Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

1. Robin Guenier says:

   08/02/2010 at 10:24 am

   Max:

   I disagree (very slightly) with your analysis (9467) of the DFID climate “facts and stats”:

   1. (disasters climate related.) Whether true or false, it’s irrelevant: mankind has experienced climate related disasters since he walked the earth.

   2. (risk of increased serious disease.) I agree re Professor Reiter.

   3. (malaria from increased rainfall.) I agree.

   4. (African water stress.) This key IPCC claim has been comprehensively debunked: see Africagate here.

   5. (Himalayan glaciers to disappear.) I agree.

   6. (Floods and drought.) I agree – this unsupported claim is scaremongering. And “could be” is the giveaway: the claim is neither fact nor stat.
   7. (Malnutrition, malaria and water shortage.) Same comment as 6 above.

   That this is the best they can do (although, in fairness I suppose, the absurdity of 4 and 5 was not publicly known last October) demonstrates plainly the total poverty of the Government’s position on climate change. Yet it’s a position on which they are spending huge amounts of taxpayers’ money.
2. TonyN says:

   08/02/2010 at 10:26 am

   Carbon prices in the European Emissions Trading Scheme have slumped, and this is being blamed on the recession, but I wonder whether it is the only possible explanation?

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8503000/8503496.stm

   Who would want to have a position in carbon certificates post-Copenhagen?
3. Robin Guenier says:

   08/02/2010 at 11:48 am

   Here’s WUWT’s current IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate.

   As someone wisely observed: the IPCC report is the gift that goes on giving.
4. manacker says:

   08/02/2010 at 7:39 pm

   Robin

   Thanks for your input (9476)

   You are right in saying that “mankind has experienced climate related disasters since he walked the earth”, so this claim is irrelevant. The Goklany study simply shows that these have not increased over the 20th century when AGW is supposed to have occurred.

   That any natural disaster has a greater impact on poor, underdeveloped countries (the second part of the claim) is a well-known fact, as evidenced by the current tragedy in Haiti (which has nothing to do with AGW, either).

   So you are right and we agree.

   On “Africagate”, I was not aware of the latest IPCC scandal when I posted, so I stand corrected.

   My statement of “pure conjecture” can be re-stated now as “based on bogus data”, according to the latest revelations.

   I agree wholeheartedly with you that this “demonstrates plainly the total poverty of the Government’s position on climate change”.

   It also raises serious questions regarding the validity of the IPCC findings and projections on climate change (i.e. if IPCC cannot even get the observed facts right, why should we accept IPCC projections for the future?).

   Max
5. Peter Geany says:

   08/02/2010 at 10:47 pm

   TonyN 9477

   Carbon prices in the European Emissions Trading Scheme have slumped, and this is being blamed on the recession, but I wonder whether it is the only possible explanation?

   Umm I think the price has slumped because there is no market for Carbon. Traders have been deserting the Carbon Market for some due to a lack of volume, and their inability to generate enough revenue, and from what I understand Copenhagen was the last straw.

   I’m sure the recession is playing a part but given that economic activity and energy use continues then there has to be more to it. Remember recession is seen in just the same way as any other period in the economic cycle, an opportunity. If there was any likelihood that the cheap carbon credits would increase in value they would be being traded. That they are not speaks volumes.
6. manacker says:

   08/02/2010 at 11:48 pm

   Peter Geany and TonyN

   Linking the collapse of carbon prices in the European Emissions Trading Scheme to the recession or even to a slump in crude oil prices seems to me to miss the point entirely.

   The carbon offset market only has a real value if it becomes global.

   Although Bruce may have a better feel for this than I do, what I read out there tells me:

   a) It is unlikely that the newly constituted U.S. Senate will pass the “cap and trade” bill (requires 60 votes).

   b) It is even more unlikely that it will ratify a global cap and trade treaty (requires 67 votes).

   I cannot visualize how the global price of carbon offsets will ever recover from its current slump without the USA (second largest emitter of CO2) as part of the deal.

   In addition, it looks as though the largest emitter of CO2, China, is also not going to join in (and India is also doubtful), so I do not believe carbon prices have any real chance of recovering.

   Australia has also just rejected it.

   If no one else joins up, will the Europeans abandon the scheme? Who knows?

   (But I would not be surprised.)

   So I would agree with you, Peter, that “Copenhagen was the last straw” for the carbon market.

   I’d say a better bet is to put your gambling money into “hog bellies” instead.

   Max
7. TonyN says:

   09/02/2010 at 12:02 pm

   More about European carbon trading, this time in the New York Times:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/business/energy-environment/08green.html

   The problems reported in the first part of the article are quite interesting, but the context provided in the last six paragraphs probably even more so.

   Any politician who, as the article says, ‘has the courage’ to explain to the public that a cap and trade system will be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing about AGW, will also have to explain that energy will become very much more expensive and that the science of global warming is settled. We’re going to need some very brave politicians.
8. Robin Guenier says:

   09/02/2010 at 12:17 pm

   This Andrew Neil interview with Rob Watson (ex IPCC, now government adviser) is a must see. Why, oh why, does the BBC allow this dangerous man, Neil, to show such lack of respect for a senior scientist? (Seriously, Neil’s remarkably well informed.)
9. Robin Guenier says:

   09/02/2010 at 1:33 pm

   Max:

   Until your comment on the DFID claims (9467) I hadn’t read anything by Indur Goklany. But now I have – for example, this filleting in yesterday’s WUWT of Sir David King’s op-ed in a recent Telegraph. Excellent stuff! We Brits should be ashamed that such a man, who asserts for example that evidence of warming must necessarily mean that man is responsible (adding that it’s absurd to claim otherwise), can become Chief Scientific Adviser to our Government. Incidentally, Goklany is is a science and technology policy analyst at the US Department of the Interior. Sounds encouraging.
10. Brute says:

    09/02/2010 at 7:33 pm

    Philly, Baltimore, D.C. projected to break all-time seasonal snow totals tomorrow…

    http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=Weathermatrix
11. Robin Guenier says:

    09/02/2010 at 8:01 pm

    Looks bad Brute. BTW I loved this AccuWeather forecast (gulp: I typed “gorecast” by mistake – freudian?). No, we don’t do em like that in the UK.
12. Brute says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:03 pm

    Robin,

    Yep…………and Al Gore/Peter Martin claim that they have the ability to control the weather………if we only “believe” (and hand over all of our money and freedoms).

    Washington DC is a ghost town. The entire city is closed. Mankind’s puny machines and ineffective efforts are nothing compared to the immense forces of climate/weather.

    Mrs. Brute was off work yesterday, today and most likely tomorrow as another blizzard bears down on us this afternoon………she’s home baking cookies.

    The Federal Government is shut down going on day three (thank God for life’s little miracles). With the Federal Government shut down they won’t be able to pass any dopey laws further infringing on our rights.

    The streets of the capital of the most powerful, prosperous, industrious, nation on the face of the earth are impassable and there is nothing Al Gore, Jimmie Hanson, Phil Jones, Michael Mann or Barrack Obumbler can do about it.
13. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:24 pm

    Robin (9484)

    [Am sending this a second time with links sent separately, since it got stuck the first time.]

    Indur Goklany has authored several studies as well as books on topics related to the debate on AGW.

    Here are a few:

    2007 Goklany study on deaths from extreme weather events
    [Link 1]

    This study shows that the global deaths from extreme weather events have decreased dramatically over the 20th century, both in absolute numbers and in percentages.

    An example is “annual death rates from droughts” (often cited by IPCC and others as a threat from AGW), over the period 1990-2004, as compared to the period 1900-1989:

    The study shows:
    1900-1980: 111,185 deaths per year
    1990-2004: 126 deaths per year

    Winter versus summer deaths
    [Link 2]

    This study shows that more people die in winter than in summer across the globe.

    2005 study, “Living with Global Warming”
    [Link 3]

    This study uses UN data on the risks with and without human-induced climate change to compare the benefit of “adaptation” (to reduce society’s vulnerability to the consequences of global climate change) versus “mitigation” (to reduce human CO2 emissions in order to limit CO2 concentrations in the hope of stopping human-induced global climate change).

    “Is Climate Change the 21st Century’s Most Urgent Environmental Problem?”
    [Link 4]

    Study concludes that it is not by far.

    “Assessments of present-day and future impacts of human-induced climate change indicate that it is not now, nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future (i.e., into the 2080s), as significant as other environmental and public health problems facing the globe.”

    And finally, there is the recent guest editorial by Goklany on WUWT
    [Link 5]

    This study ranks global public health priorities and mortality risk factors, using WHO data. (Global climate change comes out at lowest priority.)

    In contrast to alarmist studies (such as the Stern report), Goklany makes common-sense statistical analyses backed by hard data. As the conclusions of these studies are not frightening, they have received far less attention from the media.

    But they make good reading, if you want the facts.

    Max
14. tonyb says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:25 pm

    Brute said; “The streets of the capital of the most powerful, prosperous, industrious, nation on the face of the earth are impassable..”

    So Beijing had a snow storm too then? Hey Brute its just satire :)

    Tonyb
15. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:25 pm

    Link 1
    http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
16. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:25 pm

    Link 2
    http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/26712/Winter_Kills_Excess_Deaths_in_the_Winter_Months.html
17. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:26 pm

    Link 3
    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st278
18. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:27 pm

    Link 4
    http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/17270.pdf
19. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:27 pm

    Link 5
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/goklany-on-copenhagen-and-climate-change-health-risks/
20. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:37 pm

    TonyB

    Well, Beijing did have a massive snow storm (a month ago).
    http://www.nowpublic.com/world/beijing-snowstorm-paralyzes-chinese-capital-travel-affected

    Proves that “climate change” is “global”, right?

    Max
21. Brute says:

    09/02/2010 at 9:42 pm

    So Beijing had a snow storm too then?

    Tonyb,

    I thought of that response (I thought it would come from Peter Martin) as I wrote the comment.

    Please forgive my moment of flag waving……..however, the point still stands that mankind is impotent in terms of affecting the weather/climate.

    Curiously, I thought China was fairly close to the US in terms of GDP……….

    World’s Top Ten Richest Countries by GDP

    The Richest Country by GDP is the US with an annual GDP of $14.8 trillion.

    United States of America. GDP = $14,839bn, GDP per head = $48,400, PPP = $48,400
    Japan. GDP = $5,388bn, GDP per head = $42,310, PPP = $35,710
    China. GDP = $4,818bn, GDP per head = $3,600, PPP = $6,830
    Germany. GDP = $3,440bn, GDP per head = $41,550, PPP = $36,100
    France. GDP = $2,734bn, GDP per head = $43,910, PPP = $35,750
    United Kingdom. GDP = $2,442bn, GDP per head = $39,470, PPP = $36,820
    Italy. GDP = $2,334bn, GDP per head = $40,150, PPP = $32,210
    Russia. GDP = $1,680bn, GDP per head = $11,880, PPP = $16,300
    Spain. GDP = $1,581bn, GDP per head = $34,540, PPP = $32,120
    Canada. GDP = $1,468bn, GDP per head = $43,860, PPP = $40,540

    Read more at Suite101: Richest Countries by GDP and the Poorest Country: GDP Provides Context for Richest Country’s Growing Debt and Deficits http://gross-national-product.suite101.com/article.cfm/richest_countries_by_gdp_and_the_poorest_country#ixzz0f4a8lJmS
22. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 10:05 pm

    Here’s one originally from Bishop Hill: ‘Hansen colleague rejected IPCC AR4 Executive Summary as having “no scientific merit”, but what does IPCC do?’
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/

    Here is the comment by Dr. Andrew A. Lacis of GISS:

    There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted

    Ouch!

    Needless to say, his comment was not accepted by the chapter authors:

    Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

    Max
23. geoffchambers says:

    09/02/2010 at 10:14 pm

    The Guardian has just gone critical (in one sense) on Climategate with ten (!) articles by Fred Pearce at
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change
    and an invitation to its readers to peer review. There’s an evident desire to appear even-handed, with much citation of McIntyre and others. However, the effect is rather spoiled by the final article, entitled “How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies” which cites only errors by Sarah Palin, Senator Inhofe, Patrick Michaels, and George Wills, and not the thousands of correct interpretations by thousands of sceptical bloggers (and even a few journalists). Manacker will forgive me if I break my own rule and suggest that the Guardian is playing a rather more subtle game than Herr Goebbels…
24. manacker says:

    09/02/2010 at 11:15 pm

    geoffchambers

    Yeah. You are right.

    Subtlety was not a strength of Herr Goebbels.

    But is the Guardian really moving to more balanced coverage of AGW issues?

    Are the editors hedging their bets for the eventuality that the AGW tide really reverses in the aftermath of Climategate and all the other “…gates”?

    Will the “consensus opinion” lose its PC status?

    The media have always liked a good witch hunt, so will they turn this into one?

    It will be interesting to watch.

    Max
25. manacker says:

    10/02/2010 at 12:17 am

    Re 9497

    Here is the complete text of the “AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 Executive Summary” which Dr. Andrew A. Lacis of GISS has critiqued with the opening statement:

    There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.

    See:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

    Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

    Executive Summary

    Evidence of the effect of external influences on the climate system has continued to accumulate since the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The evidence now available is substantially stronger and is based on analyses of widespread temperature increases throughout the climate system and changes in other climate variables.

    Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread.

    Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans. Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings.

    It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

    Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis
    technique.

    Further evidence has accumulated of an anthropogenic influence on the temperature of the free atmosphere as measured by radiosondes and satellite-based instruments. The
    observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion. The combination of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere has likely led to an increase in the height of the tropopause. It is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the general warming observed in the upper several hundred meters of the ocean during the latter half of the 20th century. Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies.

    It is likely that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century.

    Anthropogenic influence has been detected in every continent except Antarctica (which has insufficient observational coverage to make an assessment), and in some sub-continental land areas. The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the temperature evolution on continental scales and the detection of anthropogenic effects on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human infl uence on the global climate than was available at the time of the TAR. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.

    Difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes on smaller than continental scales and over time scales of less than 50 years. Attribution at these scales, with limited exceptions, has not yet been established. Averaging over smaller regions reduces the natural variability less than does averaging over large regions, making it more difficult to distinguish between changes expected from different external forcings, or between external forcing and variability. In addition, temperature changes associated with some modes of variability are poorly simulated by models in some regions and seasons.

    Furthermore, the smallscale details of external forcing, and the response simulated by models are less credible than large-scale features.

    Surface temperature extremes have likely been affected by anthropogenic forcing.

    Many indicators of climate extremes and variability, including the annual numbers of frost days, warm and cold days, and warm and cold nights, show changes that are consistent with warming. An anthropogenic influence has been detected in some of these indices, and there is evidence that anthropogenic forcing may have substantially increased the risk of extremely warm summer conditions regionally, such as the 2003 European heat wave.

    There is evidence of anthropogenic influence in other parts of the climate system.

    Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to recent decreases in arctic sea ice extent and to glacier retreat. The observed decrease in global snow cover extent and the widespread retreat of glaciers are consistent with warming, and there is evidence that this melting has likely contributed to sea level rise.

    Trends over recent decades in the Northern and Southern Annular Modes, which correspond to sea level pressure reductions over the poles, are likely related in part to human activity, affecting storm tracks, winds and temperature patterns in both hemispheres. Models reproduce the sign of the Northern Annular Mode trend, but the simulated response is smaller than observed. Models including both greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone changes simulate a realistic trend in the Southern Annular Mode, leading to a detectable human influence on global sea level pressure patterns.

    The response to volcanic forcing simulated by some models is detectable in global annual mean land precipitation during the latter half of the 20th century. The latitudinal pattern of change in land precipitation and observed increases in heavy precipitation.over the 20th century appear to be consistent with the anticipated response to anthropogenic forcing. It is more likely than not that anthropogenic influence has contributed to
    increases in the frequency of the most intense tropical cyclones.

    Stronger attribution to anthropogenic factors is not possible at present because the observed increase in the proportion of such storms appears to be larger than suggested by either theoretical or modelling studies and because of inadequate process knowledge, insufficient understanding of natural variability, uncertainty in modelling intense cyclones and uncertainties in historical tropical cyclone data.

    Analyses of palaeoclimate data have increased confidence in the role of external influences on climate.

    Coupled climate models used to predict future climate have been used to understand past climatic conditions of the Last Glacial Maximum and the mid-Holocene. While many aspects of these past climates are still uncertain, key features have been reproduced by climate models using boundary conditions and radiative forcing for those periods. A substantial fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability of the seven centuries prior to 1950 is very likely attributable to natural external forcing, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records.

    Estimates of the climate sensitivity are now better constrained by observations.

    Estimates based on observational constraints indicate that it is very likely that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is larger than 1.5°C with a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C. The upper 95% limit remains difficult to constrain from observations. This supports the overall assessment based on modelling and observational studies that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely 2°C to 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C (Box 10.2). The transient climate response, based on observational constraints, is very likely larger than 1°C and very unlikely to be greater than 3.5°C at the time of atmospheric CO2 doubling in response to a 1% yr–1 increase in CO2, supporting the overall assessment that the transient climate response is very unlikely greater than 3°C(Chapter 10).

    Overall consistency of evidence.
    

    Many observed changes in surface and free atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature and sea ice extent, and some large-scale changes in the atmospheric circulation over the 20th century are distinct from internal variability and consistent with the expected response to anthropogenic forcing. The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system as well as the magnitude and pattern of warming within and across the different components supports the conclusion that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely (<5%) to be the result of internal processes. Qualitative consistency is also apparent in some other observations, including snow cover, glacier retreat and heavy precipitation.

    Remaining uncertainties.

    Further improvements in models and analysis techniques have led to increased confidence in the understanding of the influence of external forcing on climate since the TAR. However, estimates of some radiative forcings remain uncertain, including aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variations in solar forcing. The net aerosol forcing over the 20th century from inverse estimates based on the observed warming likely ranges between –1.7 and –0.1 W m–2. The consistency of this result with forward estimates of total aerosol forcing (Chapter 2) strengthens confidence in estimates of total aerosol forcing, despite remaining uncertainties. Nevertheless, the robustness of surface temperature attribution results to forcing and response uncertainty has been evaluated with a range of models, forcing representations and analysis procedures.

    The potential impact of the remaining uncertainties has been considered, to the extent possible, in the overall assessment of every line of evidence listed above. There is less confidence in the understanding of forced changes in other variables, such as surface pressure and precipitation, and on smaller spatial scales.

    Better understanding of instrumental and proxy climate records, and climate model improvements, have increased confidence in climate model-simulated internal variability.
    However, uncertainties remain. For example, there are apparent discrepancies between estimates of ocean heat content variability from models and observations. While reduced relative to the situation at the time of the TAR, uncertainties in the radiosonde and satellite records still affect confidence in estimates of the anthropogenic contribution to tropospheric temperature change.

    Incomplete global data sets and remaining model uncertainties still restrict understanding of changes in extremes and attribution of changes to causes, although understanding of changes in the intensity, frequency and risk of extremes has improved.

    Whew!

    And Dr. Salis states “there is no scientific merit to be found” in all that?

    Ouch!

    Max

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.