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.
Hmm – Peter’s 9049 is a perfect illustration of my 9048 observation.
Add to my 9051 the story to which TonyN provides links at the end of his 9041 (re the manipulation of temperature data at the US’s two key climate data centres, GISS and NOAA) and the basis of the AHW scare looks very shaky indeed. Joseph D’Aleo’s analysis can be found here. This is his introductory paragraph:
So much for the dismissal of “climategate” as unimportant because the CRU data sets were independently confirmed by the GISS and NOAA data.
But is all this being reported by the MSM? Er … no.
A correction to my 9052: the Sunday Times got close to it in the paragraph I quoted at the end of my 9050. There’s hope yet.
Many will remember the UN press release announcing the publication of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s 2007 report – that’s the one with the completely misleading (but widely quoted) headline “Evidence is now ‘unequivocal’ that humans are causing global warming – UN report“.
Here are two interesting extracts:
Er, not quite … we now learn it included a major claim based on “speculation” that “had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and had no formal status” (see 9050).
The press release also stated that “The IPCC … brings together the world’s leading climate scientists and experts“. Pretty impressive … until, that is, we learn that it appointed to oversee its chapter on glaciers someone who admits “I am not an expert on glaciers“.
Alex
Could not one of WeatherAction’s customers be prevailed upon to supply copies of past forecasts
Given their resources, you’d think that the MO could run to £10/month to get Piers Corbyn’s reports for themselves! I believe he forecast last July that this year would start (from Jan.4th) with a cold spell.
As for general accuracy, I gather that William Hill no longer takes bets for his forecasts against the MO’s (such as they are).
PeterM
Has it turned out that you are a donkey in donkey’s clothing? (You’re acting like one.)
Max
James P – I agree, at £10 a month, there’s no excuse!
Re Met Office alternatives, someone on WUWT pointed out that the Guardian are using Accuweather for their forecasts.
The BBC are also apparently considering switching to NZ’s Metra, as per this article in the Sunday Times.
Robin
Those Himalayan glaciers are apparently not going to disappear by 2035 or even 2350. It appears that at least a few hundred of them are growing, not shrinking.
“Conflicting signal of climatic change in the Upper Indus Basin.” Fowler, H.J and Archer, D.R. Journal of Climate, September 2006.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/1156409891
And a more recent study provides more evidence:
“Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing”
http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html
So much for the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035.
Max
the report is based on a thorough review of the most-up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific literature
And yet included a time estimate from someone who declared himself unqualified to comment on glaciers and managed to get that wrong by 315 years.
Of course, there is another definition of ‘peer’ which is “to look with difficulty”…
I had great fun over at RC last July/August concerning the iconic Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland that has been claimed to be the fastest retreating and flowing glacier in the world. To my surprise, even Martin Vermeer (Finnish professor), an aggressive warmist, stated that the behaviour is not related to temperature, quoting the warmer period of the 1940’s. (paraphrasing)
Here is a quick extract.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/3790963832_1dd0405660_o.png (Click if no image appears)
Robin
Himalayan glaciers don’t seem to be doing what IPCC thinks they should.
But they aren’t the only ones.
I have been following the reports on Swiss alpine glaciers for some time, and was always puzzled why the late 1940s showed faster rates of decline of several of the larger glaciers than the most recent years, despite the fact that it is now generally warmer in Switzerland than 60 years ago.
A recent study has answered the question.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040789.shtml
There was apparently a higher level of incoming SW solar radiation reaching the surface, due to less cloud cover and possibly the effects of human aerosols, dust from sandstorms, etc. The glaciers apparently react to this direct solar radiation more than to surface air temperature itself.
Max
Maybe, Max (9058) – but no doubt the esteemed Dr Pachauri would regard this as “voodoo science”.
BTW here’s the original voodoo science. This is the relevant finding:
Oh dear, we’ve got to wait for “many centuries”.
Bob_FJ 9060
I recall that discussion on the Jakobshavn Glacier (a.k.a. Sermeq Kujalleq), and remember that one of the AGW faithful chastised you for comparing the glacial retreat with Northern Hemisphere temperatures, rather than the local temperature at the glacier.
So I went to the trouble of digging up the temperature record for Ilulissat (the town at the mouth of the glacier) and plotting it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/3797223161_16c1ac5e39_b.jpg
To my surprise, I found that the temperature there showed an almost flat very slight overall cooling trend over the 20th century, with strong warming in the first half and slight cooling in the second. The period 1995-2005 showed a rapid warming “blip”, as well, but the temperature has not reached the high levels of the late 1920s to1940s, when the glacier also appeared to show a major retreat, according to your data.
Max
Bob_FJ
BTW regarding the Jakobshavn Glacier, I agree with you that the record shows its periodic spurts of retreat have little to do with Northern Hemisphere or even Ilulissat local temperatures.
The fact that the 1930s-1940s were warmer than today has also been reported by Chylek as well as several other studies covering the entire Arctic. (So it wasn’t only at Ilulissat).
Another point is that establishing the mass balance of a maritime glacier is more complicated than simply looking at the retreat at its mouth, since a glacier is simply a slow moving frozen river. If there has been more snow at the higher elevations than outflow at the mouth, the net mass is growing, despite the retreat. (But that is another topic.)
Max
Robin
The Indian glacier study (your 9062) is very interesting.
In the introduction, the Indian Minister of State for Environment & Forests writes:
Wow! Can you imagine if that statement had been the lead-in to IPCC SPM 2007, rather than the more arrogant, self-congratulatory introduction including:
From the paper itself I have copied some pertinent paragraphs and conclusions (bold type by me):
So the retreat is neither alarming or abnormal and has been occurring since the 19th century and is most likely of natural origin, possibly in response to temperature fluctuations of several hundreds or thousands of years ago, with no response to the current warming.
Ouch!
Couldn’t Pachauri get this report censored or even eliminated entirely?
Max
Well stuff me pink!
The IPCC Himalayan glacier debacle has hit the ABC news in Oz;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/18/2794830.htm
Extract:
Bob FJ said
“Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says a mistake made by a United Nations body on the predicted rate of glacial melting does not mean all its findings are wrong.”
*So the glacier figures are wrong
*’Global’ temperatures are manipulated
*Nowhere near enough account is taken for UHI
*Water vapour is largely ignored
*The Hockey sticj is wrong
*The effect of clouds is unknown
*Solar flux was substantially underestimated
*By Ipcc’s own account sea levels are highly speculative
*Pre 1979 studies shows sea ice is highly variable
*The number of volcanoes has been underestimated by a factor of 10
Apart from that the reports are a triumph of accurate science.
Wonder how long it will take for people to realise the co2 levels were as great in the 1800’s as today and that mans contribution to the total carbon cycle is tiny?
Tonyb
Max:
Thanks for your analysis of the Indian glacier study. When it was drawn to his attention last November, as well as the “voodoo science” observation, Pachauri dismissed it for not being “peer reviewed” and for having few “scientific citations”. According to this Guardian article, he accused the Indian environment minister of “arrogance” saying, “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
Coming from the IPCC’s chairman, these words now look grotesque. This is a body that says its report “is based on a thorough review of the most-up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific literature available worldwide” and which, it is said, “represents the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment possible of the current state of climate science”. Yet we now learn that it based its dramatic claim on “speculation” that “had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and had no formal status” and that it appointed to oversee its chapter on glaciers someone who has admitted he is not an expert on glaciers. Plainly it is Pachauri, not the Indian environment minister, who is arrogant.
As I said earlier, he is responsible for an absurd and incompetent mess. Yet Western governments are relying on the IPCC when making far-reaching decisions affecting many millions of people.
Quite obviously, Pachauri should be asked to resign – were he an honourable man he would do so anyway.
Bob_FJ and TonyB
Maybe so. But they sure as hell indicate that not all the IPCC findings are right.
As pointed out by TonyB, many are flawed.
Some are simply exaggerations (future CO2 and temperature projections).
Some are based on “bad science” (claim of accelerated sea level rise).
Some are based on spot data, ignoring the results of long term studies (Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets).
Some are based on “smoke and mirrors” (statement that late 20th century warming showed an acceleration)
Some are based on pure conjecture (prediction of increased severe weather events)
Some are based on flawed and since discredited studies (20th century warming unusual in 1,300 years, based on “hockeystick”)
Some are flat out lies (claims that satellite and surface record discrepancies have been reconciled, UHI effect is negligible, troposphere shows faster warming than surface)
And the list goes on.
Instead of simply defending IPCC, Wong should try to establish critically what other errors there are in the latest report, rather than simply swallowing it all, hook, line and sinker.
Max
The Himalayan glacier debacle is important, not only because of what it says about the IPCC’s sloppy methodology and the hopeless leadership of its Chairman, but because, had the claim been true, it would have affected hundreds of millions of people within only 25 years. Note, for example, this extract from a Times article (here) on 5 December 2009 (significantly BTW just before Copenhagen):
In other words, it would have been an immediately serious problem. But now the scare has collapsed – and has done so in such a spectacularly absurd way – perhaps (just perhaps) our leaders will start to look just a little more sceptically at other, longer-term, IPCC-sourced scares.
OK, OK – I don’t suppose they will.
It is a misconception that loss of the Himalayan glaciers would have affected hundreds and millions of people. Glaciers have a limited effect on the hydrology of large river basins such as the Ganges primarily because the glacierized area is such a small proportion of the whole river basin area. Communities a short distance downstream from a glacier benefit from increased low flows in the summer months. This is offset by the water generally being laden with sediment. For people living a great distance downstream, the loss of the glacierized area would not be noticeable though it would be picked up by accurate flow monitoring stations.
Dry season flows in the lower part of large river basins are sustained primarily by groundwater discharge not glacier melt. If we take the results from the global climate models at face value they actually predict an increase in precipitation in the Himalayas. So overall the IPCC should conclude that there would be more water available in rivers with sources in the Himalayas.
I can accept that man is having some influence on global average temperatures. As a hydrologist and water resources engineer I do not believe that increase in average temperatures will lead to global climate catastrophe with concomitant impacts on the hydrology of rivers. There is simply no evidence – not even from the climate models.
Robin
You wrote
The latest findings of IPCC dishonesty regarding Himalayan glaciers, the disgraceful chicaneries and data fudging by influential (tax-payer funded) scientists exposed by Climategate, the questionable financial motives of the IPCC leadership, the sloppy science supporting flawed IPCC claims and the corrupt politicians desperately rushing to defend the AGW “status quo” despite all these revelations are all just symptoms of a totally rotten process that smells to high heaven.
It is obvious that this process is driven by greed and the lust for power, and fueled by obscene amounts of (tax-payer funded) money.
There is a bright side to this sordid story, however.
The general public across much of the world is becoming aware of what is going on, and is becoming increasingly skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious threat that needs urgent mitigation actions, especially as the rapid warming of the 1990s has now stopped and many places are experiencing record cold winters.
Elected politicians should be made aware that their constituents do not support massive direct or indirect carbon taxes, and that their re-election will depend on carrying out the wishes of the voters, not following some hidden agenda the electorate does not support.
Most politicians are astute and flexible enough to quickly drop this agenda and move on to something else, once they realize that their jobs depend on doing so. The others, who are less astute, will have to find gainful employment elsewhere.
It is high time to get rid of the IPCC, clean out all the AGW-activists from tax-payer funded scientific institutions, such as Met Office, NSIDC, GISS, NASA, etc. and, of course, immediately stop all tax-payer funding to any of the Climategate culprits.
If we need to build up a (much smaller) climate research organization to coordinate efforts across national borders, this should not be a United Nations effort, but rather an effort organized directly by those nations who are paying for the research work.
When something has become as rotten as the current multi-billion dollar AGW business only drastic measures can correct things.
Will this be a new grass-roots “climate revolution”? Let’s see.
Max
Max:
You say:
Well, there may be just such a change on the horizon in the UK. I’m sure you know that there is a real chance that the Conservative party will form a new UK government in a few months’ time. If they do, their “green” leaders will face an interesting problem: according to a survey (detail here) of 250 Tory candidates in the most winnable seats, the majority regard the reduction of Britain’s carbon footprint as their lowest priority – only 8 candidates said it was a top priority.
There’s hope yet.
Here is an interesting article entitled The Mathematics of Global Warming by Peter Landesman:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4593
The author points out that, even if the problem can be overcome that
In other words the computer model generated IPCC projections of warming by year 2100 are worthless.
Peter Landesman should know what he is writing about.
An expert on solving complex differential equations, Landesman is a PhD in Mathematics from City College of New York, author of Generalized Galois theory of differential equations published by The American Mathematical Society (his PhD thesis)
He has also been guest lecturer on classification of generalized Gm-extensions and the Galois theory of linear ordinary differential equations at the Kolchin Seminar of Differential Algebra, Division of Science, City College of New York
Landesman’s paper should be taken seriously, especially by those trying to make climate predictions based on very complex computer model simulations of as yet poorly understood processes, and (even more so) those who are making policy decisions based on these predictions.
Max
potentilla:
I heard Robert Bradnock, a geographer and Indian sub-Continent specialist at the School of Oriental and African Studies, making just the same points in a public lecture about five years ago. This was in response to claims that were being heavily promoted by George Monbiot and others that iminent retreat of the Himalayan glaciers would cause mass starvation.
It is a very sad reflection on the state of climate science that, so long afterwards, you still find it necessary to explain something that should have become generally known and acknowledged on both sides of the climate debate long ago. Myth has no role to play in science, yet AGW alarmism seems to be impossible to communicate in any other terms.
Thanks for an interesting and authoritative comment.