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.
Bob (8490)
The Today interview is here – the item at 0810:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394501.stm
The other one is here, but I can’t remember exactly where it was in the programme…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p3qtg
Bob_FJ (8491)
You will recall that I had a brief blog exchange with Phil Jones on CA, where I pointed out that the Hadley record for the first four months of 2008 had been adjusted upward after the fact, making the 2008 cooling look less significant.
Phil rationalized that variance adjustments are made, data that have not been captured are added in, etc., but he could not explain the magnitude of the “correction” nor why his record showed less cooling for these four months than the other records, once this upward “correction” had been made (see chart).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2720385677_7af5ccfd90_b.jpg
So I would conclude from this brief episode that “jiggling the numbers” is not unusual in the handling of the CRU data set.
There is, of course, the longer range ex post facto adjustment that was made to shift the post-1998 cooling trend to a flat to slight warming trend (see chart).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3089974324_634ce5dc43_b.jpg
Re-writing history seems to be par for the course at Hadley, along with poor computer programming (as pointed out in the recent BBC report).
Let’s hope we now get more transparency of what is going on, and hopefully even an outside audit by someone like Steve McIntyre to shed light on this whole process.
Max
Geoff Chambers 8500
It’s not through lack of trying regarding pushing ourselves forward into the MSM. They hadn’t been interested because they were programmed to see us as nutcases that had the effrontery to challenge science.
That is changing now, although getting our voices heard in the next two weeks is problematic as the political bandwagon is likely to steamroller everything in its path, especially with the BBC having a pro-agw agenda and 36 people at Copenhagen who will be promoting it avidly.
However, there is an awful lot going on behind the scenes with various sceptic groups producing lots of information on subjects where the science and historic precedence is weak.
Several scientists have also made themselves known to us recently and are starting to put their heads above the parapet, but it takes time to get them to speak openly because of the hostility they will find amongst their peers.
Check out my site
http://www.climatereason.com where the pre 1850 temperature datasets are being rediscovered. There is also lots of work being done to get to the bottom of GISS-a quite absurd database of manufactured information purporting to provide a reliable global temperature.
So watch this space once the madness dies down a bit but public blogs are not the best place to speak openly and the real work is being done outside of them.
Tonyb
geoffchambers
Thanks for your clarification (8500).
I agree fully that the issues must be presented to the public in a truthful and open manner, and that an extension of the efforts of sites like CA and this one to the MSM would be helpful.
One thing is sure: the arrogant “trust me, baby” and “the science is settled” days are over forever since “Climategate” broke. Just look at the open (if somewhat controlled) dialogue at RC.
The USA seems to be taking the lead now in insisting on transparency and a critical review of the science supporting the AGW premise.
This appears to be the result of the fierce debate surrounding “cap and trade” (or “cap ‘n tax”) legislation, which will eventually go to the US Senate for deliberation.
Sen. Inhofe has long been a skeptic of the AGW premise and an opponent of cap ‘n tax, and he along with a few others, is doing a good job of presenting this view to the US public, as the latest US polls show.
[Peter M apparently thinks most Americans are “anti-science” in some religious fundamentalist way, and are therefore skeptical of the premise that AGW is a serious threat, but I believe he is missing the point entirely, since many US scientists have also shown skepticism of the AGW premise.]
President Obama’s appearance at Copenhagen may show his personal support for carbon caps, but he is in no position to commit the USA in any way to a treaty, as this requires not only a majority but a two-thirds vote of the Senate (which will not occur).
So it will be all about political grandstanding and ignoring the “Climategate” fall-out as much as possible, by minimizing the exposure to or muzzling critical voices at Copenhagen.
But who knows? Maybe there will be some surprises. I doubt if these will work in the favor of firm carbon cap commitments, however.
I agree that “Climategate” has given AGW skepticism a chance to truly go mainstream, especially now that it has been cooling for the past nine years despite all-time record increases in CO2.
But going mainstream will not happen without a concerted effort, as you point out.
Max
geoffchambers Reur 8500:
[1] What you go on to discuss is fine with me, but it is an area that I prefer to leave largely to others that are probably better at it than me. I think it is ALSO important to work on scientists and some others that are pro AGW alarmists, or borderline, and may be capable of listening. Hopefully the effect is exponential, and media and policymakers will accede under more pressure. I also have a burning resentment as a “coalface scientist“, that some “academic scientists” are committing “scientific fraud”
[2] Actually, although it is entertaining to follow the Tamino ID story, what is more important is that he is now shown to be a confidant of the Inner Sanctum. See my following post to Max, (probably this evening… this here is a lunchtime quickie) and please read and note that even Steve McIntyre did not know that Tamino was Grant Foster etc. Tamino has his own website; OpenMind and assumes an apparently independent position to RealClimate, whilst frequently posting there as commenter and sometimes as guest contributor.
Max Reur 8498
This morning I remembered that Steve Mosher, (whom is long very active over at CA) had some amusing comments a year or so ago on the likely ID of Tamino, which have now been verified. This led me to Google on: ‘mosher grant foster’; to validate my recollection, and lo and behold, it led me to the very same CA link that you recommended, entitled:
Tamino and the “Adjusted” Gaspé Data
by Steve McIntyre on March 19th, 2008
AND, what an interesting thread that was, back in 2008! Tamino has his own website (OpenMind) and appeared to be un-associated with real climate, as was evident in Steve Mc’s treatment in that thread. However, it is now clear that Tamino is Grant Foster, and part of the RC/CRU cabal…. Member of the Inner Sanctum!
Anyhow, for a bit of light relief, here is that amusing exchange contained in that Steve Mc’ thread:
More on the Beeb this morning at 8:10, with Ed Miliband getting a (rather gentle) grilling from John Humphrys. It’s here (for a few days) if you’re interested:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8398000/8398591.stm
Miliband clearly knows little about the science and, like most AGW supporters, seems to think that CO2 forms a significant proportion of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the same appears to be true of his interrogators…
JamesP,
You write “Miliband… seems to think that CO2 forms a significant proportion of the atmosphere”.
He’s right. You are wrong in thinking 280ppmv, the pre-industrial level, or 385ppmv, the current level, are ‘insignificant’ levels. Ian Plimer, and you might want to ask him about that, has claimed that if the atmospheric CO2 concentration really were reduced to zero the earth would be the a not ‘insignificant’ 18degC cooler as a result. And yes this figure, if correct, would have to include feedbacks.
The IPCC’s best estimate for the warming due to a doubling of CO2 concentrations , including feedbacks, is 3 degC.
Peter
I think everyone else knows what I meant! 385 ppm is less than 0.04% and while I’m sure it has a measurable effect, I very much doubt that it is significant, given the other factors (cloud cover, water vapour) that are not only larger but, so far, impossible to quantify, model or predict with any accuracy.
I’m sure if you asked Miliband and his cronies, they would have no idea what the figure was, let alone how CO2 was buffered by the oceans.
CO2 is significant for plant life, of course – much less than half the current level would halt photosynthesis, and life as we know it.
James,
Yes think I knew what you meant too. But as you were unkind enough the claim to claim that “Milibrand knows little about science” you can’t really complain if your incorrect ‘scientific’ statements are in turn corrected.
Incidentally, it isn’t any politician’s job to understand science in the way you imply. They need to listen to their scientific advisers and formulate policy accordingly.
“Incidentally, it isn’t any politician’s job to understand science in the way you imply. They need to listen to their scientific advisers and formulate policy accordingly.”
Yes, scientific advice would help, but unfortunately as we know full well here in the UK, the government has a tendancy to completely ignore it’s scientific advisors and do whatever it feels is politically expedient (unless they happen to agree with government policy).
Who is with me in thinking that the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere as measured in just one location needs to be urgently reviewed? Its all very well being open and accepting that the temperature record needs to subject to greater scrutiny, but I am just as sceptical about the CO2 concentration going up in such a regular and smooth way. I’m not saying it’s not going up; just that what we are being told is not a true reflection of reality.
We wouldn’t measure the temperature in The Isle of Man and say this is the temperature of the world, so why do it with CO2? Besides this we are not directly measuring the concentration but inferring the concentration from infrared absorption, and this further adds in scope for error and removes any chance for chemical verification.
We know from measurements taken chemically around the world that the concentrations can vary considerably more than we are lead to believe by the Mauna Loa record. And before anyone asks, yes some of my scepticism is as a result of Climategate, but mostly its from what I perceive as a sort of scientific laziness and lack of rigour that has crept into science where once on the gravy train, scientists are not bothered to question their own work, and are too ready to defend it using any dubious means on the basis that because we may not be scientists we have no right to question their work.
It also result from my lifelong interest in science where I know that almost all I learnt at school has either been proved incorrect, or has been modified by additional knowledge. Just think Ozone hole, DDT or the death of the Dinosaurs by meteorite as just a few truths that are now not so, or known to be “unknown”
Peter Geany,
You ask “Who is with me in thinking that the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere as measured in just one location needs to be urgently reviewed?”
If it was “just one location” I’m sure we
all would be “with you”. How about 11 locations? How many would you like?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
As Peter Martin says, Co2 is being measured from more than one location. Howver official stations use gases calibrated/referenced to Mauna Loa and supplied by them. WHAT is being measured is however a whole different discussion and WHY existing records were discarded when ML started measuring in 1957 another one again.
Perhaps Peter M would like to comment on and refute my #8419 and #8444?
Tonyb
Peter M 8513
Ummmm have you looked at thos graphs? notice anything strange about them?
Interesting by-election result in Australia.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-trading-not-such-a-vote-winner-eh/#more-5083
Richard Blacks first report from Copenhagen is full of humorous comments, but not one single pro AGW comment as yet despite the Rockall delegate rowing to the event. I’m not sure its exactly what Richard would have expected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_copenhagen_climate_summi.html
Peter
But as you were unkind enough the claim to claim that “Milibrand knows little about science” you can’t really complain if your incorrect ’scientific’ statements are in turn corrected.
I wasn’t being unkind, merely factual – Miliband’s degrees were in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
As for my statements, I wasn’t aware of having said anything contentious, although clearly you have found something to disagree with. I do sometimes wonder if we’re in parallel universes…
I’m behind with reading comments at the moment so forgive me if someone has already posted this.
Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita have put up a new blog here:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/
Well worth reading and watch out for fireworks.
TonyN, every time a look at this site it’s still there: Patchauri. Please take the trouble to get his name right.
JamesP
Don’t fall for Peter M’s smoke and mirrors on the impact of atmospheric CO2 (his 8508)
Most scientists do not agree that if the “atmospheric CO2 concentration really were reduced to zero the earth would be a not ‘insignificant’ 18degC cooler as a result”, as Peter states.
The generally accepted number is 5 to 7degC.
The temperature impact of doubling CO2 is slightly below 1degC, based on the GH theory per Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann and IPCC (Myhre et al.).
The relationship is essentially logarithmic, so that a doubling from 280 to 560 ppmv would have roughly the same impact as a doubling from 560 to 1120 ppmv.
There are, however, not enough fossil fuel reserves on this planet to reach beyond 1000 ppmv.
We are now at roughly 390 ppmv, so the theoretical GH temperature increase when all fossil fuels have been consumed (whenever that could occur, if at all) would be 1.3degC.
The 3degC figure Peter throws out for 2xCO2 is a computer-generated estimate based on all sorts of fed in assumptions of positive feedbacks that are proving to be incorrect, based on empirical data derived from actual physical observations rather than simply computer simulations.
Recent studies based on empirical data gathered from physical observations by Spencer et al. and Lindzen + Choi indicated that the net feedbacks are negative, rather than positive, so that the theoretical warming from consuming all fossil fuels on Earth would probably be well below 1degC, so nothing to worry about. Truly a “tempest in a teapot” (despite the thousands of bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, climatologists, etc. that are descending on Copenhagen).
Peter is quoting you out-of-date information, based on computer simulations which have been fed erroneous assumptions that have since been shown to be incorrect.
Max
Jasper Gee #8520:
Done!
And I hope that you realise that it is rather more difficult to write a blog without typos than it is to spot them.
TonyN, Reur 8494
As you recommended, I’ve cross posted the Tamino stuff on page #9 over at:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html?lastPage=true#comment6544606
That is a very interesting summary of some key Emails plus comments thread BTW
Bob:
Thanks; I hadn’t seen that one about the end effects before and given that it was written in 1999 it seems interesting.
James P Reur 8501
Thanks James for that. I thought the first discussion was quite balanced despite the rather silly opening statements, including something like it concerns: …a few emails from an obscure university!
The second one, (starting at about 9 minutes), was dominated by a load of crap from Mark Lynas, and the responder was a poor debater that wandered off topic, and also spouted crap about “hide the decline“, for instance he stated that Mann excluded proxy data from 1960, which is not true. Lynas actually described it better but hid the scientific implications of it! See my #67 on the other thread; CRU Hack
Perhaps something I should expand on in #67 is that since the divergence problem (decline) after 2006 is not understood, (and is counter intuitive to what nominally should be better growing conditions) it is scientifically absurd to assume that calibration factors prior to 1960 are constant for millennia!