more successful. They are the first and only source of reference for very many people on this and other climate related matters.

    You claim to have a rational mind. Why not apply it and throw in a little bit of objectivity-what some of us call scepticism.

    We have a lot to be sceptical about, and if you read through the material you have been given on a plate concerning sea levels, perhaps you might start to realise the IPCC case is by no means solid-should you want to make that leap of faith-which I suspect you don’t.

    Tonyb

  18. The (once) highly-respected Science Museum in London is running an exhibition with the interesting and provocative title “PROVE IT!” The website is here. It claims to set out the evidence that “climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action”. Click on “evidence” (described as “all the evidence” and you’re told that:

    Human greenhouse gas emissions are upsetting the natural balance of the greenhouse effect. Extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap in more heat than can escape. This causes the planet to warm up.

    And:

    The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

    Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.

    Visitors are invited to vote for “Count me in” or “Count me out”. (In either case, you’re then asked to provide name (presumably it can be fictional if you’re shy) and email address.) There’s also a link (bottom RH corner of webpage) where, “If you’re not convinced by the evidence”, you can “tell us what you think”.

    Apparently, it is being claimed that there are more people requesting that they be counted in than counted out – implying that that reflects public opinion. I have asked to be counted out and urge others to do likewise. Also, I have, under “Tell us what you think” commented as follows:

    The hypothesis that mankind’s continuing to emit CO2 will cause dangerous climate change has not been verified, as required by the scientific method, by empirical (real world as opposed to theoretical) evidence – evidence that can be confirmed and repeated by independent research. No such evidence is found on this website – nor (and more seriously) can it be found in the most recent IPCC report. Therefore, it remains no more than an interesting hypothesis. It is most unwise to propose huge changes to the global economy (damaging, for example, to some of the world’s poorest people) on the basis of an unverified hypothesis.


    [TonyN: the following link adds some useful context to RObin’s excellent comment:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece ]

  19. Re my 7868, I see WUWT has the story.

  20. Re my 7868, I missed something important. At the top RH corner of the website is a counter. It now stands at (wait for it) 368 “in” and 1945 “out”. As Anthony Watts says, this is “Another online poll that might go horribly wrong”. Let’s hope so – go for it everyone.

  21. Robin your 7868

    I had already made reference to the story in my 7858 and linked it to the oveall political dimension exerted by the UK government to use AGW to push through their own agenda. This linked to my post #7856 detailing the chain of politiical decisions behind the advert we have been discussing.

    Tonyb

  22. Sorry, TonyB, I missed that. BTW the count now stands at 391 “in” and 2058 “out”.

  23. Would I be right in saying that unless US politicians – and I’m making no distinction between Democrat and Republican – are multi-millionaires in their own right, its virtually impossible to get elected to any significant level of office without having to take these sort of ‘donations’? A better word would be loans, an even better one might be bribes, which have to be repaid by political favours once the politician is elected to office.

    Yes Pete, after 7865 comments, you’ve written a lucid, succinct, accurate statement. ?

  24. Robin,

    I voted “out” and used my E-mail address.

    If I get a visit from a member of the British equivalent of the Ministerium für Staatssicherhei, it’ll be your fault!

    The “out” votes were 2114 (vs. 365 “in”). I’m certain that this scientific “poll”, will be tossed into the dustbin of the scientific museum as are datasets that do not support the Anthropogenic Global Warming agenda.

  25. Bob #7857

    See my #7803 above. I understand that Peter Taylor has been away for a few days and is now having difficulties posting another comment at Real Climate.

    Everyone

    You can sign a petition against the government’s TV climate change adverts on the Downing Street website here:

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/sign

    Please spread the word if you are commenting on other blogs.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha