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 Geany (7969)
The Lindzen presentation is very interesting.
I am sure that Peter Martin will want to comment as well, but here is the “take home message”, as I see it.
The final four slides tell it all.
The premise that AGW (caused principally by human CO2 emissions) is a potentially serious threat rests on the assumption that “positive feedbacks” (from changes in water vapor, clouds and surface albedo, resulting from warming) will cause even more greenhouse warming than just that resulting from the added CO2.
Without feedbacks, the 2xCO2 warming (climate sensitivity) is around 1°C.
But “cranking in” the positive feedbacks as assumed by the climate models raises the 2xCO2 CS to an average of 3.2°C.
Since CO2 is expected to double from the pre-industrial level (year 1750) by year 2100, this means we should see a significant warming by 2100, according to IPCC (1.8° to 4.0°C, with a maximum range value of 6.4°C).
The basic flaw in this argument is that it rests solely on computer model assumptions rather than empirical data from physical observations.
As pointed out by Lindzen, the increase in radiative flux with increased sea surface temperature (SST) as physically observed by ERBE-CERES satellites is around +5 W/m^2°K, as compared with the value of –2.5 W/m^2°K as assumed by the models.
This discrepancy between the virtual data from the model outputs versus the real data based on actual physical observations tells it all. It is the basic scientific flaw in the AGW premise.
There is no net positive feedback with warming, as assumed by IPCC, but rather a net negative feedback.
The actual 2xCO2 impact at equilibrium is therefore 0.5°C, rather than 3.2°C, as assumed by IPCC.
This means that we could expect a total greenhouse warming from pre-industrial 1750 to year 2100 of 0.5°C. We have already had around 40% of this to date, so the actual greenhouse warming we can expect from added atmospheric CO2 by year 2100 is around 0.3°C, rather than the virtual warming of 1.8° to 4.0°C, as assumed by the IPCC models.
Max
TonyB
Referring to your curves showing past fluctuations in our climate.
The AGW “party line” on variability has has a seemingly subtle but basic change with the new Met Office statements attributing the current cooling period to “natural variability”.
This statement has opened a real “can of worms” for the AGW premise.
The climate swings you have shown, which go back into the 17th century, were obviously not caused by human CO2, but by natural factors.
We now have a plausible explanation by the Met Office for these variations in our climate: they (as the current cooling) were caused by “natural variability” (a.k.a. “natural climate forcing factors”).
Up until Met Office advised us of this natural cause of the current cooling, the “party line” was that natural climate forcing factors were negligible (IPCC had given natural forcing a weighting of only 7.5% of that given for anthropogenic forcing factors.
The new “party line” has, so far, only applied to the current cooling (with no mention of earlier warming and cooling periods), but it must obviously apply for all periods, now that it has been accepted as real.
Another dilemma for AGW-believers.
Max
Concerning some insults hurled at Bob Carter by a well-known fruitcake here, the following bio of Bob C is relevant:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
Some while back when I was in correspondence with Bob Carter he advised me that Chris de Freitas was a buddy of his with probably greater expertise in advanced physics. Furthermore, I believe that few scientists work in isolation. For instance, most scientific papers have multiple authorship. Thus, if Bob Carter talks to his buddy Chris de Freitas, the following extract from Chris’s bio should be of interest:
http://www.sges.auckland.ac.nz/the_school/our_people/defreitas_chris/index.shtm
Furthermore, these guys and the awesomely logical Vincent Gray and others are contributors for:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
Oh, BTW, I see that the said fruitcke is still WRONGLY using PMA moving average on his 7962 graph instead of CMA. (as required for time-series data) Sheez! how many times must he be told!
Max #7976
That half a degree is exactly the amount that Miskolczi worked out, which remains the only calculation any one has been willing to put forward for discussion.
We talked about it at great length last year
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=556&start=270
tonyb
TonyB (7979)
Yes. The 2xCO2 impact of 0.5C looks pretty firm.
What I like best about this figure is that it is based on empirical data from actual physical satellite observations of outgoing long-wave radiation, rather than simply on model assumptions.
There was a lot of back and forth on the thread you cited about the difference between specific humidity (total water content) and relative humidity and the question of whether or not both have increased or decreased over time (at the same time that our climate has warmed).
This seems pretty much answered by the long-term NOAA record. Contrary to what one might expect by a simple application of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and what has been programmed into the GCMs cited by IPCC, both RH and SH have decreased at the same time that global temperature has risen.
(Of course, this all shows that our climate system is much too complicated for a simple application of one theoretical physical equation on water vapor alone, without considering the related factors of clouds and precipitation.)
I plotted how this observed 50-year decrease in atmospheric water content (specific humidity) correlates with the observed Hadley temperature record.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3606945645_3450dc4e6f_b.jpg
Again, it is the empirical data (rather than the model assumptions) that count, and these do not support the postulation of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, but rather one of around 0.5°C.
Max
Back to that Science Museum poll. It seems that, after the farcical start, they have at last it out by introducing software to prevent multiple voting – see this SM Press Release. Therefore, if anyone voted and did not get an email confirmation (to confirm use of a quoted email address) I think it’s legitimate to vote again.
Such “yes/no” internet polls are, of course, pretty useless – but are, nonetheless, quite interesting and amusing. The present count is 802 “in” to 5561 “out”.
Typo alert: the second line (above) should read “at last sorted it out …”
Robin #7981
Thanks for the tip. I shall be voting again. I disagree about the the poll being useless. The reliability /usefulness of a poll is proportional to the simplicity of the question. Here, the bare “convinced / unconvinced” format means that they’re measuring gut reactions to a vague concept, which is as it should be. Clever questions can be too easily biassed, as in a recent poll of scientists which claimed a 97% consensus, which was in fact the response to a question of the form “do you believe human activity is having an effect on the climate?” or some such.
Our obsession with this poll is perhaps blinding us to the more serious question of the prostitution of a major cultural asset by a politically motivated director (who apparently believes that AGW sceptics should be prosecuted at Nuremberg-style trials) following government orders. I’m wondering whether the details of the meeting between museum director Chris Rapley and the DECC could be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The list of trustees to whom letters of protest could be sent is at:
http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/nmsipages/boardoftrustees.asp
Dodgy Geezer commenting at WUWT has provided us with the list of those responsible for the exhibition:
“The PROVE IT! exhibit was designed by Ab Rogers Design. Graphics are by venturethree, with the Science Museum design studio. The gallery interactives are designed by Spiral Productions Ltd.
We are grateful to the following experts for their advice on content
Ben Booth (Met Office)
Jessica Brown (Overseas Development Institute)
Charlotte Jourdain (Imperial College)
Ralf Martin (London School of Economics)
Stephen Peake (Open University)
Jeff Ridley (Met Office)
Heike Schroeder (Oxford University)
Neil Carter (University of York)
Meric Srokosz (National Oceanography Centre)”
When I have the time I shall be looking into this merry band of warmists, the South Ken ad hoc Climate Change Collective. How long before they’re billed as “some of the world’s top scientists”?
Geoff:
Anything related to the exhibition which is held by the DECC should be available under the FOIA. I’m not sure about the Science Museum, but would expect that this is subject to the FOIA too: all universities are.
Even if the Science Museum is not covered by the FOIA it will almost certainly be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations. This piece of legislation is more all-encompassing than the FOIA and anything to do with climate change is considered to be environmental information.
If you felt like having a go, and it seems like a very good idea, then I may be able to help, but I have too many similar balls in the air at the moment to initiate another one.
This is a good place to start:
http://www.cfoi.org.uk/pdf/foi_guide.pdf
TonyN
We must not forget that the prime purpose of the Science museum prove it exhibit was to help launch this latest piece of hubris
http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/content/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final
That Rapley is enthusiastically endorsing this- and as climate professor at University Colege seems to have had a hand in formulating it- can be seen by the number of meetings he has had with the Met office staff-such as Ben Booth.
Rapley is still very active and using the science museum as a useful vehicle for his beliefs.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0910/09102002
Tonyb
The “corrected” British Museum count was, after apparent Email acceptance of my vote, and my comments:
826 counted in so far 5670 counted out so far
(despite that my Email address ends with ‘.au’, although I correctly gave my nationality as British.)
Geoff: I disagree about the usefulness of that SM poll. For four reasons: (1) a properly conducted online poll (I should explain that I’m the founder chairman of an online polling organisation) accesses only respondents from a balanced representative sample – in no way, is that applicable here. (2) the question (I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen. Count me in/out) is “clever”, not simple as you suggest. For example, my wife, a sceptic, at first said “I’m in – I want the them to negotiate a deal that negates all this “save the world” nonsense”. (3) In/out voting is inadequately nuanced – a properly constructed poll would allow for “don’t knows” and those who might wish to express an alternative view (e.g. Mrs G). (4) In any case, there’s something odd about the in/out 1:7 ratio achieved so far – I don’t believe the gap is as big as that.
I don’t believe the gap is as big as that.
I agree it seems extreme, and as you say, it’s hardly representative anyway, but I think it may also be the victim of its own rather hectoring style. The Brits (and the Aussies) are famously uncooperative when being steered by authorities to give a particular answer, and I suspect that quite a few ‘out’ votes will be from people who just don’t like the way it is being pitched. As ever, the law of unintended consequences awaits the unwary (and hubristic).
If the current trend continues (829 in, 5722 out) it will be interested to read the SM’s report on their campaign in December!
Since Bob’s count earlier today, I see the ‘in’ figures have increased by 3 and the ‘outs’ by 52 (!)
As the SM has now “implemented additional security measures” and can no longer blame robot voters, I wonder how they’re taking it? Does anyone have Chris Rapley’s email address? :-)
This link to the Times is very Interesting. Here we have the so called “serious and worried” scientists concerned that the exaggerated claims undermine the drive to cut emissions. I bet they are worried, because they can see their funding disappearing and they also do not have a credible answer to the current behaviour of the earth’s climate. Of course they still don’t get it, because they can not open their minds to the fact that the driving factor they have chosen doesn’t fit.
It is enlightening that the comments have changed from arguing the science to arguing the politics. This show a massive change in the mood of the public, who are now asking questions such as “who are these experts”, and “what are the disastrous consequences of warming”? This shows a growing maturity, a realisation that the science is not settled, and no doubt due to the financial situation, non acceptance of the left wing forcing their brand of “accepted” behaviour on others.
As an innocent bystander, I am amused by the British Museum “in-out” poll count story.
Despite the well reasoned caveats posed by Robin, it does prove Abraham Lincoln’s statement about not being able to fool all the people all the time. Exaggerated propaganda, like the “fairy tale” disaster ad, usually backfires in a democratic society. The alarming Met Office predictions that never come true have also not helped, I’m sure.
It is almost pathetic how the Science Museum director got himself into such a silly position, demonstrating that he is more gullible than a majority of the respondents to the poll.
On a more serious side, I would think that it does not bode well for the current government’s global warming policies and political future.
Max
This may be a preview of how failure at Copenhagen will be stage managed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8334146.stm
So far as I can see, no substantive commitment has been made by the EU.
Peter Geany (7990)
The Times headline proclaims
You are probably right about the scientists’ concerns that the AGW gravy train may be getting derailed as the general public sees that the exaggerated claims are invalid.
But the Times misses the point, when it blames the media and a few over-enthusiastic scientists for this dilemma.
Let’s analyze the statement by Vicky Pope, head of “climate change advice” at the Met Office:
The first part of this statement makes sense, as various polls are showing. The second part is direct scaremongering again, i.e. an exaggeration of the situation.
So Vicky has fallen into her own trap in one short statement.
Not only the media, the politicians and a handful of over-zealous scientists (such as James E. Hansen) are making exaggerated claims.
It is the “mainstream consensus” of scientists, organizations such as NASA and the Met Office and the (supposedly) “gold standard” world climate organization, IPCC, itself, who are doing so.
The key exaggeration made by the “mainstream scientists” is the computer-generated postulation of strong “positive feedbacks”, which increase the theoretical greenhouse effect of CO2 by a factor of four.
Without these AGW is not a serious threat, as temperature by 2100 would only increase by less than 0.5°C from today.
But by “cranking in” all these virtual “positive feedbacks” into the models, IPCC predicts that the temperature by 2100 will increase by 1.8° to 4.0°C, with a maximum range value of 6.4°C.
It is precisely this “exaggerated claim” which the Times article should address, because this is the real underlying problem.
Max
“Exaggerated claims” such as 36” blizzards in October…………The more shrill the Hysterians, the more people begin to look around at the massive amount of snow that is falling/plunging temperatures and think to themselves, “someone is lying”.
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes”? – Groucho Marx
The prophecies of the priests of the Global Warming religion are not panning out and people are getting wise to the scheme.
The “sky is falling” politicians are losing their credibility as people begin to realize what this “initiative” is all about……the implications of the policies that these lunatic politicians are advocating and the agenda of the “green” movement.
Biggest October Snow in Denver in 12 Years
http://www.wifr.com/weather/headlines/67383077.html
Snow shifts east, paralyzing plains
http://www.wtvr.com/health/kdvr-snow-story-102909,0,1202500.story
Robin at #7987
Of course I agree that this is in no way a proper opinion poll (I used to work in market research). However, it is a chance for the motivated on both sides to declare themselves with no effort and at no cost, and therefore a chance to measure the relative strengths of the pro and anti-warmist camps among obsessive bloggers like ourselves.
I agree that the 7:1 ratio in our favour is extremely odd. This is my attempt at an explanation.
The detailed progress of this poll has been followed closely by numerous posters at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/
Once the cheating is eliminated, we see an initial short period where the two sides were neck and neck at a few hundred votes each, whereupon the noes pulled ahead and have maintained a 6 or 7 to 1 lead, both before and after the cheating, its discovery and correction.
It seems inconceivable that the current result could be the result of cheating. Apart from the fact that the original cheating was confessed to, and corrected, even if it were possible, what purpose could it serve? If some clever sceptic hacker were stuffing the ballot box, the museum would have every reason to cry foul and pull the poll, its honour intact, since it obviously behaved honestly in correcting the earler cheating on both sides. The only possible conclusion is that the poll reflects the real opinions of visitors to the site.
The early neck and neck situation is easily explained by the couple of hundred people involved in the exhibition launch voting “yes” straight away. Thereafter, I am not surprised that regular science museum fans should vote “no”. Their profile is probably much like that of sceptic commenters here and elsewhere – people “in” science or engineering in some way, with no funding to lose, and whose scepticism is a natural protective reaction to “their” subject. People who visit the SM like machines and what they do and are proud of the technical revolution which shaped our modern world.
What I don’t understand is the lack of any “green” counterattack. Their blogworld is a couple of magnitudes greater than ours. A few mentions on green sites could create a few thousand responses with no trouble. The only conclusion I can come to is that they don’t care, because neither science, nor polls, nor ridicule, is of interest to them. I suppose if you truly believe the end of the world is nigh, one failed publicity stunt must seem pretty trivial in comparison.
Max 7993
This is very much like the poacher turning gamekeeper. I noticed the Vicky Pope’s slip, and wondered just what point this Times science correspondent was trying to make.
I think the battle over temperature and climate change science now needs to shift. I believe that we have now discredited the temperature record; we have demonstrated that natural cycles fit what is happening and what has happened. I would like the science to switch to CO2, and establish what is the true concentration, how does it vary and develop more accurate proxies for past concentration. This is going to require cross referencing the Mauna Loa readings with chemical measurements and measurements from around the world.
We need to justify the demonising of this life-giving gas. The satellite data will play a part in this but again I believe it uses an instrument to calculate co2 concentration from infrared light similar to Mauna Loa and if it doesn’t give the correct reading it will discarded.
But now is the right time whilst the alarmist and warmists are bent over double catching their breathe to cut them off at the knees.
Further to the interesting Times article referred to by Peter G at 7990 (BTW thanks, Max, for your wise commentary), here is an article on similar lines from the Wall Street Journal.
Incidentally, looking at the wealth of good sense evinced by commentators on that Times article, I’m beginning to think that perhaps – just perhaps – the Science Museum poll’s in/out ratio (now seemingly frozen ay 861/5798) is not quite so unrepresentative of public opinion after all.
A slight rallying of the troops on the SM site today, with 32 extra ‘ins’ and a mere 77 extra ‘outs’. Geoff is obviously right about their networks – perhaps the Great Moonbat will be drafted in to help the cause…
Further to #7992, today’s ‘historic’ EU agreement seems to be encountering a certain amount of scepticism, even where you would least expect to find it.
On James P’s suggestion at #7998 on drafting in the Moonbat:
Has anyone else noticed what has happened on CommentisFree / Guardian Environment? Comments on articles by the Moonbat and his pals have fallen from the thousands to the low dozens. I (and presumably hundreds of others) have been put on premoderation, which means comments, if accepted, only appear long after the discussion has moved on. I’ve twice written in praise of the Lunatic Fledermaus, and had my comments refused. Sometimes they’re accepted by the first moderator, then erased twelve hours later.
I used to enjoy the pub brawl atmosphere, the accusations of sexual inadequacy and fascism, and the occasional death threats. Now I have to make do with civilised adult discussion here. It’ not the same.