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.
Brute,
Here is a list of the top World Team Games, in the sense that there is competition in the form of competing teams, travelling around the World in home and away serious competition, in addition to national leagues.
(In the sense of player/audience participation, and national passion)
Football (aka soccer)…..this the greatest in terms of No. of countries
Cricket…..this the greatest in terms of No. of countries x population, and my favourite. (some big populations like India and Pakistan)
Rugby league
Rugby Union
I quite like Ice-hockey on TV, with the slo-mo replays so that you can see what actually happened, but Hurley (?), Baseball, and American Football leave me a bit cold; live or TV. Literally; I was escorted to a ball-game in Detroit on one occasion when I thought my tits would drop-off….oh that cold bear in plastic vessels….and I’m talking seriously cold cold environment!
(?) Is it hurley ? My second best friend of my youth, recently a chairman of engineering in a Canadian university actually plays this where they slide this thing down the ice looking like a pumpkin, and people do silly things with brooms in front of it. Do you follow that Brute?
Peter: re 1369, I don’t think the AGW hypothesis is a hoax or scam: those hyping up the hypothesis may be misguided, but I don’t think they’re part of the worldwide conspiracy that a hoax would require. But, if others think they are, they’re entitled to say so. But it’s untrue to suggest I have hypocritically congratulated others for expressing such a view: I’ve used the words “well said” twice in this thread – once addressed to you (post 888)! Your implication of hypocrisy is thoroughly unpleasant. Incidentally, I have no objection whatever to the words themselves and use them when appropriate.
Re 1370, thanks for responding to the question. But I’m unclear about your view. Here’s one of Dr Akasofu’s comments:
It seems you’re saying that, although the natural changes that caused the earlier warming are uncertain, there’s no need to identify them and to remove them from current trends (to determine the GHG contribution) because, re the more recent warming, we “have the data … to quantify all the factors involved”. Is that a correct understanding of your position?
(I’d prefer to defer any consideration of Bob’s post 1374 until that is clarified.)
Here are some data about sea ice anomalies from 1978 to 2008 (in million square km) in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. It seems that sea ice is declining in the North and expanding in the South. What, if anything, does this tell us about “global warming” – let alone the dangers of GHGs? If the answer is not much (as I suspect), why do we keep going on about the extent, or otherwise, of ice melt in the Arctic?
ADMIN – IMPORTANT
For the next hour or two you may notice strange things happening to this page as I attempt to perform some updates.
If anyone has problems with the new pagination system, please let me know ASAP. If it works then there should not be an excessive time lag when loading pages or typing into the comment input box.
If you use the ‘Show All’ mode then you will be able to dis[lay and search all comments, but there will also be the same delay in loading as before. To return from the ‘Show All’ mode to pages mode, use the ‘Back’ button on your browser toolbar.
Robin 1378 wrote:
Well Robin, I’m in basic accord with you, and I suspect the same applies for Brute, Max, & JZS at least…….
Furthermore, I am totally relaxed about the level of ice-melt in the Arctic. The only conflict I have is that Peter M picks on this SMALL^ Arctic regional variation as proof of AGW, despite that other regional variations are in opposite with his dogma.
^ His imperitive can be compared with the top of an egg, capped-off with a tea spoon at the breakfast table!
Hi Peter,
Looks like you’re having fun up north (1375), “I’m pleased to say that our efforts weren’t in vain and we managed to melt nearly as much ice as we did last year. We opened up the Amundsen passage about a month ago and we’ve just about finished both the NE passage and the NW passage through the Parry channel. The guys still up there are engaged in a final push and we may still crack last year’s record.”
But you’d better get the h— out of there soon, Peter. Summer is coming to an end and it will start getting very cold and icy up there in a few more weeks.
Maybe you’d better do some work down south. Ice keeps growing down there and the IPCC needs your help to sell their AGW tale.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Thanks for clearing up Peter’s remark about my using “insulting” words.
Guess Peter got it wrong again.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Agree with your 1378.
Global sea ice has grown 2008/2007, providing direct evidence of continued rampant global warming as Peter has posted.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Let’s go through your rather rambling 1376, where you are discussing the validity (in your opinion) of my “rantings of last year”, which you introduced into the discussion (1336) as a diversionary tactic.
To my sentence, ” We also do not have the ability to change the current climate trends” you replied, “Even you yourself have conceded that we do with your 0.7deg C figure for CO2 sensitivity”.
Duh!
Acknowledging the possibility that the greenhouse theory may be correct, and, if so, that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (as is expected to occur from the year 1750 to the year 2100) could result in a theoretical increase in global temperature of 0.7 deg C over this period all other things being equal does not equate with a statement that “ we have the ability to change the current climate trend”.
Let me explain so you can understand, Peter.
The uncertainties and unknowns in what causes our climate to do whatever it decides to do are far greater than anything we can do. We are currently pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an all-time record rate, yet temperatures are falling. (Please refrain from switching the topic to Arctic sea ice, polar bear population or the Amundsen passage here, Peter.)
Dr. Akasofu’s study shows us that natural factors have caused a good part of the warming trend over the past 150 years, since this warming occurred before there were any significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
And, since we do not know what caused the past warming we do not “have the ability to change the current climate trend” either. Right?
To my statement “We also do not … have the ability to accurately forecast what is going to happen over the next 10 let alone 100 years” you replied, “its harder to forecast 10 years ahead than 100 years. The level of AGW is just about on a par with natural variability over a 10 year period but will be much clearer over a 100 year period.”
Ouch!
This is a truly “nonsensical” statement (to use your wording). It is the old fallacy of “removing the day-to-day noise” (i.e. unknown natural factors) in order to “arrive at the long-term predicted trend” (i.e. where we know “climate” should be headed based on our models).
As Dr. A. has pointed out, the “noise” (natural factors) may well be what is driving our climate rather than AGW (man-made factors). Until we have a clear handle on what has caused past climate change, we have no clue what the future will bring.
And 100 years out is ALWAYS a harder call than 10 years out, by definition. To state otherwise is real “nonsense”, in the classical sense of the word.
To my statement, “I believe the jury is still out on whether or not AGW is a real, measurable phenomenon”, you replied, “That sounds much more reasonable than your rantings of last year.”
Please be more specific, Peter.
Which “rantings of last year” are you referring to that contradict my statement that “the jury is still out on whether or not AGW is a real, measurable phenomenon”?
I know from observation that you appear to have a natural abhorrence for being specific, but in this case I would ask you to do so, anyway, and PLEASE don’t move off topic again.
Regards,
Max
Climate Warming in the 20th century
As an antidote to Dr Akasofu’s musings in his recent article with his speculation of an unknown factor X , which may or may not be the sun, in the recovery of the earth from its unfortuate little ice age illness, you might like to read what some real climate scientists have to say on the subject of 20th century warming.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_19.pdf
“Our analysis suggests that the early 20th century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, plus a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half ofthe century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates
and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximatelyone-third of the warming. Warming in the troposphere, since the 1960s, is probably mainly due to anthropogenic forcings with a negligible contribution from natural forcings.”
Max,
You seem to have a problem with statistical concepts.
To illustrate the matter how about we have a bet? You’ve got to accurately predict the number of reds and blacks in 10 spins of a roulette wheel. I’ve got to do the same thing for 100 spins.
<blockquote Is it hurley ? My second best friend of my youth, recently a chairman of engineering in a Canadian university actually plays this where they slide this thing down the ice looking like a pumpkin, and people do silly things with brooms in front of it. Do you follow that Brute?<blockquote
Bob,
I’m aware of the game that you describe….I don’t know what it’s called. Another popular game, (I believe from Scotland), is enormous men hefting large sections of tree trunks and tossing them. Wouldn’t want to piss one of these guys off…..Many Americans follow Automobile Racing calling it a “sport”. I suppose it does take stamina/dexterity to drive a hot, speeding race car but I don’t know that I’d go so far as calling it a sport or the drivers “athletes”.
Via……….
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Monday, September 01, 2008
GLOBAL COOLING CONTINUES TO SHOW UP IN AUSTRALIA
Unusually cool weather from North to South in Australia. See three current reports below. And Australia is a big slice of the earth’s landmass. See map.
Up until a couple of years ago, even isolated episodes of hot weather were proclaimed as “proof” of global warming. Now, however, we have endless reports of unusually cold weather from all over the world but they are always attributed to “normal variation”. Could it be clearer that we are dealing with Leftist politics rather than science?
Via……
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
ADELAIDE has recorded its coldest August in more than 35 years.
The city had an average temperature of 14.8C for the last month of winter.
That compared with a usual average of 16.6C for August.
Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Allan Beattie said the previous record for a cold August was in 1970 when the average temperature was 14.4C.
But the coldest August was in 1951 when the average temperature was 14.1C.
Adelaide’s winter this year also had a below-average temperature of 15.5C, compared with the usual average of 16C.
Last month was also wetter than usual for August. Adelaide received 85mm of rain compared with an average of 66.5mm, the wettest August since 2005.
However, winter as a whole received average rainfall of 222mm of rain.
Adelaide’s coldest maximum temperature this winter was 11.1C on July 7, Mr Beattie said, while the coldest minimum temperature was 0.7C on July 28.
August was coldest in 64 years
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24272490-5006009,00.html
Brisbane records coldest August in eight years
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24271305-3102,00.html
THE weather experts have confirmed what Brisbane people suspected – the city has just shivered through its coldest August in at least eight years.
It also was the driest since 2001, with Brisbane picking up just 16mm of rain, below the long-term norm of 35mm.
Brisbane recorded an average minimum of 9C and an average maximum of 22C, slightly down on the long-term normal temperature for the month of 23C, Weatherzone meteorologist Matt Pearce said.
“This made it the coolest August in terms of daytime temperatures since records began at the site in 2000,” he said.
“In fact, on the 18th, the temperature struggled to just 17C – the coldest August day in three years.”
August nights also were cool in Brisbane.
Gladstone, Yeppoon, Emerald, Toowoomba and Rainbow Beach also set record August lows.
Wetter and warmer conditions are expected for the first week of September, with rain and maximum temperatures of 19C to 21C forecast to Friday.
2008 smashing records on snow depth : Australia
http://travelhouseuk.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/2008-smashing-records-on-snow-depth-australia/
Pete,
I thought the temperature was supposed to be getting warmer?
Bob_FJ,
Its called curling.
Brute,
Yes August has been a cool month. But we haven’t had to switch on any heating here in Brisbane so there is no need to feel too sorry for us. The rivers and lakes around Brisbane aren’t much use for curling I’m afraid.
The other southern hemsiphere winter months of June and July weren’t particularly cold so I would be surprised in the winter average was anything out of the ordinary.
As I always keep trying to explain, and as anyone with any intelligence at all should readily appreciate, monthly or quarterly temperature figures are quite meaningless in the context of climate change. Even yearly ones are subject to many variations.
If you are at all interested in the Australian climate, this BOM report is for last year.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20080103.shtml
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “Max,
You seem to have a problem with statistical concepts.
To illustrate the matter how about we have a bet? You’ve got to accurately predict the number of reds and blacks in 10 spins of a roulette wheel. I’ve got to do the same thing for 100 spins.”
Sorry, Peter, we are not talking about something as digitally simplistic as “reds and blacks in spins of a roulette wheel”.
We are talking about predicting future climate, something that is far, far more complicated. We are talking about very expensive but highly simplistic climate models that have been fed certain assumptions. These assumptions, themselves, are grossly oversimplified, concentrating only on one aspect: the human impact (AGW), and essentially ignoring all the others. The forecasting is “inside the box” forecasting. It ignores the “outside the box” factors, which become increasingly important with a longer forecasting period.
Read my post 1225 to Robin and you will see how foolish it is to try to make long-range forecasts. Making them about the weather (or climate) when you only have knowledge about one small (very possibly insignificant) piece of the puzzle and have no real idea how accurate your assumptions are regarding this one small piece is absurd, since over time the divergence from the forecast will exceed the magnitude of the forecast itself.
Even more important, ignoring the likelihood that there are as yet unknown factors or “outliers” that are considerably more significant than the one small piece you think you know something about is fatal. The longer the forecast period, the more important those “outside the box” factors become.
Forget your simple “black/red” analogy. It doesn’t hold water for anything as complex as climate predictions.
Regards,
Max
I’ve been wondering what Dr A’s mysterious factor X could possibly be, if its not the sun.
Could it be microwave radiation from satellites, as this ‘paper’ is suggesting?
http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/
It’s not just satellites, what about all the radio waves and TV transmissions that have been generated on earth since Marconi first demonstrated short wave propagation across the Atlantic?
Is it just a co-incidence that temperatures have increased at the same time as radio and microwave transmissions have also increased? Maybe the leakage from microwave ovens could have caused the rapid warming of the late 90’s. That is when they started to be used in just about every kitchen in the western world.
Of course the BBC would never publish this kind of revolutionary thinking on the subject of global warming. Which just goes to prove that they really are part of the the great conspiracy.
Max,
How about this one one? You’ve got to predict how much the oil price will change in the next 10 weeks. I have to predict how much it will change in the next 100 weeks.
Peter (1385): the UK Met Office’s “explanation” of early twentieth century warming – “Our analysis suggests that the early 20th century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, plus a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability” – is a splendidly convoluted way of saying (as did the IPCC) “we don’t know”. I particularly liked “suggests”, “best be explained” and (particularly) “a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability”.
Er … that really clears it up. Just as well we have “some real climate scientists” on the case.
As I always keep trying to explain, and as anyone with any intelligence at all should readily appreciate, monthly or quarterly temperature figures are quite meaningless in the context of climate change. Even yearly ones are subject to many variations.
Well Pete, the Northern Hemisphere experienced a record cold winter last year as did the Southern Hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere experienced a record cold summer, (Great Britain, Canada, the US) this season. (Looks like the beginning of a trend).
All the while CO2 continues to rise and sunspots are virtually nonexistent this solar cycle.
Any intelligent person should be able to put these anomalies together and realize that CO2 is not impacting the weather in the way that Hansen and Gore are hysterical about, but regardless, we should wreck our economies and tax our people to the eyeballs to stop the temperature from rising because Al Gore says so? Record cold as well as more ice and snow than last year globallly means that its getting COLDER.
By the way, your link in post number 1345 states that “Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record”, which means that the Arctic ice extent is GREATER this year than last. Almost only counts in handball and hand grenades…… Antarctic ice continues to grow in extent. Greenland ice is thicker and more extensive.
How can this be if this the global temperature is getting warmer? Is this simply a regional anomaly?
Whoops, how silly of me…..”Global warming” causes record low temperatures as well as increased ice and snow according to the brain donors at the IPCC. My mistake……
My post, 1398, should refer to Pete’s post 1375.