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.
Peter M
It seems to me that your first Language is not English. In which case is there another language I can have Robins question translated into so that you can answer it? I work for a French organisation so I’m sure I could do that language justice, or perhaps Spanish? Or maybe something from the Far East, my colleagues in Tokyo would oblige I’m sure.
PeterM (7947)
An ad hominem attack involves attacking an opponent’s character rather than addressing his argument.
As Robin, Brute and TonyN have pointed out, you should attempt to attack the logic of Carter’s arguments rather than hiding behind the “ad hom” approach of trying to discredit his motives.
The mere fact that you have avoided discussing the arguments indicates to me that you are unable to do so, and that they are, therefore, valid.
Max
Just curious what you guys think about this……
UN signals delay in climate change treaty
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0
TonyB
Thanks for interesting info on UHI effect in ancient Rome (during Roman Optimum, when temperature was warmer than today even away from the city).
You mention that Rome had grown to the impressive size of 1.6 million inhabitants.
China, alone, has 80 cities exceeding 1.6 million and 4 cities with a metropolitan population exceeding 16 million (10 times ancient Rome).
It is no wonder, then, that China has a major UHI distortion in its recorded average surface temperature, as many studies have shown.
One study estimates that half of the observed 20th century warming in all of China can be attributed to the UHI effect, with most of this occurring after 1978. Another study for North China alone attributes 0.11°C per decade warming in this region to UHI, while another study for SE China attributes 0.05°C per decade warming in this region to UHI.
This compares to estimates for the USA of 0.27°C UHI warming over the 20th century (out of an observed total warming of around 0.6°C).
Source:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/URBAN_HEAT_ISLAND.pdf
I have seen 25 studies from all over the world, which all confirmed significant UHI distortion to the observed regional temperature records.
In addition, there are the studies by Watts on temperature distortions due to poor siting of stations in the USA and the study by McKitrick on the shutdown of several Arctic and sub-Arctic stations in the old USSR, which coincides with a spurious increase in the measured temperature.
These data all directly refute the IPCC statement (SPM 2007, p.5):
Max
PS But, TonyB, I don’t think we will get Peter to engage in a discussion on this topic. The subject matter is extremely difficult to argue against in light of all the data and it is even harder to accuse the 50+ scientists involved in all these studies from all over the globe of all being “hirelings” of evil oil, coal or mining interests, who are therefore unable to have a “scientifically reliable opinion on AGW”.
Brute (7953)
Sounds like good news.
Two things would make it even better:
– US Senate gives a flat turn-down to proposed climate bill.
– Record blizzard and cold wave hits Copenhagen just prior to meeting (with many delegates contracting common colds, due to under-heated “low carbon footprint” hotel rooms).
Max
It seems (from WUWT) that the Science Museum farce continues. They had the good sense to reset the counters to zero. But the votes started coming in with a big preponderance of “outs” – and, guess what, they returned to the old corrupted figures: now 5430 “ins” to 6532 “outs”.
Robin,
Bob Carter isn’t saying anything new. Its just a rehash of all the old contrarian stuff. He criticises the scientific method as applied to AGW research without suggesting how it could be improved. He has no ideas on that at all.
There are many areas of science where its just not possible to do controlled tests in a test tube. For instance, the science on human evolution ‘is settled’ in that everyone, apart from the religious fringe, agree that human beings have evolved to their current state by a process of Darwinian selection in exactly the same way as every other plant and animal on the planet. In that sense, we are nothing special. But can that be repeated in the laboratory? Is the pathway as evidenced by the world’s collection of hominid fossils at all clear? Do we know for sure which were our direct ancestors and which were ‘distant cousins’ and lie at the end of an evolutionary line? Of course not.
The difference between someone who is recruited by the Australian mining industry to plead their case and someone who is employed by the Australian CSIRO shouldn’t need much explanation. If anyone in the CSIRO came up with any piece of coherent scientific work which supported the notion that CO2 was a harmless trace gas then of course it would be supported and published.
The CSIRO is rightly fiercely independent and was never been under any government pressure to reach the conclusion on AGW that it reached several years ago. If anything the pressure would have been the other way. Its funding was from Australian governments who were, until the present one, probably more hostile to the concept of AGW than even the Bush administration, and also directly from the mining industry itself. The CSIRO is heavily involved in mining research as you will see if you Google the two terms.
Max said #7954
“PS But, TonyB, I don’t think we will get Peter to engage in a discussion on this topic. The subject matter is extremely difficult to argue against in light of all the data and it is even harder to accuse the 50+ scientists involved in all these studies from all over the globe of all being “hirelings” of evil oil, coal or mining interests, who are therefore unable to have a “scientifically reliable opinion on AGW”
You old cynic Max. I have every confidence Peter will want to discuss this. After all he is fed up with the same old ‘rehash’. Let him comment on the UHI and the cooling locations. Come on Peter.
Tonyb
PeterM
To Professor Bob Carter’s treatise “The science of deceit” you opined to Robin (7957):
Let’s check that out.
To start off Carter points out:
He cites examples where three Hadley scientists (Wigley, Briffa, Jones) plus one U.S. scientist (Mann) refused to divulge their raw data to reviewers, thereby making it impossible to conduct an independent audit of the accuracy and validity of their studies (a normal step in the scientific method).
So Carter does not criticize the “scientific method” of AGW research but actually the lack of “scientific method”.
Then he is critical of the peer review process as it has (or hasn’t) been applied in AGW research. There have been others who have pointed this out, as well, notably the Wegman committee in its critique of the “Mann hockey stick”.
He points out how the AGW hypothesis does not meet the “Occam’s Razor” requirement of being the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the climate changes we have seen.
He then comes to a key point (which Robin has brought up repeatedly): There are no empirical data that support the AGW premise. Carter points out that the search for a human signal in the global temperature record has failed to date.
To write this all off as “just a rehash of all the old contrarian stuff” is simply an attempt to avoid the real issue here. You must be able to counter it with empirical data, not just hollow words of denial. The “onus of proof” is on those proclaiming the validity of the AGW premise, Peter, not on those who are rationally skeptical of this premise.
Carter points out that the science supporting AGW is flawed, as it has failed several key tests:
These are all very specific points. They must be dealt with and cannot be just waved away with the statement that this is all “just a rehash”.
By (a) not even attempting to explain the reasons for these failed tests and (b) being unable to provide empirical data to support the dangerous AGW premise, you are just confirming that Carter is correct in his evaluation that this premise has no scientific merit and that AGW is not a serious threat.
Your sidetracks on Darwin, the Australian mining industry, etc. are just waffles, Peter.
Address the real issues, as defined by Carter, if you can.
Max
Maybe Peter will regale us with some evidence that Carter is an Anglican or worse………an Episcopalian……which would further provide proof of Carter’s ineligibility as a scientist.
Who knows? Maybe Carter smokes or maybe he’s anti-Union?
Of course, any of these revelations would disqualify him as qualified (in Peter Martin’s mind).
Here you are Tonyb. Add this station to your data set. This is an “’official” climate station of record in Filmore Utah.
Adds a new twist to the term “junk science”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-91-find-the-official-climate-thermometer-in-this-photo/#more-12176
And how much detail do you really expect?
“Failed tests include …….the lack of detailed correlation between the carbon dioxide and temperature records over the last 100 years” ?????
I’ve often heard that “onus of proof” is on those proclaiming the validity of the AGW premise”
Why? Who has decided on this? A UN sub-committee? Or maybe its in the US constitution?
Just like someone who is seeking to add an extra couple of stories to an existing building, the onus of proof should be on those wanting the change to verify, with empirical evidence, that it is safe.
Pete,
I’d think you’d agree that this is a poor example.
It is the AGW crowd that is seeking “change”, is it not?
Don’t you want to change the fuels that are presently used to produce electricity? Change the fuels that are presently used to operate vehicles? Change the way that goods and services are consumed…….or at least lessen the rate of consumption?
I’d think if you’re offering a “better” mousetrap, the burden of proof would be on you to prove it’s advantages over the old style which we’ve been using for years. (Hence, the global warming sales pitch).
So far, people don’t seem to be convinced of the effectivness of your new inovation…..which is where government forcing people to adopt the inovation (whether they like it not) comes in.
If “green” technologies were superior to (for instance) fossil fuels, there would be no need for laws, treaties or government sponsored indoctrination for average people to adopt the policies….they’d sell themselves.
There would also be no need for government subsidies.
Who in their right mind would involve themselves in the morass of government bureaucracy needlessly?
Pete,
Help me with my memory…….did you mention a few hundred comments back that you were a business owner? (Serious question).
All this time, Peter, and you still don’t get it. As Max has clearly stated, Carter doesn’t criticise “the scientific method as applied to AGW research”, he criticises the fact that the scientific method hasn’t been applied to AGW research. Simple enough really, I would have thought.
You seem to believe that the science of human evolution somehow supports your position. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case. The hypothesis that “human beings have evolved to their current state by a process of Darwinian selection” is supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence. (Not proof, Peter – the fact that a hypothesis is verified does not mean it is proved. Newtonian physics is a prime example.) In total contrast, the hypothesis that man’s emitting GHGs will cause dangerous climate change is not supported by any empirical evidence.
Your idea that those who question the validity of the hypothesis are asking for “controlled tests in a test tube” and repeated findings “in the laboratory” utterly misses the point. They are asking to see empirical (real world) evidence. But there isn’t any.
As Max says: address the real issues as defined by Carter. If you can.
Interesting (and very unreported) bit of back peddling by the UK Met Office.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091015b.html
Peter M
I presume that you don’t think that Richard Lindzen is a crank scientist that cannot be trusted. Here he is deconstructing Global Warming. Peter M I would like you to comment on the content of this presentation, and not about what he may have had for diner.
Barelysane
Interesting Met Office blurb about sea ice.
Looks like the Met Office is really catching on to the “V word” (variability), a.k.a. “natural climate forcing factors” in IPCC-parlance.
It’s beginning to cause more disruptions than the man-made global warming that has been programmed into the models.
Max
PS to Tony B: Has the Met Office hired the sea ice expert they were looking for several months ago, and (if so) could this be one of his/her first contributions?
PeterM (7962)
1. Visually your curve shows poor correlation between temperature and CO2. Can you work out the R^2 factor?
2. Correlation does not prove causation.
Max
PS The “onus of proof” is on the one making a claim, not on the one who is rationally skeptical of that claim. Following the scientific method (as Carter points out) it is those proclaim we are headed for disaster due to human CO2 to provide sthe empirical data to support this premise, not on those who are rationally skeptical of this premise to “disprove” its validity. Unfortunately, AGWers (and members of other fundamentalist “doomsday cults”) have a hard time grasping this.
PeterM
You wrote:
Exactly.
It is not up to the building inspector, who is rationally skeptical that adding the two stories is safe to disprove the safety of adding the two stories, but up to the builder who claims it is safe to do so to provide the evidence to support this premise.
This is what we have been saying all along.
Max
Can I ask everyone to look at Peters graph #7963 of world temperature anomalies plus co2 line?
Peter may remember my posting this last year (is anyone able to display both, because my version of Windows won’t allow me to post graphics here-Peter I think you did it last time)
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/menken_hobgoblin.jpg
This one was of the man made co2 figure plotted against a real temperature dataset (CET) not the wholy imaginary ‘world’ one.
I asked the question-what was the climate driver during the majority of the graph duration, where warm and cold periods clearly could not have been influenced by co2.
The obvious conclusions being that co2 has nothing to do with driving climate OR that there were co2 measurements missing from the graph.
I then answered my own question with the following graph. This shows man made co2 in its proper perspective as a tiny part of the carbon cycle of which the overwhelming majority is of natural origin, and is itself dwarfed by water vapour.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/man_vs_nature.jpg
The yellow dots are readings collated by Beck from highly reliable Nobel winners starting 1830, who recorded co2 levels as high as today. IF these are real they demonstrate co2 has some sort of impact (or a presence), but that it appears to rise and fall according to natural temperature changes and outgassing of co2 from the oceans.
I am inclined to believe Beck. IF he is wrong co2 is clearly not a driver as those natural cycles of warmth and cold can be traced back to Roman times.
Which leads me on to the next point. The Hadley figures start at the low point of the little ice age. To no ones surprise but Peter and the IPCC they have risen since. The previous climate cycles can be clearly seen. If they had measured from the summit of the 1730’s warming the resultant increase would look very unimpressive.
Bear in mind these are measurements recorded during the Little Ice age and we have barely warmed since!
Tonyb
TonyB
Your curves (7973) are very interesting.
Just looking at ithe first curve with the bare eye, without looking at the numerical backup data, it is clear that there have been five multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles of between 60 and 80 years for each total warming/cooling cycle, since the record started.
These reflect the cycles of the more recent global Hadley record fairly well, but show that the recent (19th and 20th century) cycles are nothing new.
The long-term correlation with CO2 is not apparent and the 20th century warming level was reached four times since the record started, providing direct evidence that it is not at all unusual.
I’d say that this chart raises even more serious questions regarding the validity of the AGW premise than Peter’s earlier chart, but Peter might see this differently.
Max
Hi Max
Thanks for looking at my graphs. Here is Uppsala to 1720-the Home town of Arrhenius who has an awful lot of gullible followers-who only read his first paper on co2 and not his 1906 one where he substantially amended his calculations. The cycles are again evident
http://www.smhi.se/content/1/c6/02/50/31/attatchments/upps_www.pdf
According to the IPCC these warmer periods didn’t happen
‘All published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 16th 17th 18th 19th centuries, then warmed rapidly after that.’ FAQ 6.2 Page114 of TAR4.
The official view is that the climate was stable before man took a hand. In this item the UK Met office-a prime contributor through the Hadley centre to the IPCC assessments, assert:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
Extract “Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.”
The great variations in ice amounts and warmth and cold, is also recorded in the following, condensed from the records of the Hudson Bay company, which appear to demonstrate that climate change is not a new phenomena.
“Over the fifteen years between 1720 and 1735, the first snowfall of the year moved from the first week of September to the last. Also, the late 1700s were turbulent years. They were extremely cold but annual snow cover would vary from ‘extreme depth’ to ‘no cover’. For instance, November 10th 1767 only one snowfall that quickly thawed had been recorded. June 6, 1791 many feet of snow in the post’s gardens. The entry for July 14, 1798 reads ‘…53 degrees colder today than it was yesterday.”
Variability in the global climate has encompassed the documented little ice age and documented warm periods between them. In addition there are numerous documented examples of a warm MWP.To state that climate used to be stable is clearly incorrect. For the IPCC to state that the 16-19th centuries were cool and things only warmed up after 1850 thanks to man is also demonstrably incorrect.
Peter is an intelligent man, surely he does not believe that there was no climate variabilty before 1850?
Tonyb