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.
Max,
Does the Pope wear a funny hat?
Seriously, there will always be the lunatic fringe (Peter Martin) that will cling to the theory, despite the evidence, as a child clings to a security blanket.
As far as the windmills that litter the landscape and the tiny clown cars, there will always be business people that build those as long as the government continues to give free handouts subsidizing them and/or they can convince unwise investors to throw money down rat holes.
[SNIP] will continue to be the carnival barkers of the scam as long as they continue to benefit financially………………(the interest in the snake oil that they pander is waning). As people wise up and the curtain is pulled, exposing the swindle further, they’ll bail out…………taking their ill gotten gains with them.
Politicians will continue to promote the fraud as long as they can exploit the hysteria to increase taxes to engorge their slush funds.
Of course, there are practical applications for the “green” technology that will continue to be utilized, (as they previously have been) but the flash in the pan gimmicks will soon become museum pieces………future generations laughing at the ridiculous antics of the “global warming” hysterians that gripped the world for a brief time in the late 20th/early 21st century.
TonyB (9149)
You are, of course, correct in saying the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” as reported by Hadley “is a complete and complex artefact”.
(Beside that, there is every indication that it has been manipulated and fudged to “prove” the AGW premise.)
Peter has a hard time accepting this, because he “believes” in it, much as a religious fundamentalist “believes” in the absolute truth of holy scripture.
So, rather than attacking the “scripture”, I have pointed out to Peter that it shows a 9-year cooling trend (after 2000).
A dilemma for a true “believer”.
Despite the notion that the Hadley record is “holy scripture” to Peter, he has a hard time accepting the unequivocal fact that it shows this cooling, because this is in direct contradiction to the “sacred message from the IPCC prophets” that it really can’t be cooling because of AGW.
So Peter finds comfort in messages from the Met Office and other prophets (ex. Hansen) that, despite the recorded data it really isn’t cooling, because we all know that the “holy scripture” tells us it shouldn’t be.
Faith is a wonderful thing, TonyB.
Max
Brute
You know, I agree fully with you that the AGW hysteria is nearing its end.
But so many people had so much invested in this craze, and there are such extremely large sums of public money at stake, that it will not die a quiet death.
But, like you, I am optimistic that it is in its death throes.
And yes, future generations will chuckle and be amazed how the civilized world could fall for such a ridiculous scare.
Max
Yes, Brute – no doubt you’re right (9151). But don’t be too hard on those “the tiny clown cars”. I’ve just bought one (in place of a Porsche) and it’s great. Mind you, I’ve also got a substantial 4×4 – sitting outside now covered in mud.
sitting outside now covered in mud
It needs a worsche.. (pace Garrison Keillor)
David Attenborough was on the radio this morning, opining that the oceans were warming. At least he made it clear that Antarctica was not going to melt from the top down anytime soon, but I thought sea temps were pretty stable at the moment. Any thoughts?
Potentilla:
Your last two comments raise issues that deserve a far wider audience. I wonder if you could contact me at tonyn (one of those curly a-things) harmlesssky (round blobby things) org
Excuse the subterfuge with the address, but the spambots haven’t found this one yet.
Max,
Are you the same Max who complained of “thinly veiled “ad hom” put-downs” generally linking contrarian attitudes on AGW with ultra right wing political opinions.
or maybe you are the Max who equates “sanity” with the concept of allowing Americans to die for lack of affordable health cover?
I wonder what ever gave me the idea that the two are linked?
Robin,
Please don’t get me wrong; I respect your right to drive whatever you’d like to………as long as it’s roadworthy. I simply resent politicians that seek to dictate to me what I will be permitted to drive.
I would not drive one of those tiny clown cars cars………however, feel free to drive whatever you’d like to.
I’ve always been a practical person and feel that me and my family should be surrounded by as much heavy steel reinforcement as possible considering what I’ve seen through the years.
I’ll pay the extra few pennies per mile to drive a tank.
Brute – an arresting photo, but I’m not sure that any standard car would have come off much better in that accident.
Some small cars do surprisingly well in crash tests, but those don’t include being sandwiched between two 18-wheelers!
So long it’s road-worthy, then it’s nobody else’s business what kind of car you drive.
Or what kind of food you eat.
Or how much you eat – or drink.
This AGW fad has given a great excuse to the bansturbators and control-freaks of the world. They have found a pseudo-scientific reason why person A’s behaviour can impact person B – a modern day version of magical thinking.
But take away the AGW and they will find some other reason – “think of the children” etc….
PeterM
Sorry, Peter, your 9157 ramble is incoherent.
Can you explain what you are talking about, and what connection it has with our topic here?
Thanks.
Max
COMMENTS ON THE BREAKING NEWS THAT A HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE IS TO INVESTIGATE CLIMATEGATE SHOULD GO ON THIS THREAD:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=256
James P (9155)
You ask whether the ocean is warming or cooling.
Prior to 2003, very primitive measurement techniques were used to get spot measurements on ocean temperature. These showed the ocean was warming.
Since 2003, when the new, more sophisticated Argo measurements were installed, the ocean temperature has shown a cooling trend.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027033.shtml
This caused a bit of consternation at NASA, who had predicted continued warming, in accordance with the AGW theory. It also raised doubts about the earlier, more primitive measurements, which had shown a warming trend.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
After some retroactive “adjustments” the NASA record now shows warming prior to 2003 and a very slight cooling trend since 2003.
An independent study of ocean temperatures from 1999 to 2006, using Argo data after 2003, has found that the ocean is cooling in the tropics (to 30°N), has remained unchanged in the mid-latitudes (30°-50°N) and warmed in the high latitudes (above 50°N), which would translate into an overall net cooling from 1999 to 2006.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/06/oceans_warming-or-cooling/
More recent NASA data from Argo measurements show that this overall cooling trend has continued since 2006.
This presents a dilemma for the AGW theory, since there is supposed to be a net positive energy imbalance into our planet’s climate system, yet the surface air temperature has cooled after 2000 (HadCRUT), as has the troposphere (UAH) and the ocean (Argo).
So where is the “missing” energy?
In latent heat from evaporating water or melting ice? With cooler atmospheric temperatures, it is unlikely that atmospheric water content is increasing (and the “missing” energy is “hiding” as latent heat of evaporation). In fact, NOAA measurements of atmospheric water content show us that this has decreased since around 2002.
In addition, the total amount of ice that is supposed to be melting in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, in non-polar glaciers and in the net annual changes in Arctic plus Antarctic sea ice represents an insignificant amount of energy as latent heat of fusion, so it cannot be “hiding” there.
AGW theory tells us the net energy content of our planet’s climate system should be rising, and that there should be an even greater amount of energy “hidden in the pipeline”, which has not yet warmed the atmosphere.
Yet all this energy appears to be “hidden under a rock” somewhere as it is nowhere to be found. Could it be leaving our planet’s climate system?
In fact, observations (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer et al.) from CERES and ERBE satellites have shown that the total amount of SW + LW energy radiated out into space has increased over the past years. This is apparently caused by an increase in lower altitude (water droplet) clouds, which reflect incoming SW radiation back into space.
From the second link above we see that Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research apparently agrees that the “missing energy” is, indeed, leaving our system out into space, pointing to a “natural thermostat” resulting in negative feedbacks with warming and raising a true dilemma for the AGW premise.
Sorry for long-winded answer, but it appears that the ocean is cooling at least for the past 6 years (as is the atmosphere at the surface and in the troposphere) and the net energy imbalance of our planet is negative, as more energy is leaving for outer space than is coming in, presenting a real dilemma for the AGW premise.
Max
Thank you, Max. I had a feeling they were cooling, but thought that ‘stable’ was a safer guess!
Attenborough is a grand old man and a great naturalist, but even he can’t be expected to know about everything. He’s not easily surprised, so he probably finds AGW plausible, especially if everyone at the BBC agrees!
This guy is arguing the point that I attempted to make a bunch of posts back, being that weather is climate. “Weather” is a compilation of temperature datasets/events that comprise climate and the absence of heat that the globe has been experiencing in the last 12 years (with CO2 increasing all the while) disproves the global warming theory.
The “weather is not climate” sophistry that the disciples of global warming propound is another prevarication the Alarmists use to explain the failure of their apocalyptic prophecies (case in point……. “climate change”).
Actually, Weather Is Climate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/22/statistics-expert-briggs-actually-weather-is-climate/
Brute
When it’s cooling it’s WEATHER.
When it’s warming it’s CLIMATE.
Example: 9 years of recent cooling are “weather” phenomena, caused by “natural variability”, while the warming of the 1990s was “climate change”, caused by “anthropogenic greenhouse warming”.
It’s important to keep the definitions clear, or someone might incorrectly think that “anthropogenic global warming” has stopped.
Max
PeterM
We have posted earlier on the topic of the “hidden-in-the-pipeline voodoo science”, as conjured up by James E. Hansen, but I think it bears repeating, based on latest findings and developments.
Based on various paleo-climate reconstructions and model simulations, climatologists have estimated that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is around 3°C.
The theoretical CS for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 according to the GH theory is around 1°C. In order to reach 3 times this number, several positive feedbacks, primarily from water (as vapor, liquid droplets and ice crystals) must be postulated and fed into the model simulations.
IPCC estimates the impact of these feedbacks as follows (AR4, Ch. 8, p.633):
+1.0°C (CO2 alone)
+0.9°C (net feedback from water vapor, lapse rate and surface albedo)
+1.9°C (2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks, except clouds)
+1.3°C (net cloud feedback)
+3.2°C = 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks
But are these feedbacks realistic?
If we include the postulated positive feedbacks, the actually observed warming since 1850 does not correspond well with the estimated and measured increase in atmospheric CO2 over that period.
This becomes even more doubtful if the probability is taken into account that a significant portion of the observed warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (several solar studies estimate the solar portion to be around half of the observed warming of 0.65°C).
CO2 increased from around 285 to 379 ppmv, which would calculate to a theoretical GH warming (excluding any feedbacks) of 0.4°C. This would check fairly closely with the actually observed warming.
If the impact of the assumed strongly positive feedbacks is included, the GH warming should have been 1.3°C. This does not check at all with the actually observed warming.
The logical conclusion to be drawn here is that the postulated strongly positive net feedbacks are incorrect, and that there is no net positive feedback (possibly even a slight net negative feedback).
This conclusion is not acceptable to climate alarmists, because it means that AGW is not a serious threat.
So, instead of accepting the fact that the observed temperature record does not support the postulated net positive feedbacks, the rationalization is made that some of the GH warming has actually occurred, but is “hidden in the pipeline” until “equilibrium” can be reached.
James E. Hansen is one of the fathers of this suggestion; he estimates the “hidden energy” to be 0.8 W/m^2 on the annual heat balance globally.
This is “voodoo science” at its best.
The “hidden in the pipeline” hypothesis is refuted by the past several years of measurements. These show that the surface and tropospheric temperatures are cooling (HadCRUT and UAH) and that the upper ocean is cooling as well (Argo), so the “hidden energy” is not to be found in sensible heat of the ocean or atmosphere.
There has been no increase in atmospheric water vapor content over this period of net atmospheric cooling, so the “hidden energy” is not in latent heat of vaporization.
The total estimated amount of ice that is melting from Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, non-polar glaciers and net annual decrease of Arctic plus Antarctic sea ice represents a tiny amount of total energy (less than 0.02 W/m^2), so the “hidden energy” cannot be found in latent heat of fusion, either.
It is likely, as Kevin Trenberth has recently stated (9163), that the “missing energy” is actually leaving our climate system into outer space. Trenberth cannot explain this, although he mentions possible increased reflection of incoming SW energy from increased low-level cloud cover.
Recent observations from ERBE and CERES satellites by both Lindzen and Choi as well as Spencer et al. have shown that the total net SW + LW radiation to space has increased, confirming Trenberth’s suggestion that the “missing energy” is going to outer space, rather than hiding somewhere to cause more heating of our atmosphere in the future.
This clearly refutes Hansen’s “hidden in the pipeline” postulation.
R.I.P.
Any comments?
Max
There are three interesting IPCC-related articles in the Sunday Times this morning:
Here – UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers
Here – UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
And here – Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog
Perhaps the MSM’s attitude is changing.
And even the Observer’s über-warmist Robin McKie is beginning to feel uncomfortable – here.
Robin #9168
Interesting that the Times carries three climate articles today, but when you look at them, they are a desperate effort at damage limitation. The third one by Charles Glover in particular, says in effect: “there’s been a blunder, but scientists have corrected it, and if only silly Mr Pachauri would resign, everything would be fine”.
By raising the possibility that there may be problems in the IPCC report on hurricanes, floods and droughts as well as glaciers (a suggestion backed by no evidence) Glover is going further than any sceptic would dare, while covering the IPCC with the interesting argument that it’s a very long report (his own estimates vary in the course of the article from 1500 pages to 3000 pages – a bit like the estimates of temperature rises) so one error every 300 pages or so is hardly serious.
The one positive point I take from the article is the tone and quality of the comments. Times readers are not fooled. Editors must be asking awkward questions of their environment correspondents. How I’d love to see some leaked emails from the offices of our “quality” newspapers!
Booker meanwhile (in the Sunday Telegraph) continues to undermine Pachauri – here.
Robin (9169)
100 comments already, I see, and keeping the moderators very busy! I wonder if they get an allowance for Sunday working?
I don’t suppose the Grauniad ever stops to think that there might be a reason for so much dissent…
This glacier business is interesting because it demonstrates a numnber of interlinking themes.
It seems the IPCC synthesis report (Summary for Policymakers) core writing team was Pachauri and A Resinger.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
This unit was funded by Defra (now the Dept of Climate Change) who passed the money to Cambridge University who passed the money to TERI -Pachauris unit
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/political-blogs/70670-eu-referendum-pachauri-money-laundering.html
Reisinger is described as working for TERI and the Met office/Hadley centre (Who also receive tens of millions of pounds annually from Defra).
The Dept for climate change is highly politically motivated as was observed in my article here;
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/
This is of course the Govt dept determined to impose carbon ration cards on the UK.
The world of ‘climate science’ is very small and incestous. The tentacles of the British Govt much bigger it seems.
Glaciers, Hurricanes, Temperatures all now coming under the spotlight. Surely it can’t be long before people realise the sea level information is manufactured and frequent arctic ice melt is very well documented far before the satellite records picked up the latest episode.
Tonyb
Robin, #9169:
The McKie article is very interesting as it appears to set out the warmist’s new order of battle, mainly based on straw man arguments as no doubt you noticed. Most conspicuous is the suggestion that it is not the science that is at fault but the orgainisation that assess and diseminates confidence in climate research findings.
McKie’s argument seems to be, reform or replace the IPCC and all will be well. He is claiming that the need to do so has no implications for the validity of what policy-makers and the rest of us have been told over the last decade. This ignores the glaring fact that the IPCC is entirely responsible for the notion of AGW gaining traction.
The IPCC is the science, and a reassessment of its operations will be pointless without re-visiting all its findings. McKie’s suggestion is fatuous, but whichever lobby group briefed him was doing a fantastic PR job. As the name Bob Wards and the Grantham Institute cropped up …………
TonyB (9173): a fascinating analysis. Thank you.
TonyN (9174): maybe, but his main (and concluding) position is the old and threadbare “At no time have deniers ever put together a case – that inaction poses no threat to civilisation – that could withstand proper scientific peer review”. Not such “a fantastic PR job” in my view.