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, JamesP, PeterM
On the subject of analogies
Was watching a fascinating documentary on the history of chemistry last night on BBC4. First time i’d heard of Phlogiston, thought this was an amazing parallel to CO2. A near myopic fixation on a premise that turned out to be false hamstrung the development of science for the better part of a century.
(Cholesterol, check out the MRFIT study as a starting point)
Further to my 9188 (re China’s radical observation that the IPCC’s 5th assessment report should “incorporate all views”, including “contrarian” views), here’s more about China’s emerging scientific and economic clout – China to lead world scientific research by 2020.
Max, PeterM, JamesP and TonyB: discussions about the validity of analogies and the significance of recent temperature findings are doubtless interesting (although probably pointless as neither side is at all likely to change the mind of the other) but the massive changes that are happening in global politics will determine the practical importance of the AGW hypothesis from hereon.
PeterM (9199)
Who says that “natural variability” (a.k.a. natural forcing) is only a short term phenomenon?
The studies I cited show that it can have significant long term impact.
It is unreasonable to state on one hand that it had a major cooling impact over the first decade of the 21st century, more than offsetting the GH warming impact of record CO2 concentrations (as Met Office has done) and then on the other hand state that it had a negligible impact on global temperature over the entire period 1750-2005 (as IPCC has done).
The two statements are incompatible, Peter, and your post has not explained this basic incompatibility at all.
Max
Robin
Yes. I agree with you when you write
But, in addition to the “practical importance of the AGW hypothesis” there is its scientific validity, which is highly suspect and does not stand up to the scrutiny of rational skepticism, as further reinforced by the revelations of Climategate.
I believe that this is one of the the main reasons why its “practical importance” is waning.
I would certainly agree with you that the fact that governments representing half of the world’s population do not support the AGW premise (for political, scientific or whatever reasons) is another, even more important, reason.
And I would also agree that the days of the AGW craze are numbered.
Max
James P, #9200:
But did you hear the last item in the programme about Pachauri’s increasingly precarious position featuring Mike Hulme and Tony Jupiter?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8480000/8480314.stm
This was remarkable as John Humphrys flexed his not inconsiderable inquisitorial muscles in an attempt to get to the root of the matter.
Both interviewees came under pressure with Hulme, who was critical of the IPCC, refusing three times to say whether he thought Pachauri should resign or not. Jupiner’s defence of the IPCC was also called into question with some credence being given to sceptics criticisms and Humphrys clearly unimpressed by his bluster.
Well worth listening to, and also Humphrys review of the programme in which he accepts that the climate debate has changed radically during the last few months;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8480000/8480373.stm
From about 2mins 45 in
Barelysane
I like your Phlogiston story.
The Phlogiston “belief” did not stand up to the scrutiny of rational skepticism long term, just as (I believe) the AGW “belief” will also fail for the same reason.
Were there “Phlogiston deniers”, “Phlogiston contrarians” or “Phlogiston flat-earthers” at the time?
Who knows?
But there was no Internet, so “Phlogiston” had a longer “shelf life” than AGW will, I predict.
Max
Max,
Can longer term changes be defined as variability? I suppose we could get involved in a semantic exchange on the meaning of the word. You can give me the exact wording used by the MET office if you like but they would have meant natural variability in the sense I’ve explained it to you.
This is from Wiki’s entry on climate change “Short-term fluctuations (years to a few decades) such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, the Pacific decadal oscillation, the North Atlantic oscillation, and the Arctic oscillation, represent climate variability rather than climate change.”
Robin,
Your comments about keeping an open mind all sound superficially very reasonable. However, do we keep an open mind about everything? Never making a decision? Is the Earth flat or spherical? Is AIDs caused by the HIV virus? Does smoking cause adverse health effects? Lets all keep an open mind!
The trouble with keeping too much of an open mind is that one’s brains tend to fall out:-)
PererM (9207):
Oh dear – once again, you’ve completely missed the point.
Read my 9188: it ‘s not Robin Guenier who is urging that we keep an open mind – it’s someone slightly more significant: China’s lead climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua (and probably therefore the world’s most important climate player). Unsurprisingly, he’s not talking about the Earth’s configuration, the Aids/HIV link or the smoking/cancer link. Er, no, he’s talking about how China is approaching the AGW issue and is urging the UN to ensure that the IPCC’s 5th assessment report incorporates “all views” (including “contrarian” views).
Doubtless you think he’s making a terrible mistake. Perhaps you should contact him and tell him so, advising him of the risk that his brains might fall out. Maybe he’ll listen: after all, he keeps an open mind.
TonyN (9205):
And then there is this excellent blog (The dam is cracking) by Andrew Neil. Perhaps we are beginning to see real change at the BBC.
TonyN (9205)
Thank you for those links. I missed the end of the programme, as I was too busy composing an email! Fielden also forgot to mention the result of dissolving eggshells in vinegar, that the vinegar loses some of its acidity…
This means that we have a natural feedback mechanism which, if applied to carbonate sediments in the ocean, “will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean” (Wiki).
Good to hear Humphrys exercising his critical faculties. I look forward to some more of that.
Robin,
So anthropogenically induced climate change can’t be a danger because it sounds like the Chinese aren’t too keen on the idea? You’ll be quoting passages from Mao little red book next.
You might like this one:
“Marxist dialectical materialism, which connotes the constant struggle between opposites in an empirical setting, is the best method toward constant improvement. Objective analysis of problems based on empirical results is at a premium” :-)
Max
As I recall, the wheels really fell off the phlogiston bandwagon when it was demonstrated that the total weight of spent fuel and combustion products after burning was greater than the weight of the fuel (and phlogiston) before. This led the phlogistonists to claim (briefly, I imagine) that it must have a negative weight!
The parallels with AGW are rather tempting… :-)
PeterM:
No … you’re (incredibly) still missing the point. I’m observing only that, hugely significantly, the Chinese lead climate negotiator (and, as I said, probably therefore the world’s most important climate player) is urging the UN to ensure that the IPCC’s 5th assessment report incorporates “all views” (including “contrarian” views).
Add this view (from Der Spiegel) – a view that is gaining ground elsewhere – and it looks as though IPCC may be thoroughly reformed before it publishes AR5. Should be interesting – although I suspect you may not like it.
Robin, #9209:
Thanks! Its a pretty good summary and I like what he says about the blogosphere, particularity as it is coming from an old dyed-in-the-wool hack with his experience. But it’s not just what’s in the post that cheered me, but where and how he was able to say it. Streuth!
#9213
I think that you are right. The political convulsions are seismic and people are only just beginning to catch on to what is happening.
BTW, PeterM, it might be wise not to patronise China with jokes about the “little red book”. Remember my comment above:
That includes you.
JamesP
“Negative phlogiston mass” sounds good (= antimatter?).
Or maybe that some of the unexplained added mass had simply been “hidden in the pipeline”, waiting to come out?
Max
Max,
You ask “= antimatter?”. No. Antimatter doesn’t have a negative mass. If it did, then according to the equation E=mc2, it would have negative energy too, but it doesn’t!
More seriously, the childishness about phlogiston, doesn’t prove your point at all. If anyhthing just the opposite. That’s how science works. Someone puts forward a theory. If its flawed then the flaws become apparent to all. A new and better theory is developed.
Instead of flitting from one silly objection to another on the AGW issue you perhaps ought to be working on a scientifically coherent alternative. That is if you feel one really does exist.
PeterM
You ask:
A very good question, but then you unfortunately quote Wiki, which does not help answer the question.
Try reading the two studies I gave you links for. They do a better job.
And the answer appears to be “yes”.
“Variability” is just a word that someone has chosen to describe non-anthropogenic (i.e. natural) forcing factors.
Just one example: the high level of solar activity during the 20th century was unusual in at least the past 8000 years. What impact did this have on 20th century warming? Several studies (which I have already cited) conclude that over half of the observed 20th century warming (and an even higher percentage of the early 20th century warming) can be attributed to this unusually high activity (which has incidentally stopped at the end of Solar Cycle 23).
Then there are the many oscillations in ocean circulation patterns, some of which have shorter cycles and others with longer cycles, which may or may not be tied to solar activity.
These are just some of many natural forcings, also called “natural variability” by some.
Semantics.
Max
PeterM
Further to our discussion on the impact of natural variability on climate change, i.e. the short-term versus long-term impact of “natural variability”.
We have seen from several solar studies that changes in solar activity can have significant impact on temperature at the centennial level.
But what about ocean circulation patterns?
ENSO is one of the shorter cycle time oscillations
You quoted Wiki (usually not the best source), but I will respond with another Wiki quote on climate change and variability:
So Wiki concedes that “climate change”…“can be caused by recurring, often cyclical climate patterns such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation”
ENSO is one of the shorter cycle time oscillations, but let’s look at its impact on “climate change”.
No one will disagree that the record warmth (in modern times) of the year 1998 was partly caused by an unusually strong and long El Niño event.
A 1998 NOAA-NCDC study entitled “Land Data Anomalies Top 10 El Niño Events” shows us that there were several of these in the latter part of the 20th century.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/enso/10elnino.html
The study lists four major events, all lasting several months, from 1983 through 1998. In addition, there was a fifth event in 2002, after the report was written.
The amount of added warming caused by these four events is also listed.
The late 20th century warming period is generally considered (IPCC, etc.) to have started in 1976.
This period (taken to 2000) lasted 25 years and had a linear warming trend of 0.147°C per decade, or 0.38°C over the 25-year period (HadCRUT data).
From the NOAA-NCDC data one can calculate roughly that the ENSO impact on the warming over this period was 0.063°C per decade, or 0.16°C over the 25-year period. This represents 42% of the global warming observed over the entire 25-year period and 25% of the observed warming over the entire 20th century (0.16 out of 0.65°C)
So, yes, even a short-term phenomenon like ENSO can affect long-term global warming.
Max
PeterM
You wrote about the “scientific process”
Yeah. Like the “hidden in the pipeline” hypothesis of Hansen (which leads to the premise that “AGW is a serious threat”), which is now becoming unraveled as the lower atmosphere, troposphere and ocean are all cooling despite increasing and record CO2 levels (and the so-called “hidden energy” is nowhere to be found).
A point well taken, Peter.
Max
PeterM
You wrote:
I don’t know who has been “flitting”, Peter, but I have just shown you the alternate (see 9198, 9203, 9218, 9219).
The “scientifically coherent alternative” to the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potential serious threat (hereinafter called “the AGW premise”) is that there have been many short- and long-term natural cyclical changes to our planet’s climate. These factors, along with a possible minor anthropogenic impact, have caused most of the recently observed long-term warming of our planet as we have recovered from an extended period of harsher climate called the Little Ice Age.
Along with many other climate scientists Prof. Akasofu has also proposed this “scientifically coherent alternative” to the “AGW premise”.
It is the alternative I have been suggesting to you since our discussion started here, and I continue to stick with it as more and more evidence comes in to support it.
So far you have been unable to refute it.
Max
PeterM
And I should add:
And you have been unable to provide empirical data to support “the AGW premise”.
Max
TonyN:
I have found a good reference for the potential impact of melting glaciers on the water resources of south Asia that is factually correct.
http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf
On page 42 the authors state:
The funny thing is this reference was provided by RealClimate where they say:
Yet a few paragraphs up they say:
So while they point readers to good information, they don’t read it themselves or at least, choose to ignore the findings as it does not fit their advocacy position. Despite their claims to the contrary RealClimate are continuing to peddle misinformation.
PeterM
Oh, and BTW (see Robin’s 9188), Xie Zhenhua, Vice-Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, has stated that there is a view that climate change is caused by the cyclical element of nature itself (my italics).
Xie has urged the UN panel to make the fifth assessment report more comprehensive than earlier reports by including views that disagree with the AGW premise (such as the natural cause theory). (See my earlier posts on this theory.)
I’m sure you agree that this would be a major breakthrough for “scientific truth”, as it would transform the IPCC report from its current status as a crass, one-sided sales pitch for the AGW premise to a true summary of climate science, which could then be taken seriously, without having to wince at every second page.
Max
On a lighter side I thought you might be amused by the response from Gavin at RealClimate where I made a similar post to #9223.
Dripping with arrogance does not do it justice.