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.
Yes, Bob, but having agreed that the sea-ice balance is a relatively trivial issue, you trot it out again. Why bother?
JZ,1293,
Welcome back!
You wrote in part;
“…it’s been a quite mild summer.”
You are beginning to sound like a Brit (AKA in Oz as Poms)
For example, Brits/Poms would describe American football as: “Not a very good game!”
This is a form of unbelieving smirking understatement of the rediculous
Robin, 1301, you wrote;
Sorry Robin, but in my 1300 I barely mentioned sea-ice balance as you put it.
In what way did I TROT IT OUT AGAIN? I even said I’d be happy if commercial shipping could navigate the northern routes FFS!
Did I not make it clear that the issue is not so much whether sea-ice is evidently doing anything, but the irrelevant interpretations to which Pete applies to various snippets that he selects.
For instance, why were three submarines able to surface at the north pole in MAY 1987 (SPRING – NOT LATE SUMMER) in clear water, (when the world was allegedly considerably colder), in an unprecedented way, before or SINCE then?
I repeat in part from my 1300:
Please check-out my 1300 in full
Brute, 1289, you wrote in part concerning Ian Plimer’s book: “Telling Lies for God”.
I’ll see about picking up the book, (but really what’s the point? We’re all doomed).
There’s nothing wrong in having a good chuckle before we are destroyed!
Go for it!
OK, Bob – no need to shout. You’re right – apologies. Perhaps I should have said that sniping at Peter is a pretty pointless exercise. Anyway, it’s his contribution that gives this thread its edge.
Robin 1305, you wrote in part:
Yes Robin, you are absolutely right, Pete certainly plays “devil’s advocate” very well, provoking much discussion, and I should be more serene in response to his various obfuscations and non-responses.
I particularly admire Max for his great patience!
Let me tell you a true tale…..Some decades ago, one of my engineers, whom I regarded as a friend, quietly sidled up and informed me “out of the blue”; Hey Bob, I’ve decided that this world we live in is a load of shit! (paraphrasing), I’ve decided to enter the Buddhist Temple in Brighton (Melbourne) as a monk.
A couple of years later, he called me and invited me to attend a talk by the Dalai Lama, which he had helped to organise, in Melbourne. I attended and was very impressed both by Damien in his robes and his holiness. The talk was a demonstration of Buddhist peace and serenity that remains indelible in my mind. It was wonderful.
I should try to remember that feeling whenever Pete issues forth.
Bob_FJ,
You say that ” the sea-ice balance is a relatively trivial issue”. Whichever side of the argument you may be on, you’d have to be pretty uninformed to think that.
It is important in its own right of course. The ecology of the Arctic depends on its large area of sea ice. The cold water and ice of the Arctic are the driving force of ocean currents in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Change them and the climate systems of Northern Europe and America change too.
There are many economic implications. For instance, The Panamanians may well find that they may not have have invested several billion dollars in the best of ways if the thawing Arctic ice offers another possible shipping route.
It is important scientifically, along with data on what is happening to the permafrost, because it gives us a additional check on what is happening to the earth’s climate and the scientific models that are used to predict it. The title of the New Statesman thread asked if global warming had stopped. You only need to look at the way the Arctic ice is melting so quickly to see that it hasn’t.
It is true that because sea-ice floats, melting ice does not in itself raise sea levels much. However, most sensible people will take note of what is happening in the Arctic and be concerned that the Greenland ice sheet may also go the same way. If that melts, the economic consequences will be dire , as even you guys may well appreciate.
I thought it was only NASA who were the bad guys in your books? But, you obviously all think the evil conspiracy has also gained control of NSIDC too? It sounds like there’s material here for a Hollywood film. Maybe its all driven by the aliens? You could have the super hero exposing Al Gore as a ‘reptilian’ invader in human form right at the end of the film as he saves the planet from the evils of carbon trading just in the nick of time.
Incidentally you seem to be constantly whinging that I have avoided answering your questions. I can understand that you would like different answers, and that you might disagree with answers that I have already given, but of course that isn’t the same thing. I would suggest, if you lay off the Merlot for an evening, and re-read what I have already written, that your comprehension may be improved. You may still not agree, but at least you’ll understand that the answers are there.
There are plenty of scientists who you should listen too besides the likes of Spencer and Lindzen to get a fuller picture of what the scientific world is saying. If you think that the mainsteam scientific line on AGW, abiotic oil or whatever, is wrong, there is little point hammering away on this forum as you are doing. It’s not me who you need to convince!
No, Peter, you may not have been reading this carefully enough: I first said that ”the sea-ice balance is a relatively trivial issue”. Bob agreed. I didn’t say it was unimportant (of course it is) nor did he – but I used the word “relatively” for a specific reason. For that, see my post 1290, especially my question “A”. I’d be interested in your comment on that – and on my follow-up post 1291.
Bad news everyone: we’ve only got 100 months left – see this and this. We’re all doomed I tell you … we’re all doomed.
Hi Peter,
Just a few comments to your 1307 (directed at Bob_FJ, but I hope he does not mind).
“It is true that because sea-ice floats, melting ice does not in itself raise sea levels much.”
This is a superb understatement, Peter. It doesn’t raise sea levels at all.
“Greenland ice sheet may also go the same way. If that melts, the economic consequences will be dire.”
Key word here, Peter, is “IF”. IF a bullfrog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his rear when he jumps.
A 10+ year study of the Greenland ice sheet (1992-2003) shows that it gained mass overall, rather than melting away over this period.
“The Panamanians may well find that they may not have invested several billion dollars in the best of ways if the thawing Arctic ice offers another possible shipping route.”
A year-round Arctic shipping route? Hmmm…
And BTW it wasn’t the “Panamanians” that built the canal. The French started it and the Americans completed it. I believe U.S. President Jimmy Carter decided to give it to Panama. And I’ve also read that the Chinese have “invested” in the canal lately (for all those container ships full of quality Chinese consumer products headed for the US gulf coast and east coast ports).
“The title of the New Statesman thread asked if global warming had stopped. You only need to look at the way the Arctic ice is melting so quickly to see that it hasn’t.”
You only need to look at the thermometers out there to see that it has (a more direct way of seeing what is going on).
As far as your statement regarding the “mainsteam scientific line on AGW” is concerned, I just sent you a post pointing out errors in IPCC assumptions regarding feedbacks, to see if you have any comments.
Hey, these “mainstream” guys are just humans, Peter, and they are working for a pseudoscientific/political group (IPCC) that is trying to sell us a bill of goods. You can’t really blame them for getting a bit overenthusiastic from time to time, stretching the truth a bit here, adding in a bit of hype there or ignoring physical observations that don’t fit the theory or models, etc.
Regards,
Max
Max,
My statement was perfectly accurate. I’ve tried my best to explain to you how the sea is a good thermal sink, but it is not infinite, and will take a long time to warm up and then a long time to cool down again. At present it is warming up, sea ice is melting, and as every schoolboy should know, when materials warm they generally expand. Expanding seas mean higher sea levels.
I notice that in the past you have expressed a philosophical objection to AGW in that ‘puny’ man is incapable of changing the earth’s climate. That must have been before you had worked out your favourite piece of algebra based on the Stefan Boltzmann equation that shows that humans have indeed warmed the climate, but, in your highly unqualified opinion, the effect isn’t worth worrying about. That’s at least a small step in the right direction.
Maybe, in a few years time you’ll have discovered the algebra that goes with the feed-backs that are needed to explain the true picture. You might want to keep away from reading any more science books. You really would have to change sides if you became too knowledgeable.
Robin,
The “sea ice balance is relatively trivial” but its still important. Have I got that right now?
As to your comment in 1290, we are just following the usual path of climate sceptics’ retreat. Firstly we have Max saying that the sea ice is not so bad as it was in 2007, and therefore there is no longer a problem. That’s a pretty stupid thing to say, 2007 was the worst year ever, so the next line of defence is to argue that the warming is natural. When that doesn’t wash, the last line of climate sceptic defence is to say that the warming is a good thing anyway.
Pete,
How does an increase in Arctic sea ice constitute a decrease?
How does a 150,000 square kilometer INCREASE
in Arctic sea ice this year over last equate to a DECREASE?
Brute,
I’m sure that you know the answer to your question without my having to explain it, yet again
The level of Arctic ice measured at the summer minimum was a recorded all-time low in 2007. It may well be that 2008 won’t be quite as bad. But we’ll have to wait for a few weeks yet to know for sure. At present the Arctic ice is still melting fast, much quicker on a daily basis than this time last year.
Like with anything that is subject to an element of randomness, such as the price of oil that I keep harping on about, you can’t draw any conclusions from one data point to the next. You need to look at the longer term trend. A graph is the best way of seeing what is happening. Measured over the last 30 years the area of Arctic sea ice has decreased by approximately 10% per decade when measured at the time the Arctic ice reaches a minimum, which should be in the next couple of weeks.
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “A graph is the best way of seeing what is happening. Measured over the last 30 years the area of Arctic sea ice has decreased by approximately 10% per decade when measured at the time the Arctic ice reaches a minimum, which should be in the next couple of weeks.”
I agree that graphs are great. But just to clear up any confusion, if you look at the record for ALL months, you will see that Arctic sea ice has receded by around 4% per decade (not 10%), and that Antarctic sea ice has increased by around 2% per decade over the entire measurement period.
Over the past year the record shows an increase in BOTH Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
The facts sound a lot less threatening than your cherry-picked “when it reaches a minimum” analysis.
Just trying to keep you honest, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Peter: I referred in my post 1268 to this paper Is the Earth Still Recovering from the ‘Little Ice Age’? by Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, a leading authority on Arctic temperatures. Figure 2 on page 3 shows temperature changes in the Arctic from 1880 to 2000 compared with global changes over the same period. From this, Dr Akasofu concludes that “it is not possible to say tacitly that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect”.
You assert (post 1311) that Dr Akasofu’s conclusion “doesn’t wash”. Why doesn’t it?
Max,
The Arctic is totally dark in the Arctic winter. If there is no sun then increased CO2 and other GHGs cannot hold extra heat because there is no solar radiation and winters will be as cold as they have ever been.
So I would expect that over the year the % figure for ice loss would be approximately half of what you would measure at the summer minimum. So, is the problem only half as bad as the NSIDC scientists are making out?
Not at all. What is at issue here is whether or not the Arctic is showing signs of the AGW problem, and clearly it is. The summer figure is a useful benchmark in itsef, and is of course, important parameter in determining the overall thickness of the Arctic ice. Remember that ice has three dimensional properties?
If ice melts out every summer, the winter ice is thinner. In order for ice to build up an increased thickness it has to survive the summer melt.
Max, 1310, wrote in part to Pete:
Just a few comments to your 1307 (directed at Bob_FJ, but I hope he does not mind).
No worries on that Max; Go for it!
Perchance would you be a Buddhist or Falun Gong practitioner?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whilst you are there Max, if you are feeling that you might be able to charm a reasoned consideration from Pete, (and since I always fail), I wonder if you might enquire of him on the following. (Perhaps you could re-phrase it if you feel that might seem more politic, whatever):
It has been claimed that the 2007 Arctic summer sea-ice-melt was the greatest ever, but there has only recently been any fairly meaningful method of making such an unqualified claim. Whilst 2007 was observationally an unusual event, GSFC (NASA) have reported that it was a consequence of unusual wind patterns blowing the ice southward into currents heading to warmer waters, where it rapidly melted. I remain puzzled why this regional variation is seen to be such important proof by some people, of AGW, and yet nearby, twenty years earlier there was another unusual local disaster, when the world was apparently considerably colder in terms of global average air and SST’s. (Not far-off what it was in 1940). This was the discovery of large expanses of open water at the North Pole. (Re earlier photos of 3 subs) Meanwhile, Pete claims, we have to wait a couple of weeks before we can assess the full pain of sea-ice melt for 2008. (Just like we evaluated millions of square kilometres during the early 1990’s and the MWP!). However, the apparently unprecedented event at the North Pole, was photographed in MAY 1987, in a colder part of Earth, at a time before the melt season gets under-way, and at a considerably colder time in history. Various submarines have taken peek-a-boos since 1987, but have either only found small openings, or had to break through the ice. The relevant photos show broad expanses of ice, not water, at comparably more favourable times. I think it’s called regional variations, just like with flood, drought, and cold winters etc! Funny about the North Pole melting in 1987, what? (take a look at the Hadley T bar-chart for then!)
Still, come next year we should start to get truly good data on ice cover to within 88 degrees of the Poles, together with its thickness above both land and sea, per the new ESA satellite.
Robin,
You refer to Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, a leading authority on Arctic temperatures. You could equally have described him as Alaska’s leading climate sceptic. Lindzen and Spencer aren’t the only ones.
He does say on his website that he isn’t a climatologist, in fact he’s more of a solar scientist/astrophysicist who seems to have made a name for himself over his studies of the Northern Lights (aurora borealis).
At first look this description of the earth revovering from the LIA sounds novel and attractive. Its been in bed for a couple of centuries but now it feels a bit better :-)
But really all he’s saying is that it’s the sun that’s behind the late 20th century warming. We’ve heard this argument before. Measurements have been made since the mid 60’s and there is really no evidence for it.
David Whitehouse is also a solar scientist, and it may be natural to want your particular discipline to be not discounted in the global warming debate, in the way that it has.
Peter: your post 1318 contains some interesting comment. But it doesn’t answer my question. I’ll restate the background and then repeat the question.
Figure 2 of Dr Akasofu’s article shows temperature changes in the Arctic from 1880 to 2000 compared with global changes over the same period. The top diagram of Figure 1 shows that atmospheric CO2 concentrations started their modern acceleration just as Arctic temperatures began their dramatic fall in 1940. Comparing these, Dr Akasofu’s observation is that, as CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly after 1940, when the temperature decreased from 1940 to 1975, “the large fluctuation between 1910 and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change”. He infers from this that “unless the difference between the two changes can be understood, it is not possible to say tacitly that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect.”
Now my question. You say that conclusion “doesn’t wash”. Why doesn’t it? Please answer that question. Thanks.
Some thoughts on the ice situation discussed above…
First, to Greenland. I have read recently that a large glacier in Greenland has had a big chunk break off (calving, I think it’s called). Some people are quite concerned about this and say, ‘ah HA! more evidence of global warming!’ But I thought that glaciers only advance downhill when they are growing at the higher altitudes, which increases the weight of the glacier, which in turn causes it to slide downhill toward—in this case—the sea. If true, then the glacier is growing because of ice continuing to build. Hardly a sign of AGW in my book. But then, what do I know?
Secondly, I saw this article on Anthony Watts’ site discussing a recent study that says that the Cascade mountain snow pack “has not changed appreciably in 30 years”, and that “much of the change in the last century could be attributed to a weather pattern that has nothing to do with global warming caused by human activity.”
My I add to my post above:
These things support my growing view that human activity have little if anything to do with climate change, and further, that the climate appears to be cooling, rather than warming.
Robin,
We are going over old ground here with your question of the early 20th century warming. Both David Benson and I have tried to explain the history of 20th century warming to you. You obviously haven’t been satisfied before, and I very much doubt, even if I went through it all again, you would be any more satisfied this time either.
Dr Serreze gave a good explanation in his Nye lecture, which I referenced a few posts ago, of why the late 20th century warming had to be mainly caused by anthropogenic causes and not by solar changes. What did you think of that?
What makes you prefer Dr Akasofu over Mark Serreze? Do you have more confidence in his ability? Or, did you make up your mind about AGW first, and then choose the scientists you like afterwards?
Its good to see that TonyN hasn’t managed to impose the thought police on the BBC yet:-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm
If you want to hear that global warming is all a hoax and a scam perpetrated by charlatans, what’s wrong with Fox News?
Tony,
I was thinking that it might be an idea to open a new page. This one takes a while to load now. It should save you some BW too.
Alpine melt reveals ancient life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm
Hi Peter,
You wrote (1316):
“The Arctic is totally dark in the Arctic winter. If there is no sun then increased CO2 and other GHGs cannot hold extra heat because there is no solar radiation and winters will be as cold as they have ever been.
So I would expect that over the year the % figure for ice loss would be approximately half of what you would measure at the summer minimum. So, is the problem only half as bad as the NSIDC scientists are making out?
Not at all. What is at issue here is whether or not the Arctic is showing signs of the AGW problem, and clearly it is. The summer figure is a useful benchmark in itsef, and is of course, important parameter in determining the overall thickness of the Arctic ice. Remember that ice has three dimensional properties?
If ice melts out every summer, the winter ice is thinner. In order for ice to build up an increased thickness it has to survive the summer melt.”
Peter, this is (in my humble opinion) what I would refer to as a “waffle”, for the following reasons.
What you “expect” is interesting, but more important is what the record shows.
The record shows that over the past 12 months Arctic sea ice has grown (not receded) by 150,000 square km, while Antarctic sea ice has also grown (not receded) by 110,000 square km. Obviously, it was winter on one end of the globe and summer on the other.
You may cite this as evidence for continued AGW, but I have a hard time seeing the connection.
You mention the “thickness” of the ice. Your statement that “ice has three dimensional properties” is obvious (and a bit simplistic).
Do you have any physically observed data that show that the ice today is not as thick as it was a year ago in the two locations?
If so, please provide this.
I have seen reports from February that indicated that Arctic sea ice had grown both in surface extent and in thickness.
Has sea ice in the Arctic receded by around 4% per decade (average over all months) since records started in 1979?
Apparently, yes.
Did Arctic sea ice recede even more rapidly in the 1930s/1940s?
There were no satellite records then, but other records indicate that this was so.
Has sea ice in the Antarctic grown by around 2% per decade (average over all months) since records started in 1979? Apparently, yes.
Have both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice grown over the past 12 months?
Yes, this is what the record shows.
Will global sea ice continue to grow the next few years or will there be a decline?
Who knows?
Regards,
Max
Peter
I have had a plugin that should paginate the vast NS thread without interrupting the comment numbering almost ready for the last week of so, but I need a few lines of code from the author to finish it. He seems to be on holiday at the moment, and if he doesn’t turn up by the beginning of nest week I may have to split it as you suggest.