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: #1323, Brute
Does anyone know of published research linking the Bronze Age, Roman, AND Medieval warm periods to orbital anomalies?
Hey Brute & Max,
There seems to be some concern within this debate as to how can sea ice both increase and decrease in its expanse at the same time. (And that’s only in two dimensions….forget the third! Sheeesz! …. I don‘t have an infinity symbol on my keyboard!)
Personally, I think one rather confusing element is; WTFII anyway? For instance, if my duck-pond ^, has some hail or snow floating in it to some hard-to-measure concentration, is that sea ice? (= WTF is sea ice, including the bits of water in between whatever bits of ice of whatever size?)
Putting aside that minor technicality, and any method of measurement that might have been used by the Vikings^^ etc, maybe this article from the Eco Enquirer, may help in broader understanding:
Intervening Footnotes:
^(Yes! I do have a duck pond; not 100% temporally including ducks, but I have photographic evidence of such duckie visits.)
^^ Verily, if our brave oars go clunk on something every third stroke or less….we’ve probably found ice!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eco Enquirer:
(La Jolla, California) Recent scientific publications have reported either increasing or decreasing ice volumes on the Antarctic continent, and while this would seem to suggest considerable scientific uncertainty on the issue, new research suggests that both findings might be true at the same time.
Dr. Elizabeth Frost of the Paraphysical Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has come up with a theory that might reconcile what are often considered to be contradictory results in scientific research.
“What we believe,” Dr. Frost told Eco Enquirer, “is that a new paradigm is needed in scientific thought. Since mutually exclusive sets of scientific results usually are published in respected scientific publications, we suggest that they are both true. There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated.”
As an example of this duality in scientific results, Dr. Frost mentioned the analogy of the equivalence of matter and energy originally proposed by Albert Einstein. “A change in one direction must be matched by a change in the opposite direction, in order to preserve physical harmony in the universe,” noted Dr. Frost.
We asked Dr. Frost what her theory would then predict for the issue of rising sea levels, which is the main concern if Antarctica is indeed losing ice from global warming. Dr. Frost explained, “That is quite simple. The predicted result is that sea levels will both rise and fall, depending, of course, upon the perspective of the observer.”
Dr. Frost also described ongoing research into the application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to climate studies. Her concern is that the large number of climate researchers that are now observing the climate system are actually changing the Earth’s climate because of their observations, and believes this effect needs to be taken into account in computerized climate models.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ll post the link separately to avoid spam delay.
I hope this helps to clarify your concerns,
Chin-up, Bob.
Everyone,
I’m saddened. Further to my 1327, whilst browsing Eco Enquirer, I discovered that there is anecdotal evidence that what Pete has been clarioning as a disaster for polar bears may well be true. There is a deeply saddening photo and other reports of bears in suffereing:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Cold Bay, Alaska) Warming temperatures in polar regions are causing an increasing number of polar bears to collapse from heat exhaustion, local hunters report.
Jeremiah Johnson, a local hunter who tracks and kills polar bears “because they are there” has seen three of the behemoths collapse before him in just the last month. “It just isn’t sporting to shoot one of these creatures when they are suffering like this”, Johnson said as he recounted his attempts to revive a bear he was ready to shoot.
Local TV meteorologist Sky McCloud explained, “Average annual temperatures in the area have risen from 20 degrees below zero to 15 below zero in the last 30 years, and these giant creatures simply can not withstand the excess heat.”
Bear researchers concur with McCloud. Dr. Phillip Slander, of the University of Alaska’s Wildlife Health and Comfort Department, said “People don’t realize how much heat stress these temperatures put on polar bears. The bears are increasingly being seen taking dips in the ocean in their attempts to cool off.”
Researchers believe that it is only a matter of time before polar bears are pushed to the brink of extinction. “Ten degrees below zero seems to be the generally agreed tipping point”, said McCloud. “Once average temperatures reach this level for several days in a row, the bears start dropping like flies.”
Dr. Slander recounted a recent incident in which a polar bear attacked a local homeless man, and had devoured only a small part of the man’s body before collapsing from exhaustion. “Because of global warming, the bears’ normal way of life is changing rapidly..it’s tragic.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ll post the link, with photo separately
Hey, BTW, I saw on the SBS news last night (+ radio) there is a 2 YO Arctic seal affectionately known as Sahara that keeps turning-up in strange places, like Morocco & Spain, (Complete with radio tracking collar), and is back in a sanctuary for the second time in Cornwall (England) after being air-etc-transported all over the place including to the Orkney Isles. It has been suggested that if Sahara keeps coming back to warmer waters, and grows to full size, it may be necessary to build a larger enclosure at some GBP 250,000. Current costs INCLUDE a half tonne a day ice-making machine, to try and get the animal accustomed to cold water.
Robin, I guess as a British tax payer (?) you might be aware or interested to find out if this story is true?
Link for 1327
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/antarctic-ice.htm
Link for 1328
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-heat.htm
1325 TonyN says:
TonyN you wrote in part:
For me it is only a minor irritation on Optusnet cable. It may be a broader benefit to those an fast connections, to retain the comment numbering and ability to word-search for earlier comments on one page.
Are you able to tell if we have any visitors with slow connections, like dial-up?
That might be another consideration
Peter (post 1322): yes, I listened to Dr Serreze’s lecture and, although it contains a lot of interesting material in relation to current Arctic warming, it does not as you appear to think contain the “good explanation” of why Dr Akasofu’s conclusion “doesn’t wash”. So I looked a little further. Dr Serreze plainly knows a lot about what is happening to climate in the Arctic and I respect that. Nonetheless, although he is now firmly in the alarmist camp, he still notes the importance of natural causes. For example, in a 2006 interview, he accepted that “natural climate variations in the Arctic are pronounced …”. And, only a few years ago, he had a different view about causation. For example, see his 1993 article “Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years” where he comments, inter alia, “we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models”. However, although that’s interesting, I wouldn’t wish to make too much of it – a good scientist should be ready to change his mind.
What all this demonstrates is that climate change is a hugely complex subject and that, when you examine the detail carefully, you find almost as many views about causation as there are scientists with relevant knowledge. In other words, talk of “consensus” and of the science being “settled” is simplistic nonsense. It’s that understanding that underpins my scepticism about the dangerous AGW hypothesis. It’s absurd to suggest that I prefer Dr Akasofu to Dr Serreze – I’m not qualified to form a judgement and have respect for both. Nor have I made up my mind about AGW, as you seem to imagine. I don’t think, Peter, you’ve ever understood what it means to be a sceptic. For example, I’ve never given the slightest indication that I think, “global warming is all a hoax and a scam perpetrated by charlatans” – as you insultingly suggest.
Now please read Dr Akasofu’s article carefully and be good enough to tell me why you think his observation (that “it is not possible to say tacitly that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect”) “doesn’t wash”. I await your answer with interest and a genuinely open mind. Thanks.
Post 1332 has nothing to do with me! Some mistake, Tony?
TonyN: Sorry Robin, explanation on the way!
Bob
The plugin I want to use will preserve comment numbers and it also has a ‘Show All’ option so that the whole thread can be searched, if rather slowly. My webstats doesn’t tell me anything about the speed of visitors connections, but I do know that it’s becoming a pain in the butt on my own (not blisteringly fast) machine.
I have put up a new post about impartiality and the BBC, with a rather surprising quote from Andrew Marr, here .
Robin,
If I had the time I could no doubt look back on what you have actually said and find something incriminating. I know that you occasionally like to adopt a more neutral posture but you are just as bad as Max and Brute, even if your language is usually slightly more temperate.
I seem to remember being taught that saying Amen in church signified an agreement with what had been said before. How many time have you said ‘amen’ to Max and Brute?
If you think that terms like ‘hoax’, ‘scam’ and ‘charlatan’ are off limits, how about risking expulsion from your mutual admiration society by giving them the occasional admonition when they use such terms?
Max,
Having a slightly more unusual name than mine does mean that previous written statements on the net can be easily found and do hang around to haunt you for quite a while. Are you the same Max Anacker, or Max von Anacker, who wrote last year?
How foolish can we be? To seriously believe all the hype that man is causing a climate disaster that will destroy the planet is not only basically stupid, it is extremely arrogant. We insignificant humans do not have the power to destroy this planet. Never did. We also do not have the ability to change the current climate trends, or even to accurately forecast what is going to happen over the next 10 let alone 100 years.
Let’s hope things will get warmer, rather than colder. We don’t need another ice age. Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar “climate research scam”. Forget all the disaster reports being sold by environmental activists via the sensationalist media. Forget all the self-righteous calls for action by power-hungry politicians. Use your common sense. It’s all a hoax.
Do you still stand by all this nonsense?
Peter: I assume from 1335 that you’re unable to answer my question.
Peter, the effort that you put into compiling your 1355 & 1336, could have been applied to answering Robin’s very simple question.
In quick paraphrase; the unanswered was; why do you (Peter) say that figure 2 in Dr Akasofu’s article “does not wash”?
Robin keeps asking this very clear question, and you simply obfuscate by endless means.
Fig 2 etc looks like very powerful data to me. Why don’t you try and restore some credibility to yourself by answering the question?
Robin and Bob_FJ,
I’ve answered it. Dr Akafosu is claiming that the warming is a solar effect. If you think he he isn’t, maybe you could tell me what he is saying that the warming is due to?
We’ve been through all this before. I think David Benson gave some relevant links as to why “its not the sun” in various posts around the end of June. What’s the point of going through it all again?
Well, Peter, as Dr Akafosu’s article does not claim the warming is a solar effect, it’s clear that you haven’t even read it . Please do so – then answer my question. Thanks.
If you remember, I originally poked some fun of Dr Akafosu’s ‘the earth was recuperating from an unfortunate chill’ theory, so it should have been clear enough to even the most dim-witted person that I had indeed read it.
It is generally agreed by all, even you sceptics, that the LIA was caused by a decrease in solar activity. If Dr Akafosu is saying that the late 20th century warming is the earth’s ‘recovery’ from the LIA then he must be saying that it’s a solar effect, musn’t he?
And if you disagree, maybe you can tell me what the good Doctor is actually saying?
Pete,
I’m curious. If some unforeseen circumstance occurred, providing absolute, irrefutably evidence that CO2 was not causing global temperatures to rise, would you abandon your advocacy of cap and trade schemes, government regulation of energy/automobile emission standards and general United Nations intervention, (I prefer meddling), of sovereign national economies and energy consumption?
Maybe I’m not phrasing my question appropriately, but my sense is that you’d prefer a general move of, (at a minimum), the United States economy toward a, (for lack of a better word), Socialist/Collectivist economic system. Would I be correct in assuming that?
How would you feel about one world government overseen or controlled by the United Nations or some other governmental body? Would you prefer that United States citizens pay taxes into a general fund directly controlled by the United Nations?
Your thoughts?
Please, be Brutally honest, (pun intended).
Peter: the question is simple enough. Just answer it.
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “It is generally agreed by all, even you sceptics, that the LIA was caused by a decrease in solar activity. If Dr Akafosu is saying that the late 20th century warming is the earth’s ‘recovery’ from the LIA then he must be saying that it’s a solar effect, musn’t he?”
Not really, Peter. You should read his paper more thoroughly before you start theorizing on what “he must be saying”.
You ended with, “And if you disagree, maybe you can tell me what the good Doctor is actually saying?”
Just read his paper, Peter. In his conclusions he clearly states, “It is suggested here that the linear change [0.6°C over “the last 100 years or so”] may be due to the fact that the Earth is slowly recovering from the Little Ice Age, although the cause of the Little Ice Age is unknown at the present time.”
Don’t know what the good Dr. A. believes the “root cause” for the 20th century warming could be. He has made a valid argument that the roughly linear increase in temperature since around 1800 is likely to be a natural change. Significant CO2 increase only started to occur around 1940. As a result the “natural” warming signal should be subtracted from the present warming trend in order to establish a greenhouse effect, so that only a fraction of the recent warming is attributable to greenhouse warming resulting from human activities, contrary to the IPCC conclusion that “most” of this warming is due to AGW.
He points out (as Robin and I have pointed out to you previously as well, Peter) that there have been multi-decadal oscillations in temperature that show no correlation with atmospheric CO2 at all. These weaken the IPCC argument that “most” of recent warming was caused by AGW. (Again, I believe that Robin has pointed this out to you very logically.)
He emphasizes the very logical point that the greenhouse effect is a hypothesis that must be proven both qualitatively and quantitatively before one can decide whether or not AGW has played a minor or a major part in the recent warming. To date there has been no quantitative proof of AGW because there are too many uncertain parameters in the models.
He concludes, “It is urgent that natural changes should be correctly identified and removed accurately from the present on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect. Only then will an accurate prediction of future temperature changes become possible.”
Makes a lot of sense to me Peter.
Is there any part of all that which does not make sense to you, Peter?
If so, which part and for what reason?
Regards,
Max
Brute,
You ask “If some unforeseen circumstance occurred, providing absolute, irrefutably evidence that CO2 was not causing global temperatures to rise, would you abandon your advocacy of cap and trade schemes”
Yes of course. I go with the science. If there is no problem, why fix it? There is the related but separate question of energy supplies which would still mean that it would be desirable for all governments to have a policy of energy conservation. Car engine efficiency would of course be a part of it.
All systems have their strengths and weaknesses. The present system is good in providing cheap consumer goods,at least to the citizens of the developed world, but not so good in other areas.
Forward planning is one of them. For the last 15 years or so, the western economies can be likened to a car speeding down the freeway. For a time everything was good, but when the engine started to splutter, someone belatedly looked at the petrol gauge and a general panic set in. How hard would it have been to think ahead?
Environmental issues are another. Even without the AGW question, there is still plenty of scope for action on that. Who would want to live in Los Angeles or Beijing, for instance, no matter what financial rewards are on offer, if the air is unbreathable. You’ve got to look at a more collective approach towards fixing these sort of problems. There are, of course, many who would argue that this is just communism by the back door, which is just nonsense.
One world government controlled by the UN? I can’t see it happening any time soon. I suppose Timothy McVeigh thought it was already well underway. It’s a peculiarly American worry, and it’s partly caused by Americans not getting out and about in the world enough. Unless they sign up for the Army, that is :-) Not because you guys can’t afford to, its more that you don’t get anywhere near the length of holidays as Europeans and Aussies!
Robin,
Look, you really are tempting me to call you a whinging Pom! My analysis of Dr Akafosu’s paper is that he is attributing the late 20th century warming to a solar effect, but for reasons of his own he doesn’t want to say so explicitly.
You obviously think he has some other factor in mind. OK, please tell us what you think it is and maybe I’ll be able to think of something else to add to my answer.
Hi Peter,
To your second post asking me whether I still believe what I have posted earlier on the subject of AGW.
Peter, I have had the opportunity to “blog” with many people on this topic (representing all sides of the story), at the same time reading up on a lot of studies plus books that have been written.
Since the latest AR4 IPCC reports have come out, I have read them thoroughly, as well.
This has given me several new insights, cleared up areas of uncertainty or confusion, etc. that I may have had well over a year ago when I first became interested in this topic.
I still agree with the sentences you quoted. “To seriously believe all the hype that man is causing a climate disaster that will destroy the planet is not only basically stupid, it is extremely arrogant”.
Do you, Peter, believe “that man is causing a climate disaster that will destroy the planet”? If so, please elaborate.
I also stick with my statement, “We also do not have the ability to change the current climate trends, or even to accurately forecast what is going to happen over the next 10 let alone 100 years”.
Do you believe that we “have the ability to change the current climate trends” significantly? If so, how significantly, Peter? What specific actions will “we” need to take to achieve these changes? Please show your estimate of specific actions and resulting effects on climate.
Please explain to me, Peter, how we have demonstrated our ability “to accurately forecast what is going to happen over the next 10 let alone 100 years”. An IPCC forecast of +0.2°C per decade (over the early 21st century) is giving way to an actual trend of –0.08°C per decade. Pretty lousy forecasting, as far as I’m concerned.
I wrote, “Let’s hope things will get warmer, rather than colder. We don’t need another ice age.” Would you prefer another Little Ice Age to a modest increase in warming? If so, please point out the advantages that would result for humanity.
You also quote me, “Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar “climate research scam”. Forget all the disaster reports being sold by environmental activists via the sensationalist media. Forget all the self-righteous calls for action by power-hungry politicians.”
There is a lot of junk science out there, Peter, as I am sure you will admit. It is unfortunate that some taxpayer-funded scientists (James E. Hansen) have shed their mantle of objectivity and become fear-mongering activists, trying to promote a carbon tax. It is also unfortunate that the IPCC, a taxpayer-funded body, always “errs” on the side of making AGW sound more alarming that it really is, by exaggeration, distortion and ignoring scientific papers that do not confirm its “story”. I have seen many examples of this, several of which we have discussed on this site.
As far as the self-serving politicians are concerned, I think we all know who they are and what they want to achieve. Al Gore has earned more than $100 million since leaving public office. Besides gaining fame and recognition, he stands to make even more money from carbon trading through his company if the cap and trade schemes are implemented globally.
Most bureaucrats and politicians relish the prospect of having obscene sums of public money to shuffle around. What power! And some may end up (as is so often the case) in private accounts.
My premise, then as well as now is that the AGW scare is a hoax, which is being misused by politicians.
You ask me, “Do you still stand by all this nonsense?”
Show me which part is ”nonsense”, Peter. Bring facts to prove that my statements were “nonsense”. Stay away from generalities, “conspiracy theories” or other waffles and be specific.
Regards,
Max
Max,
So you “Don’t know what the good Dr. A. believes the ‘root cause’ for the 20th century warming could be”.
Well if you don’t know, and he won’t say, and you don’t like my interpretation of his argument as a solar effect, then we’ll have to leave it at that. Maybe you’d like to write and ask him ? If you get a reply , please be sure to let me know what he says.
Did you miss my 1336 posting? Was that you?
Max,
You ask for an example of nonsense. How about “We insignificant humans do not have the power to destroy this planet. Never did.”
This seems an odd thing who for someone who has grown up during the Cold War era to say. Had it developed to a ‘Hot War’, each of the superpowers had the nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side, and the world with it, many times over.
Ok so the earth would have still been in orbit around the sun, but it would have been destroyed as far as humanity was concerned.
You just have to look at Google Earth to see that humans aren’t at all insignificant in shaping the planet. Evidence of human activity is everywhere. There are 6,684,000,000 of us and the figure is rising fast.
Do you have any religious grounds for holding this strange belief?
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “I think David Benson gave some relevant links as to why “its not the sun” in various posts around the end of June.”
Ah, memory is a fleeting thing, Peter. And one tends to remember those things, which are pleasant and reinforce one’s opinions, and forget the rest. Guess it must be human nature.
But let me refresh your memory. If you go back, you will see I sent David B. Benson a series of links to several studies on solar climate forcing over the 20th century (Posts #86 through #98). This was in response to paleo-climate proxy studies he cited to attempt to show that 20th century warming could not possibly be due to a solar impact.
These studies all conclude that there was a significant solar forcing on 20th century climate, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century. They generally agree that “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago”.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
One study concludes: “It is shown that solar cycle signal is more evident in climatic data during the last 60 years. The result is discussed in conjunction with the problem of unprecedented high level of sunspot activity and climate warmth in the late 20th century.”
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76.1026I.pdf
So, yes, there are a lot of studies that conclude that there has been a significant solar impact on late 20th century warming, as there are studies by solar scientists that predict that this trend is now reversing itself, and we should, therefore expect a reversal of the late 20th century warming.
Solar cycle 24 has started out with an unusually inactive sun at the same time as temperatures have begun to plummet. This is obviously too short a time period to draw any conclusions.
But don’t count out the sun, Peter. Many “non-consensus” scientists give it a much greater role than AGW.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Again, you have not come back with any specific responses to any of my recent posts, but side-step with the comment that I wrote earlier, “We insignificant humans do not have the power to destroy this planet. Never did.”
Destroy the planet? Wow!
Believe we are discussing AGW here, Peter, not a thermonuclear war. Stick to the topic.
Regards,
Max
PS Has nothing to do with “religion”, Peter. Just common sense.