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-FJ:
Your friends at “Climate Change” are a snarky lot. Is it really any wonder that the media rarely hear from professionals actually working in the field? We tend to keep our heads down because we cannot stand ignorant abuse which debases the “debate”. Anyway for the record the peer reviewed paper I was referring to through the link was:
Koutsoyiannis et al., On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008),
I didn’t think it would be necessary to hold people’s hands so much. I would have hoped they would be more grown up and open minded.
Potentilla
Here is the e-link to the Kousoyiannis et al. paper you cited (9126):
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/864/1/documents/2008HSJClimPredictions.pdf
Roger Pielke discusses the paper here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/on-the-credibility-of-climate-predictions-by-koutsoyiannis-et-al/
Good stuff. Thanks for link.
Max
Pete,
To echo Max’s thoughts………
A bit of speculation on your part, isn’t it? CO2 levels have been much higher in the past…………how do you know that higher levels now wouldn’t be beneficial? Wouldn’t higher CO2 levels be beneficial to food production?
Wouldn’t previously frozen areas provide more farmland than we presently utilize?
Wouldn’t warmer temperatures increase growing seasons and reduce fuel consumption?
If mankind ever did develop the ability to manipulate the climate, would the majority vote for a bit warmer or a bit cooler temperature(s)?
I’d wager (figuratively) that the majority of the world’s population would choose expanding food production.
A little bit of “inside” American news…………
The United States Congress has had a complete majority of Democrats (Leftists) since January of 2007.
In January of 2009, Barack Obama (Democrat/Leftist) was sworn in as President.
The result has been that every law that the Leftist controlled Congress passed was a sure bet to be signed into law by this president.
John F. Kennedy’s brother Ted had been the Senator from the State of Massachusetts since 1962. Ted was the consummate Liberal (Leftist) icon. Ted died last summer.
A special election was held yesterday in Massachusetts (which Democrats thought they would easily win) and the Republican (Conservative) candidate won in a landslide breaking the Leftist majority in the national Congress.
In a nutshell, Obama’s Nationalized Healthcare legislation has been stopped dead in its tracks.
More importantly, Cap and Trade legislation is “tango uniform” also.
Obama and the Democrat’s entire agenda is now imperiled.
From an American point of view, the election yesterday in the State of Massachusetts was seismic.
Potentilla,
“Regarding melting ice caps, for example, I have trouble believing that small changes in air temperature would make that much difference. I suspect that it is changes in ocean currents related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and other similar phenomena, that cause cycles in the extent of the Arctic ice cap.”
Well how small do you think they are?
Brute,
There is no doubt that your president Obama has suffered a crushing defeat and that the American voting public (even in a normally very leftist State, like Massachusetts) has soundly rejected his proposed changes.
It appears to me that they have not only rejected the proposed socialized health care reform (with all its back-room special deals for certain states and labor unions), but also the cap ‘n tax “green energy” proposal.
Does this really represent a return to sanity in the USA?
First Climategate, then Copenhagen, the expose of IPCC shenanigans and now this (plus global cooling after 2000).
Based on past experience, the USA is often the early indicator of what is going to happen worldwide.
Is the tide turning on the AGW craze?
What do you think?
Max
PeterM
How small are the changes in Arctic temperatures?
I believe this is the wrong question, Peter.
The record shows that (a) Arctic temperatures were higher than today in the 1930s/1940s and (b) that the rate of warming then was also higher than today, so today’s situation is really nothing unusual.
The record also shows that “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface air temperature” or even local temperature and Arctic sea ice melting do not correlate very well, as Potentilla pointed out (and Bob_FJ has shown earlier).
Oversimplification with a myopic fixation on one variable alone can get you into trouble, Peter. Things are far more complicated than that.
Max
Potentilla Reur 9126
Yep, us coalface types, (I’m a retired mechanical engineer), tend to be sickened by some of the irrational crap coming from the AGW academics whom need not consider if they might kill or maim someone resulting from any of their potentially faulty design assumptions.
I currently have a couple of relevant posts over at Chris Colose’s site, (Not RC), waiting in moderation, and if they are cleared, (and rather surprisingly, I’ve had none rejected so-far), I’ll let you know the link; probably domani.
Potentilla; Reur 9125 you wrote in part;
Have you seen this from one of many divisions of NASA concerning the so-called “big Arctic melt” in 2007?
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
Bob_FJ writes “I’m retired mechanical engineer”
I’m just wondering how many of you are retired and have nothing better to do than blog about your non-specialist subjects of global warming?
I suppose that you’ve no direct interest in what’s going to happen after about 2030. You won’t be around to see it! So why should you care? Much better to let the next generations sort it out. It’s their problem not yours isn’t it?
Peter
I take it you’re a qualified climate scientist then?
I seem to recall you posting a picture of yourself and your cat some time ago, in which you appeared to be a gentleman of “mature years” so to speak. So the question could be bounced back at you.
Personally, i’m still working (unfortunately) and will be for some considerable time. I question AGW partly because i’m interested in the truth of something, i hate seeing science debased as it all too often is with AGW, and if the models are wrong (quite likely i feel) we stand to impoverish ourselves and future generations for no good reason to the detriment of other problems we can more readily solve and that we know exist.
PeterM:
I hope your
was tongue-in-cheek. If not, it was unpleasantly ageist and insulting.
But, just in case it was serious, I’ll spell out my personal motivation for getting involved in all this. It’s because I’m trying to make what small contribution I can to the world my grandchildren will inherit – with particular concern about the environment, future threats to the world and especial concern about third-world poverty. I have come to the view that the man-made climate change hypothesis is most probably a baseless and dangerous scare. It’s dangerous partly because the actions that are supposed to “resolve” it (and they wouldn’t achieve that even if it were valid) would inflict damage on such unspoilt landscape as we have left but mainly because they would further undermine already shattered Western economies, making us even less able to assist those who need our help today and more vulnerable to the genuine threats that will inevitably confront the world in the years ahead. Moreover, they would cause some of the poorest people in the world to find it yet more difficult to help themselves out of poverty.
I am prepared to respect your position, even though I believe it to be misguided. In return, I ask you to respect mine – and that of other contributors to this thread.
Getting back to the Himalayan glacier issue there is a good example today of how Guardian jounalists allow themselves to be lead by the nose by scientists eager to make their research relevant.
The article is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/climate-change-glaciers-melting
There is this alarming paragraph:
Interesting I thought, an actual study on the effect of climate change on the hydrology of the south asian rivers.
The article provides the link to the study which is:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035556.shtml
where you can read the abstract. The closing sentence of the abstract is as follows (emphasis mine)
The study only addresses mass loss from a single glacier in the Himalayas. It does not address the hydrology of the rivers at all. I don’t think there is even a single hydrologist on the crowded study team.
The scentists may think they have covered themeselves with their speculation about the potential impact on water supplies by inserting the “if” and “could be”. But this is disingenuous. They have not even addressed the hydrology in a serious way. The last sentence in the abstract was inserted to make the research more relevant, a tactic that is quite common. I have served on funding committees for research organizations and the potential impact i.e. importance, of research is a component that is given high marks in funding decisions.
The symbiotic relationship between scientists, trying to advance their career interests and journalists, who do not investigate what they are writing about, seems to be quite a common phenomenon.
What is actually quite funny is that during periods when glaciers are losing mass balance as a result of melting, low flows in downstream rivers actually increase. Note the Guardian statement that:
If the glaciers are currently losing mass balance due to melting, this statement is incorrect.
I think this example is a good illustration of how we have got into this mess. There is a huge gap betwen the earnest and serious efforts of climate scientists, glaciologists etc and the implied certainty of climate catastrophe that you read in the MSM. The link across the gap is very weak but most scientists seem to “go along” with it or keep quiet because inflating the importance of research is in their interests. The MSM and politicians promote it because presumably catastrophe sells.
PeterM
[Reposting this with links separately posted]
The numbers from the UK Met Office are in: at 0.439°C, the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” is the “5th warmest year on record”.
What Met Office does not tell us is that the linear cooling trend, which started after 2000 has continued over the past nine years.
Undaunted by its chronically failed forecasts of warming, Met Office predicts that 2010 will become the warmest year on record.
(Link 1)
These clowns apparently never learn.
For a critique of the dismal Met Office prediction record see
(Link 2)
But the “5th warmest year on record” approach is a thin disguise to hide a 9-year cooling “blip” (which admittedly may or may not be the beginning of a longer term trend).
Let’s assume, as some scientists have projected, that this trend will continue for the next two decades (until 2030), and that this will be at a rate of 0.1°C per decade.
(Link 3)
And let’s assume that Met Office does not “fudge, fiddle or finagle” the numbers to hide what is really happening.
The “anomaly” would then be (°C), “ranking”:
2009: 0.439 = 5th warmest
2010: 0.429 = 7th warmest
2011: 0.419 = 9th warmest
2012: 0.409 = 10th warmest
2013: 0.399 = 13th warmest
2014: 0.389 = 14th warmest
2015: 0.379 = 15th warmest
2016: 0.369 = 16th warmest
2017: 0.359 = 18th warmest
2018: 0.349 = 19th warmest
2019: 0.339 = 20th warmest
2020: 0.329 = 21st warmest
etc., down to
2030: 0.229 = 36th warmest
(Yawn!)
The ranking of years is totally irrelevant. It is the trend that counts. Met Office would not need to do this it were not trying to distract attention from the observed fact that it is cooling.
Max
(Link 1)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6952470.ece
(Link 2)
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3758
This is the one that got stuck in the filter:
(Link 3) – [remove brackets]
[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/F0020002/art00010]
Robin (9137) and PeterM (9135)
Don’t fall into Peter’s trap, Robin.
When he has nothing sensible to contribute or the discussion is not going in the direction he would like, he tends to digress by resorting to idiotic attacks on those that have presented more convincing arguments in the debate.
thinly veiled “ad hom” put-downs that fall into a general series of categories as listed in the “how-to-talk-to-a-denier handbook”: (a) contrarian right winger opposing progress for political reasons, (b) anti-Darwin creationist, (c) flat-earther nincompoop opposing science, (d) oil-, coal- or mining-company stooge, (e) cynical retiree recklessly destroying the planet for younger, more enlightened generations (such as Peter’s), etc.
There have been times when Peter has brought a thought-out, rational argument in support of the AGW premise, as he personally sees it. But this was not one of those times.
Max
I am becoming more and more bothered by the Himalayan glacier paper linked to in the Guardian. The title of the paper is:
Mass loss on Himalayan glacier endangers water resources
The scientific study does not address in any meaningful way the endangerment of water resources. The paper is only about mass loss from a single glacier. The title has been chosen by the authors to inflate the importance of the paper and is clearly misleading.
This is an AGU paper so was almost certainly peer-reviewed. Clearly no attempt was made by the reviewers to correct the misrepresentation in the title.
Maybe I was being a bit hard on the Guardian journalist as there is an obvious intention to mislead by the authors. It is discouraging that “peer-reviewed” papers can be used by others to promote the notion of climate catastrophe when the scientific research does not support, or even address, the speculative conclusion.
It would seem that most of the blame here lies with the scientific community though it is a shame that the MSM seem to have abdicated their traditional role of investigative journalism.
Peter M
Peter, I think you have stepped over a line with this comment.
I’m an engineer just as are many others here are, and that we are engineers is no coincidence. It’s the way we have to work, the way we are called upon to fix problems, design products, manage projects, or innovate in the reality of the commercial world, which moulds the way we approach matters. It’s this real world experience that’s at the core of why we are deeply uneasy about AGW and Climate Change, it’s at the core of why we are so easily able to see through much of the utter nonsense that a small section of the scientific and political world utters about the subject.
I would also like to point out I am far from retired, but I am thankful to those who are, and who have uncomplainingly given up their time to work through the science and all the statistical analysis so that the rest of us can more easily make sense of the subject.
I’ll leave it up to you to work out how you how you put right that comment of yours.
Max,
I seem to remember predicting that the Hadcrut data would show 2009 to be the 5th warmest and that Nasa’s Giss would have it slightly warmer at joint 2nd warmest.
The reason that the MET office doesn’t tell you that the cooling trend has continued is because it hasn’t. Temperatures are well within the expected range.
What NASA does tell you is precisely the opposite.
“There is a contradiction between the observed continued warming trend and popular perceptions about climate trends. Frequent statements include: ‘There has been global cooling over the past decade.’ ‘Global warming stopped in 1998.’ ‘1998 is the warmest year in the record.’ Such statements have been repeated so often that most of the public seems to accept them as being true. However, based on our data, such statements are not correct.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf
PeterM
The linear cooling trend after 2000 has, indeed, continued.
Don’t go to press blurbs by NASA or Met Office, go to the raw HadCRUT data, plot it in Excel and draw a linear trend line.
It’s simple and I know you know how to do it.
Don’t be a “denier”, Peter.
Max
A very good mention for our host here
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/jamesdelingpole/100023145/why-the-bbc-will-always-be-wrong-on-climate-change/
Tonyb
Max #9147
My post #9098 demonstrated what is really happening with temperatures. Many stations have been showing a decrease for many years. ‘Global’ has no meaning whatsover-it is a complete and complex artefact. Look at the individual trends.
tonyb
PeterM
A picture is worth 1,000 words.
Hadley record 2001-2009, showing cooling trend.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4294542466_37ea8e4972_b.jpg
Max
