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.
Pete,
I think you know what I’m getting at……your cageyness is transparent. Your reliance on the IPCC projection doesn’t square with observations.
You’ve driven 390 miles and run out of gas on the side of the road. The gasoline gauge reads empty but you still insist that the manufacturer’s estimate (IPCC projection) is correct.
“The gas gauge is broken!” you exclaim. “The manufacturer stated that the range was 400 miles”!
Reality doesn’t square with the projected mileage……but you continue to insist that you must be able to drive another 10 miles because the manufacturer said so……you’re on the shoulder of the road out of gas and refuse to accept that the manufacturer (IPCC projection) was incorrect.
I think I don’t know what you’re getting at! Except that you’ve probably been reading Icecap or something equally unscientific.
The last IPCC report was published in 2007. Its far too early to talk about incorrect IPCC projections.
OK, Peter, I suppose I’ll have to accept that you think it’s acceptable for Rudd to say something truly offensive, whereas it’s not acceptable for Max to make his relatively mild prediction.
BTW do you think that commentators here use “logic that belongs in a casino, not a science lab”?
Robin,
We may have found some common ground at last.
I agree that the sort of {il}logic used by climate change deniers doesn’t belong in a Casino either.
I’ve played a bit of poker, myself, and I can say it definitely helps to apply logical thought to the game.
Peter: I agree – let’s leave it at that.
I’ve posted Peter Geany’s impressions of the Plimer lecture here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=234
This is a bit awkward so close to Copenhagen:
Chinese schools collapse in snow
Hi,
Regarding Tempterrain and his #8173 post I wish to give you a little lesson from a political scientist that does know what he is talking about.
Greens and left wing views are joined at the hip. This is best shown by Germany, and the most successful of all ‘Green’ parties, the Die Grünen party.
They are socialist. Read their manifesto (I have had to for my course) their views about climate and green issues come second to social reform.
This is also seen in other green parties and pressure groups in the UK. Many of these groups are willing to destroy the countryside with wind turbines so long as we change our way of living to be more communal and ‘organic’ minded.
IE live like they did before we had cities. Nasty thought really. Consider it.
As for Marx’s opinion, well, that doesn’t account for the left really because if the left had listened to Marx the Bolsheviks would never have seized power and tried to force a revolution. Left idea, not a Marx one.
And as for giving Malthus and his ideas the light of day, well, they have been given it and time has shone upon them and they have shrivelled and died.
He believed (quoting wiki here, the UN would be so proud)societal improvements result in population growth which, he states, sooner or later gets checked by famine, disease, and widespread mortality.
This has not happened. The population growth has, rarely and only coupled with other more serious problems, not lead to people starving.
And in the west our populations have levelled off because of social improvements such as education which has meant people don’t need or want 10 children running around.
This doesn’t need serious study it needs common sense. We will always be able to feed ourselves.
Hi Peter,
You opined
“Temperature anomalies in many regions exceeding 0.7°C” do not prove anything, Peter.
We just got the empirical measurements, Peter, not of “temperature anomalies in excess of 0.7 deg C in many regions”, but of changes in the total SW + LW radiation leaving our planet with warmer surface temperature. These empirical data show that there is a strong negative overall feedback with warming, resulting in a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity over the tropics of 0.5°C.
The observed results showed that this is due, to a large extent, due to increased outgoing SW radiation (presumably reflected from increased low-altitude cloud cover), and to a lesser extent due to a slight increase in outgoing LW radiation (presumably not trapped due to decreased high-altitude cloud cover).
It’s actually pretty simple, Peter. More low-altitude clouds with warmer surface temperature = more SW radiation reflected back into space = less SW radiation warming our planet = a net cooling of the planet.
Most of the incoming SW radiation enters our planet in the tropics, so this is where the impact of increased SW radiation leaving the planet will be the greatest on our planet’s temperature.
Lindzen and Choi have concluded (I repeat, since you appear to have missed this point):
These empirical data from the physical observations negate the many IPCC climate model simulations, which are all based on strong positive overall feedback leading to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C.
And we are talking about the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of the entire planet, Peter, not about some “regional temperature anomalies”.
Open your eyes to new information, Peter, and rejoice.
The empirical data confirm that we will not fry!
Don’t change the subject and act as though you were stupid. I know that you are not. Maybe stubborn, but not stupid.
Max
Hi PeterM,
You apparently had some problems understanding or accepting the recent Lindzen and Choi conclusions, which were based on empirical data obtained by ERBE physical observations of changes in the total outgoing radiation from our planet with warming, as taken over the tropics.
There has been an earlier study, which covered not only the tropics, but also the mid-latitudes.
ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/CPT/norris_jcl04.pdf
The Norris study shows that reflected SW radiation has increased as surface and tropospheric temperatures have risen. This has occurred both in the tropical regions (covered by Lindzen and Choi) as well as at the mid latitudes.
The results showed that upper-level (heat trapping) cloud cover over low and mid latitudes “decreased between 1952 and 1997, causing a corresponding increase in reconstructed OLR (outgoing LW radiation).”
At middle latitudes, low-level (SW reflecting) cloud cover increased more than upper-level (LW trapping) cloud cover decreased, producing an overall rise in reconstructed RSW (reflected SW radiation) and net upward radiation since 1952.
The last sentence of the abstract is important:
This, together with the empirical data for the tropical latitudes, as reported by Lindzen and Choi, confirms that clouds at all latitudes act as a global “natural thermostat” for our planet’s climate, resulting in a reduction of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from around 1.0°C for CO2 alone to around 0.5° to 0.7°C with all feedbacks.
These data directly refute the climate model simulations, which estimate a highly positive overall feedback, resulting in a simulated 2xCO2 sensitivity of 2.0° to 4.5°C.
Of course, this also mean that all the IPCC projections of temperature increase by year 2100 are exaggerated by a factor of three or four, and that, as a result, AGW is not a serious threat.
Hope this helps cheer you up.
Max
Another scientific “consensus” shot to hell……
Yes, There’s Water on the Moon
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/23/yes-theres-water-on-the-moon/
Green home makeover will cost up to £15,000, says climate watchdog chief
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/10/energy-efficiency-homes-cost-watchdog
Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/carbon/6527970/Everyone-in-Britain-could-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6566550
The Times leads today on climate change, or rather, on an opinion poll on climate change, or rather, the problem of people not giving the right answer in an opinion poll about climate change. As usual, the journalist is quite incapable of presenting or analysing the data. As usual, there’s a horrifyingly totalitarian quote from a member of the Great the Green and the Good (Mike Childs, head of climate change at Friends of the Earth, said ..“If you are going to tackle climate change .. it means having to take difficult political decisions … There was little political risk in taking unpopular actions, though, because all the main parties were committed to tackling the issue”).
And as usual the Thunderer drops one with an editorial of impeccable fatuity, with a scientific howler in every paragraph (“I was talking to this chap at the Club who turned out to be the Astronomer Royal, and apparently if we don’t put a fellow with a red flag in front of every aeroplane, the phlogiston will run out by 1937 ..”)
Possibly the most depressing feature is the intellectual level of the comments, which, though encouragingly sceptical in the main, are almost universally ill-informed. By suppressing debate, the media have encouraged ignorance on all sides. I agree with Peter Geany’s comment in his report on the Plimer lecture, that there are reasons to fear for democracy.
Brute (8188)
OK. A personal carbon allowance really translates into a personal oxygen (or air) allowance and tax, since all the carbon we humans consume (food, fuel, etc.) is converted into CO2.
An air trip from London to Spain would be equivalent to four roast beef dinners, for example.
Exceeding the personal oxygen (or air) allowance would result in a fine, to be paid to the government (elected by UK citizens), who imposed this fine (or tax), literally on “the air we breathe”.
I’d suggest to the voting citizens of the UK that it’s high time to throw out the government idiots who are proposing such a ridiculous tax.
Max
Hi Brute #8188 and Max #8190
I wrote an article on this very subject which was carried on Air Vent and WUWT back on October 19th.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/
tonyb
Geoff
a) “.. the phlogiston will run out by 1937 ..” – love it. If you are interested in the history and method of science might I suggest this link which is very revealing about the real complexities of science during ‘controversy’ – it shows that Priestley didn’t cling on despite the evidence but acknowledged he could be wrong and raised some really key points. Note timescales and places in this complex history as well. Sadly reccently one book said about Priestley that it was a shame he clung on to a medieval view on this issue.
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/phlogiston.html /a>
Geoff
You might have to remove the/a> from the link above.
b) Sadly could not agree more:
“Possibly the most depressing feature is the intellectual level of the comments, which, though encouragingly sceptical in the main, are almost universally ill-informed.”
Absolutely true and I’ve made the same point at WuWT.
Re the Plimer thing, is there any truth to him blaming volcanoes on R4 today programme? The GGWSwindle did the same and was wrong (according to USGS about 1% typically volcanic) and Monbiot has used this as a lever.
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/nov/13/climate-deniers-today-programme
Manacker – trade offs like the one you quote are very interesting and I think that proposals for personal allowances will bring this to a head. For example, will vegetarians get higher personal allowances? The other key question which they try to avoid is can personal allowances be resold? Some see this as a get out for the poor, whilst others are massively opposed. The idea of some ‘fat cat’ jetting around whilst paying an estate of ‘climate serfs’ is a surreal one – “carbondage”?.
In terms of trade-offs I recently found a figure (unverified sadly) that 8 and half plastic bags (that currently fashionable bete noir of the greens) are the equivalent of 1km of driving.
So whilst ‘they’ like gesture politics and bans on things, this kind of puts it into perspective – although a driver who drives a few miles each way to their local supermarket might be thinking “every little helps” you only have to take a wrong turn or park 100 metres further down the car park then you have blown the saving.
Thanks for the links Luke. I’m not particularly interested in science, just the fantastic things which humans get up to, which makes me a dabbler in social science, I suppose. Note how the Times leader thinks we leapt from the four-element theory to subatomic particles in one go – Science as Progress from the Impossible to the Mysterious. Have these people ever read a book? And Times leader-writers hobnob with government ministers and fellows of the Royal Society. What a country.
If Monbiot says Plimer said something stupid about volcanoes, I’ll believe him (Monbiot). He has the prosecuting lawyer’s talent for finding the weak point in the defendant’s armour. His whole output is a variation on “When did you stop being financed by Big Oil?” Mention Lindzen or Briffa and he’ll come back with some fib David Bellamy told in 1995. The true scandal of Guardian Environment (and all the “serious” press) is that behind Monbiot are real science correspondents with PhDs who won’t, or daren’t, open their mouths.
Re carbon allowances, I think Ruth Lea’s comments (quoted in the Telegraph article) are apt:
“This is all about the control of the individual – and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It’s Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business.”
The outcome, surely, will be that businesses go elsewhere in the world, causing more unemployment. Fewer entrepreneurs will be in a position to start their own enterprises here, due to the punitive overheads. Businesses that do continue to operate here will pass the costs on to us, the consumers, in the form of higher prices. The higher the prices for fuel, transport and electricity, the more these will eat into personal carbon allowances, forcing more people into a position where they find it difficult to do much more than the minimum to keep alive – not heating their homes, unable to travel very far, subsisting on benefits perhaps, as there will be fewer job opportunities (although there will probably always be plenty of green jobs tomorrow or the next day, once the low carbon economy gets going). To sum up, I would be challenged to think of a better plan to turn us eventually into a Third World totalitarian state.
For clarity, when I say [8192] “key points” in relation to phlogiston (and before Peter/Tempterrain wakes up) I am, as Priestley put it, Antiphlogistic.
The key ‘technical’ points were relevant in Priestley’s time being dependant on the accuracy of instrumentation, interpretation of measurement and others demonstrating incommensurability of the paradigm from our current perspective. etc. Reading through it and with a degree in Chemistry I wonder if even I would have been able to persuade him.
The key points in terms of the scientific process itself are:
“But you will agree with me, that no man ought to surrender his own judgment to any mere authority, however respectable. Otherwise, our own system would never have been advanced.”
and
As you would not, I am persuaded, have your reign to resemble that of Robespierre, few as we are who remain disaffected, we hope you had rather gain us by persuasion, than silence us by power.
Just thought I’d clear that one up.
Luke #8192 I didn’t mean to be dismissive when I said I wasn’t interested in science. Your link to Priestley on Phlogiston is fascinating, particularly his recognition in the very first paragraph of the intimate relation between politics and science. I find interesting parallels with the discussion of the abolition of slavery, which was being carried on at the same time by the same kind of people. It’s not just about the science; you can see the very idea or a society based on rational discussion between reasonable people developing before your eyes. Of course, democracy, mass media and the internet make these Enlightenment values seem terribly élitist and passé, but what a wonderful world to inhabit! Like Harmless Skies with powdered wigs and stagecoaches.
Max and Brute my 8191
Carbon ratioining groups are all over the place-check out the network-even the US has them.
http://www.carbonrationing.org.uk/
tonyb
Geoff, our posts crossed – I’m not suggesting you read Priestley for the technical aspects of the science but precisely for the sociological ones.
Your 4 elements point links into pseudohistory – for some good stuff try:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/pseudo.pdf
especially Figure 1, and
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/rated-x.pdf
Re Alex’s point, the underlying problem is that many people now don’t worry about the control of the individual, in fact they think it is absolutely necessary/justified now. Hence the calls for post-normal science by some,’behaviour change’ by DECC/Defra (which makes me think of Clockwork Orange) and civil disobedience by Hanson / Gore et al.
This isn’t about logic or science – see this and get really worried (I put a skeptic comment up but the rest are crass):
<a href=”http://www.unfoundation.org/global-issues/climate-and-energy/its-getting-personal/” http://www.unfoundation.org/global-issues/climate-and-energy/its-getting-personal/
I am even concerned about the very idea of a UN Foundation – it sounds a bit like the charitable equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund.