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.
Wow, this guy has been busy. Seems he’s been making the rounds and collecting lots of handouts as the “mild mannered” scientist intent on “saving the earth” from greedy businessmen. And all this time I thought he was an anonymous civil servant.
Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen
‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6a8baa3-802a-23ad-4650-cb6a01303a65
Interesting Article……Looks like the tide is turning against Hansen, Gore, et al………
Beware the climate change boogey man
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3634
RECORD EVENT REPORT
David,
Don’t you live in the Northwest?
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE, WA
0628 PM PDT TUE JUN 24 2008
…RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT SEATTLE WFO…
A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 47 DEGREES WAS SET AT SEATTLE WFO
TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 48 SET IN 2003.
Hi David,
Let me play back your words of wisdom: “There are some things that computer programs are good at; learn what those are.”
Yep. They are fair at forecasting the weather a few days in advance. They are poor at predicting “next year’s climate” (viz. Hadley’s dismal failures for 2006 and 2007 forecasts and Hansen’s even more absurd “tipping point” predictions. And they are totally worthless for long range climate forecasts. Gimme the “Farmers’Almanac” every time.
You point out that they are good in 125 year climate “hindcasts”. Duh! You don’t need GCMs for good hindcasts, David.
Regards,
Max
Hi David,
You wrote: However, you seem not to follow your own dictum when it comes to water vapor feedback; this is easily explained and is indeed observed; the fact that it doesn’t seem readily calculatable by hand does not make it less true; I observe more water vapor in my locality, in just the last two years or so. Learn to deal with the reality of it.”
Let’s analyze this pearl of wisdom more closely.
The “last two years”, when you “observed more water vapor in your locality”, showed average global land and sea surface temperature anomalies of:
0.422C 2006 Hadley
0.404C 2007 Hadley
0.413C Ave. Hadley
0.543C 2006 GISS
0.545C 2007 GISS
0.544C Ave. GISS
0.260C 2006 RSS
0.282C 2007 RSS
0.271C Ave. RSS
0.371C 2006 UAH
0.378C 2007 UAH
For average all records:
0.371C 2006
0.378C 2007
0.375C Ave. 2006-2007
Compared to the previous 3 years
0.457C 2003 Hadley
0.432C 2004 Hadley
0.479C 2005 Hadley
0.456C Ave. Hadley
0.557C 2003 GISS
0.534C 2004 GISS
0.605C 2005 GISS
0.565C Ave. GISS
0.352C 2003 RISS
0.251C 2004 RISS
0.371C 2005 RISS
0.325C Ave. RISS
0.275C 2003 UAH
0.193C 2004 UAH
0.338C 2005 UAH
0.268C Ave. UAH
For average all records:
0.410C 2003
0.352C 2004
0.448C 2005
0.404C Ave. 2003-2005
So the average anomaly in 2006/2007 was around 0.3C lower than it was in 2003-2005, yet you “observed more water vapor in your locality” the last two years than before.
Ouch! That is the very best proof I have seen so far that there is no water vapor feedback effect on temperature.
Thanks for the “observed data” to disprove your water vapor feedback suggestion.
Tip: Next time you shoot from the hip, be sure to first put on your Kevlar-toed shoes.
Regards,
Max
Typo in above message:
That should read 0.03C lower in 2006/2007 than 2003-2005 average, rather than 0.3C lower.
Sorry.
But conclusion still stands, i.e. no measured water vapor feedback.
Regards,
Max
David B,
Putting aside for the moment that you have still NOT ANSWERED my severally repeated questions above:
You wrote in part in #121:
As an engineer, I am truly horrified that a computer scientist can accept 10-year block averaging in THIS situation! ….. It strongly depends on when you start and stop the 10-year interval, and it irons-out any detail! (BTW: what is your definition of ‘local’ ?) And, why don’t Hadley and others do it? (HINT: it is scientifically silly)
David continued with:
Oh really? What are these statistics that you speak of? Please clarify your statistical inferences!
David continued further with:
Before we clarify this point, could you please confirm that you are talking about:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.jpg
And that you have read and understood ALL OF THE TEXT THEREON? (including that “the other guy” is BobFJ = me).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, do any observers have difficulty with this graph? If so, it will be a signal for me to further explain what I was trying to show. Anyone! Please let me know if it is not clear to you.
Please let me repeat:
Do any observers have difficulty with this graph?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.jpg
If so, it will be a signal for me to further explain what I was trying to show. Anyone! Please let me know if it is not clear to you.
Wallaby,
No difficulty; clear as Mother’s Milk.
Hi Black Wallaby,
Your analysis is pretty clear and straightforward to me – but maybe I lack the mystical insight into reading curves that comes from being a computer scientist like David B.
You show two “blips” – one that occurred at the end of the early 20th century warming of about 0.53C (linear) 1910-1944 and a second one, just starting but projected to continue in the same fashion as the first one, following the late 20th century warming of 0.37C (linear) 1976-1998.
It also appears that Hadley is mumbling about cooling projected to last past 2009, so they are giving sort of grudging credence to your suggestion.
I’m sure even David will be able to get his brain around this prospect once a few more cold months show up on all the records (except maybe the Hansen-run GISS).
Regards,
Max
Tony,
Right up your alley.
A Suggestion for Meeting the UK Governments Renewable Energy Target
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Bob_FJ — Yes, your graph. I have no good understanding of what happens from 1999 CE onwards. But to the extent I understand what you have done, your 21 point smoothing means you are not matching the actual annual global temperatures.
In any case, it looks to be normal interdecadal climate variablity to me. And for that decadal block averages are certainly good enough and simple to understand.
Correcting an eralier post, doing this on the GISP2 data for the Holocene provides 1033 decades of data, giving a good enough fit to a normal distribution.
manacker (125) — Not even Roy Spencer claims for his (maybe) results what you do:
“But we really won’t know until much more work is done,” Spencer said.
http://www.physorg.com/news132251958.html
and its not the sun:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=74&tstamp=200805
As for water vapor, read some atmopheric physics. As for GCMs, read AR4 WG1 Chapter 8 or the book about the history of climate models.
You are simply demonstrating you are not interested in the scientific method. Too bad.
Bob_FJ — I forgot to mention that ‘local maximum’ is a well-defined phrase used extensively in mathematics.
Good article:
Global Warming Movement Turns Cool
http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=7509
The ‘Old’ Consensus?
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/21/2007
Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.
________________________________________
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in “the next 50 years” fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.
So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren’t they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?
“They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere,” the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.
This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times’ John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory “court jesters.” We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?
People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There’s nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.
But what about political hypocrisy? It’s clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?
If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.
Could be he’s feeling a little chill in the air again.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290
Hi David,
Sorry, your latest “waffle” (137) did absolutely nothing to refute the studies I cited on:
· The solar impact
· The observed negative feedback of clouds essentially counteracting any theoretical model-derived positive impact from water vapor.
You are grasping at straws, David.
The record shows that a 3K sensitivity for 2xCO2 is unrealistic, and the studies on clouds and solar impact confirm this.
Come with facts, not with model-based happy talk.
Regards,
Max
David Benson,
Putting aside for the moment that you have still not answered some severally repeated questions, I now present to you a comparison between the Hadley picture on global surface air temperature including raw annual averages and 21-point smoothing, and that of ten-year block averaging by Tamino. To further the debate, I actually broke my general principle, of not to open any link to Tamino et al or any like fundies, for not wanting to increase their website hit-counts. However, curiosity overtook me on this occasion, and it reaffirms that I should try to continue to follow my earlier principle in general.
I have already commented that as an engineer, (retired), I CANNOT possibly approve 10-year block averaging in this matter. (where there is a lot of noise). I’m further shocked to discover that Tamino appears to do his 10-year averaging, not as a centre-mean, 5 years each side, but as an end of block average. (EACH point is the average of the preceding ten years, not five years each side! (Gadzooks, and toss me over with a sparrow feather!)
David, if you are computer scientist, it is most disappointing to me that you have been sucked-in by Tamino. Please study the following graphical mark-ups which show that Tamino transmits great-big-heap-merde!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2611917765_9f96c36086_o.jpg
Additionally, you do not seem to want to admit that the Hadley raw annual data shows a plateau back in 1940, and that the current plateau is looking ever-more similar.
Please check this: my quickly and crudely prepared comparison:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2611926499_8b1dd2688d_o.jpg
Tony, I just got spammed I think.
Can’t think why…..although it had two Flickr links which doesn’t seem too unusual.
No matter, I’ll send it again domani if appropriate.
Re: #135, Brute
Many thanks for that link.
Re: #144, Bob_FJ
Yes you did, and I’ve just fished it out of the bin. The links limit is set to 20 at the moment so I don’t know why this is happening although Flicker could have something to do with it I suppose. I’ll try to get Bad Behavior installed this weekend.
Please let me know in a comment if this happens again, as I usually only check the spam filter once a day.
Tony,
Thanks for unspamming me. No need to do anything much I guess. I’ll just make sure in future that I split out any Flickr links to no more than one in each post.
Single Flickr’s have gone through OK before this!
A couple questions for you smart guys:
1. Can you either point me in the right direction, or create for me some graphs? Specifically, I seek fairly simple graphs using the recognized sources (Hadley, RSS, NASA, etc) for temperature anomaly over time (ideally 1850-present), overlaid with co2 emissions, solar activity, ENSO, and anything important I’ve missed? It could be one chart or several, but must use data from “reputable” sources such as those cited above.
2. Does the IPCC 4th assessment, which states to the effect that they (the authors) have a “90% confidence” that human activity is the cause of GW, equate to the statistical concept of a confidence interval? If so, 90% is a likely a big enough hole to drive a gas-guzzling SUV through. Someone smarter than me please confirm or deny…
Thanks in advance.
JZS
Hi JZSmith,
You wrote: “Can you either point me in the right direction, or create for me some graphs? Specifically, I seek fairly simple graphs using the recognized sources (Hadley, RSS, NASA, etc) for temperature anomaly over time (ideally 1850-present), overlaid with co2 emissions, solar activity, ENSO, and anything important I’ve missed? It could be one chart or several, but must use data from “reputable” sources such as those cited above.”
You called for info from “smart guys”. I don’t put myself into that category.
But I have downloaded the Hadley record and plotted it in Excel. From the plot I could pull out the multidecadal cyclical nature of the temperature trend with 3 distinct multidecadal warming cycles (1858-1879, 1910-1944, 1976-1988) interspersed with cooling cycles (1879-1910, 1944-1976) and the current “plateau” or slight cooling cycle since 1998.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
This whole cyclical curve is like a tilted (very “jagged”) sine curve with an underlying overall warming trend.
Using IPCCs linear trend approach to analyzing these cycles, it shows that the three warming cycles showed a linear increase of:
1858-1879: +0.38C
1910-1944: +0.53C
1976-1998: +0.37C
The cooling cycles were:
1850-1858: -0.15C
1879-1910: -0.23C
1944-1976: -0.02C
And the most recent decade shows an essentially flat trend since 1998 (-0.01C).
I’ll send the link to a composite curve showing all the cycles in the 159-year period separately, so the spam filter doesn’t overreact.
At the same time I downloaded the data from Mauna Loa on atmospheric CO2 concentration (since 1958) and used the data provided by IPCC SPM 2007 for prior years to plot the change in CO2 over the same warming/cooling periods from the Hadley record.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
Then I plotted the change in CO2 concentration versus the change in temperature over the same cycles to see how the correlation looks. The period 1976-1998 gives a good fit to support AGW. Other periods are less obvious.
Link to this plot is sent separately.
Regards,
Max
Hadley Temperature Record Showing Multidecadal Cycles
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2614617358_235d418d98_b.jpg