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.
Re PNS, here’s a comment by Mike Hulme, made at the launch (by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams) of the Tyndall Centre’s new climate change research strategy on 3 May 2006:
And, if you think Ravetz’s prose is dense, read William’s address here.
Tonyb (9549)
Sounds like another example of post normal science
You beat me to it! I liked the term ‘motto-morphosis’, though. It sounds like they’ve had the image consultants in and reminds me of nothing so much as the disastrous change of livery that British Airways adopted some years ago, when they replaced their universally-recognised Union Jack tailfin design with an assortment of modernist abstracts that meant nothing to anyone!
Tonyb
“Ps I am still following the original thread-it was interesting to see the identity of ‘Tallbloke’”
So I presume tallbloke is
Roger Tattersall
Why is it interesting to find out who he is?
Come on Kevin, its always interesting to see the real identity of those who have pseudonymns, particularly when they are familar moderators at WUWT :)
Tonyb (AKA Lord Monkton)
OK, guys, I give up.
Max (a.k.a. Al Gore)
PeterM and Brute
Brute, as you dig your way out once again, you’ll be pleased to note that today, for the first time in history, all 50 US states have some snow somewhere. So you are not alone.
[On a slightly more modest scale, all cantons of Switzerland also do, but that is not so unusual. The ski resort operators are pleased.]
Some snow statistics that might be of interest, but will probably not get much press coverage.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover (as recorded by Rutgers) has hit an all-time high at over 50 million square kilometers.
January 2010 the extent was 48.27 msk.
Over the past 40 years there has been a slight increasing trend in January (as well as annually averaged) snow cover (contrary to the claims made by IPCC).
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4031/4352936160_fd0e64ce43_b.jpg
Over the 40 years since 1970, January 2008 had the 2nd highest extent (49.78 msk) while 2010 had the 6th highest.
7 of the “top 20” years occurred in 2000 or later.
Lowest extent was back in 1981 (41.69 msk).
Must be a result of anthropogenic global warming.
Max
Further to my “yawn” at 9528
Quoting from the Bish’ Title: +++WOW+++ http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/13/wow.html (My bold below)
Of course the glaring regionality and diurnal/seasonal inadequacies ETC with dendro’ in the northern Hemisphere are not mentioned, but anyway, even if no one seemed interested in my 9528, perhaps you might be interested in dear ol’ Phil’s comment.
(quite apart from the reason for the Bishop’s +++WOW+++)
What an extraordinary turn of events. First, it’s essential to read this. And this.
What’s happened (and I’m still trying to come to terms with it) is that the BBC (Roger Harrabin of all people) has asked Phil Jones the some of very questions that many of us would have asked. Moreover, Jones has tried to give honest (even humble) answers. And what does he say? Well here are some key items:
1. The rates of warming from 1860-1880, from 1910-1940 and from 1975-1998 were not statistically different from each other.
2. There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
3. Yes, there has been a (not statistically significant) cooling trend since 2002.
4. He thinks humans are largely responsible for recent warming. But his response is vague, even uncertain (referring to IPCC chapter 9). He thinks scientists should do more to communicate their reasons for saying humans are responsible.
5. He accepts there may be some uncertainty about the surface temperature record.
6. The MWP might have been global and might have been warmer than today – or it might not. (He doesn’t attempt to defend the hockey-stick.)
7. There’s a need for more openness about surface temperature data – some of which was “not well organised”. He agrees he was not good at keeping a paper trail.
8. He agrees with Beddington about the need for more recognition of uncertainty.
9. He agrees that paleoclimatic data are uncertain.
10. He doesn’t think the vast majority of climate scientists think the debate is over.
11. The IPCC needs to reassure people about the quality of its assessments.
Gulp.
Bob: you got there first!
On my site I carry various articles on the MWP. There is no doubt of its existence despite Peter M’s scorn of this poeriod.
Here are two-the first is just an article the second leads to hundreds of srudies;
Article: The Medieval Warm Period. Author: Von Rudolf Kipp
This is another topic that I intend to write about some day, but this excellent piece will probably save me the trouble. It takes the numerous studies of this period and graphically displays the resultant temperature information. In addition it provides much interesting textual information. Here in German:
http://www.science-skeptical.de/
Also carried here in a more accessible form for English speakers:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
Article: Peer Reviewed papers on causes of climate change. Author: Andrew of Popular Technology
That there are no peer reviewed papers supporting a non anthropogenic view of climate change is a myth perpetuated by those that like to believe they have a monopoly on climate knowledge (although it is true that obtaining funding for sceptical research is very problematic) This item collates some 450 peer reviewed papers that query the current orthodoxy.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Of course Phil Jones would only need to wander down the corridors of CRU and go to the library and here he would find the work of his predecessor Hubert Lamb who I suspect would be turning in his grave at the events here.
Phil could sit down and read the extensive works of Lamb. A good one to put historic climate into its proper perspective (and one I would urge Peter to read as he doesnt seem to like history)
“Climate, Histry and the Modern World’ its ISBN is 0-415-12735-1
tonyb
Yes, TonyB, but the amazing Phil Jones interview is about much more then the MWP.
Robin
I know-but I can’t comment on EVERYTHING he said or it would become an article :)
tonyb
Robin, #9558:
Good summary but you missed one in the news report here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm
If this means what it appears to mean, then as of this morning we do not have a credible, checkable, historic surface temperature record: not anywhere. The implications are too vast to even contemplate.
Fair comment, TonyB.
For me, a particularly interesting detail of Jones’s exchange with Harrabin was when, in response to the question “Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming experienced from 1975-1998 …”, he replies “This area is slightly outside my area of expertise”. In other words, he (and the CRU) are not really climateologists at all: they’re collectors, processors and publishers of temperature data. And, as Jones now admits, they haven’t even done that very well: the data was “not well organised” and he was not good at keeping a paper trail.
So, if the effect of natural forces is outside his area of expertise, what value can be put on his unsurprisingly vague support (referring to IPCC chapter 9) for the AGW hypothesis? None, I suggest.
Indeed, on the basis of his comments, it could be argued that there is no such discipline as climatology.
TonyN:
Combine your 9563 and my 9564 and the whole shebang is exposed as an absurd shambles – quite apart from the daily IPCC revelations.
I’ve just finished a careful reading of the Jones / Harrabin question and answer sesion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
It will take time to explore all the issues it raises, but it seems to me that this interview raises far more questions than it answers.
My impression is that, arguably, this is bigger than Climategate.
Jones has been a pivotal figure in the IPCC process for a decade and immensely influential within the climate science community. Apart form the conflicts of evidence that are likely to arise when people start comparing what he has said in the past with what he is saying now, attention is likely to be directed towards the questions that he has avoided answering.
Over the last couple of months, criticism of the IPCC have focused on WGII. What Jones is talking about now goes right to the heart of WGI in both the TAR and AR4. This moves the scandal onto a whole new scale. What has emerged so far seems trivial compared to what is likely to emerge now. But much will depend on the ability of journalists to find paradigms that will allow the full impact of what is happening to be conveyed to a public that does not have specialist knowledge.
TonyN:
But do Phil Jones’s current comments really go “right to the heart of WGI in both the TAR and AR4”? See my post 9564: he says that the central issues are outside his area of expertise. People will be able to say that any apparant conflicts etc. are really irrelevant as he was not an authority on the key issues and, in any case, the poor man’s judgement is inevitably shaken by recent events. Thus, it will be claimed, “the basic science is unaffected”. Or words to that effect.
But, of course, the interview raises massive issues.
Robin:
An upcoming post, this evening I hope, will offer some suggestions.
So now we know that Phil Jones agrees that (i) warming rates from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were statistically the same, (ii) there’s been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 (and a cooling trend since 2002), (iii) there may be some uncertainty about the surface temperature record and (iv) the MWP may have been global and may have been warmer than today. And all this is all squarely within his area of expertise (see my 9564).
Until now people expressing such views have been vilified as “deniers”. And worse.
This is a remarkable development.
There’s something I missed: it’s this interview with Roger Harrabin on the BBC’s Today programme. Note that Harrabin says at the end that his interview with Phil Jones took place over several days and that he hopes to publish more on it later. He comments that government ministers may have to reconsider their description of sceptics as “deniers” and “flat earthers”.
TonyN #9568
Upcoming? Upcoming? You’ll be saying ‘Going forward’ next. ;)
At this moment in time I do agree this has the potential to be bigger than climate gate, as it is directly addressing the actual flaws in the science rather than ‘interpretations’ of ‘stolen’ emails.
tonyb
Robin
What do you think has got into Roger H? He is actually sounding like an informed investigative reporter rather than the familiar BBC eco-activist that has made much of his recent work so biased and at times, risible.
TonyB:
You ask what has got into Roger H. It’s very interesting: as I observed above, he asked some of the very questions that many of us would have asked. It suggests to me that, over recent months, he’s been troubled by these questions himself (he’s clearly an intelligent man) but didn’t feel able to pursue them because of the BBC’s global warming agenda. But now he’s sensing a change in attitude and (although I think he rather pulled his punches with Phil Jones) he’s beginning to act like a journalist rather than a propagandist.
I suspect he may be kicking himself: he’s an environmental analyst and he’s missed what has been under his nose for months – and it could have been the defining story of his career.
TonyB #9571:
“At this moment in time”? “At this moment in time”? You’ll be thinking outside the box next. ;)
PS: and maybe it’ll be blue sky thinking.
This interview is certainly an eye-opener. I’m just glad our nice MWP is restored! Early in the day, but am raising a modest glass of 8% vol English wine in celebration.