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.
Via Ice Cap…..
Aug 30, 2008
Climate Policy: The Holy Grail for Social Engineers
By Dr. Roy Cordato
At the present time the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Climate Change – co-chaired by Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, and John Garrou, lawyer, environmental activist, and husband of Sen. Linda Garrou, D-Forsyth – is considering a set of policy proposals that, if enacted, would dramatically reduce our freedoms and impact our prosperity. The alleged goal of these proposals is to change the climate a hundred or so years from now. The actual effect is to micromanage our lives today. If enacted, these mandates would, through regulations and taxes, attempt to tell the citizens of North Carolina:
? How we can travel and commute,
? Where we can live,
? The size homes we can live in,
? The amount of land we can live on,
? The size cars we can drive,
? How we can generate electricity,
? How much energy we can use,
? The kinds of appliances we can have in our homes,
? How we can light, heat, and cool our homes, and even
? How we can purchase automobile insurance.
And there is no evidence that these restrictions on our freedom, even if enacted by every country on the planet, will have any noticeable impact on the climate – not in 100 years, not in 200 years.
Let me point out that this list represents only a fraction of the 56 proposals that, if enacted, begin the process of remaking the lifestyles of North Carolinians in the image of environmental ideologues and extremists. As Al Gore has pointed out, the fight against global warming will require “a wrenching transformation of American society,” and as Barack Obama has warned (threatened?): “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times”
This power grab is happening in the name of reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and fighting global warming – a warming that, according to all temperature records, stopped about 10 years ago. That’s right, there’s been no net warming this decade. And for the last 60 years warming has occurred for less than a 25-year period from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s. The real “deniers” in this debate are those who ignore these facts.
Carbon dioxide is unlike other regulated emissions. First, it has no toxic effect on human beings, unlike real pollutants such as lead or carbon monoxide. But more importantly there is nothing that humans can do, including breathing, that does not involve emitting CO2, and its presence in the atmosphere is essential for all life on earth. Without it we die, the plants die, and the earth freezes over. And yet the environmental zealots in and out of government have propagandized us into calling this life-giving gas in our atmosphere a pollutant. Read more here.
Dr. Roy Cordato, Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar at the John Locke Foundation. See also this SPPI Analysis of the State Climate Action Plan and the reality of the climate of North Carolina, unbelieveably totally ignored by the activists pushing their plans on the good citizens of North Carolina.
Brute (1399) – it seems you’re right. “The freezing temperatures are proof of the urgent need to cut carbon pollution” according to the WWF as reported here: http://news.smh.com.au/national/big-chill-a-symptom-of-climate-chaos-20080901-46yx.html
Interesting how “global warming” (that requires GHG reduction) has morphed into “climate change”, and “climate change” has morphed into “global cooling”(that requires GHG reduction). Hmm …
Robin,
The early 20th century has come and gone. I would suggest that the early 21st century is more important for most of us.
You didn’t answer my point. Dr Akasofu’s was incorrect in saying that it was necessary to be able to fully explain the early 20th century warming in order to be able to attribute the cause of the warming in the late 20th century to anthropogenic factors. Sure, it would be desirable to be able to have a complete record of satellite temperature measurements, and satellite photographs of the Arctic and Antarctic covering the period 1900 to 1940 as we have for the period 1970 onwards. Desirable, but not totally necessary.
And if we had, no doubt you would claim that the 19th century record was incomplete, and therefore we knew nothing about the 20th century.
You just like to push the line that anything less than a total understanding of the problem is a reason for doing nothing. I hope your doctor does not follow the same faulty logic if he ever diagnoses you with a serious health condition!
At least you’ve made it clear that you disagree with this comment from Dr Akasofu:
“There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect.”
I think our view is 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 (as you said earlier), re the more recent warming, we “have the data … to quantify all the factors involved”.
Is that a correct understanding of your position? I’ll be able to “answer your point” when you have clarified this. Thanks.
There were two typos in my last post (1404). Please ignore it. It should have read:
Peter (1403) – At least you’ve made it clear that you disagree with this comment from Dr Akasofu:
“There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect.”
I think that means your view is 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 (as you said earlier), re the more recent warming, we “have the data … to quantify all the factors involved”.
Is that a correct understanding of your position? I’ll be able to “answer your point” when you have clarified this. Thanks.
Peter 1393 wrote to me in part, concerning a rather silly North American “ice-sport”; the name of which I was previously uncertain:
…………..Its called curling……………
Wow! Peter, I’m overwhelmed! You have actually made a clear and direct answer to a simple question, without any wandering into other irrelevances. I’m in awe at your change in policy!!!!!
I hope it is not just a “flash in the pan”
Is it another week before we learn the full pain of Arctic sea-ice melt, however it may be measured.
And, a moment ago I looked at the live image of the Sun @ SOHO MDI and, after all this time, so tardy, there is still not the faintest suggestion of a sunspot.
Hmmm. Is anyone in upper North America or Europe feeling a tad nervous about this?
Bob,
Do I sense sarcasm? If I was the nervous type, prone to hysterics, (an Alarmist), than I would be hunkered down in my cellar with foodstuffs and piles of firewood.
The end of the world is nigh! Were all going to freeze to death!
When it’s all said and done, mankind will adjust, adapt and cope with whatever weather conditions come our way as we have for thousands of years.
Given all of the “cold” related signals that have become apparent recently, I’m quite surprised that Peter hasn’t run screaming into the street proclaiming imminent disaster and the end of mankind in a subfreezing world wide ice age…….(or worse, the extinction of some obscure, formally unheard of species of leaf mold).
Robin,
I agree with the paper by the MET office. I think they have done a pretty good job, and in an honest manner too, without overstating their case. The MET office scientists have all agreed that there is an element of uncertainty about the early 20th century warming. The main contribution would have been an increase in the solar flux.
As you seen fit to mock the MET scientists, maybe you, in your unqualified wisdom, could make some meaningful suggestions as to how they can possibly do what you ask regarding the early 20th century warming? If you can’t, maybe we can all be forgiven for thinking that you might not know what you are talking about.
Would you like the Hadley centre to close down and give up their research because they can’t go back in time to acquire the data you demand?
“There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect.” Yes of course. That’s been done for the the late 20th century when the data has become avaialble.
There’s an interesting article by Tamino (ever heard of him?) here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/sea-ice-north-and-south-then-and-now/
It’s on the subject of polar ice. And he doesn’t ignore the changes at Antarctica either!
“Is anyone in upper North America or Europe feeling a tad nervous about this [lack of sunspots]?” Why should they be?
The last solar minimum was in 1996 and 12 years later we are in another. The average time is between cycles is 11 years but there is generally a spread of +/- 2 years. So we can’t draw any conclusions yet. Most likely, solar spots will start appearing again shortly.
There is generally reckoned to be a 0.2 deg C of difference between average world temperatures at the minimum and maximum point of the solar cycle. Its just about the same figure as is caused by a decade of AGW. It would be good if the solar ‘cycle’ stayed semi -permanently at its minimum as it did in the LIA period. It would give us a decade of extra time to fix the AGW problem. But, we’d have to be ultra-lucky for that to happen. If there is a God, now is the time for him to prove it!
Robin,
I had to smile recently when Pete suggested that you were beginning to sound like a “Whinging Pom”.
That was a puzzling allegation, which I guess was a consequence of you repeatedly asking him to answer a straightforward question. (To which he still diverts from in various ways).
I was further amused that Pete has admitted that he lives in Brisbane….. Ah! So it all becomes clear!
Some people that live up there have a reputation of being “a bit slow”. For instance if they are posed in conversation with a sentence containing two subjects, a typical response time might be ~8 seconds. (A bit quicker if one subject; maybe 4 seconds.) Although it is not fair to generalize about any group, I suspect that Pete is in the “slow” category. He could even also be a Pom!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pete,
I’m not distracted or interested by your comments on sunspot activity.
Perhaps you could regain some credibility and respect if you actually answered some of the questions asked of you.
Hey Brute,
Talking about; The End Of The World Is Nigh. You know how it didn’t happen in 2000, as many had raptured, and it didn’t happen in 2001, (The proper start of the 21st century), and not 2004 or 2007 for other reasons, but what about 2013? Now that looks a seriously bad year to me, and it must happen on a Friday!
Waddya reckon Brute?
(paraskevidekatriaphobia) < Paste & Google this for interest
Pete, 1386, you wrote to 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.
Yep, that would be a fairly good bet for you, but what has it got to do with the price of cheese? (BTW, ten spins could give a good result of 50/50)
I think you also wrote somewhere: It is easier to predict 100 years ahead than 10 years! (Me go chuckle)
(Like you reckon you can exclude all natural variations over the next 100 years, such as were OBSERVED, {measured}, in the early 20th century, and any future major volcanic eruptions, or whatever nature may surprise us with)
Max responded adequately with his 1394.
You then riposted in 1396 with this wondrous tintinnabulation:
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.
Uh? Eh? Ummm? Wot?????
QUESTION:
Can you indicate to this ‘ere blogomob ANY 100 year forecast on any topic whatsoever, be it the price of oil, or the resurgence of world pandemic disease, or, or, choose your topic.
NOTE: I have just placed what I think is a fairly simple question to you. Please give a straightforward answer to it, or if you do not understand the question please seek further elaboration.
Pete 1395, you wrote in part
I’ve been wondering what Dr A’s mysterious factor X could possibly be, if its not the sun.
Well go on wondering Queenslander, as we rationalists also do!
The said doctor identifies data that you may not like to see, and he does not apply a mysterious factor X, but indicates that its driver is unexplained. ( = he does not know what the cause was)
BTW, the Sun has various other outputs than simplistic sunlight. (heat via EMR)
That’s why over 50 scientists from 13(?) nations are working at CERN on a huge 5-year programme on the magnetospheric effects etc
Bob, Re: 1413,
I’m going to have to go with the Winter Solstice 2012, (The Aztec….. or was it Omec end of the world date)? Those crazy shamans doped themselves up with all sorts of different hallucinogens, more credible than Hansen and his buddies. They must have it right; they based their entire civilization on this plan, (although to be fair, Peter and his ilk would have us do the same thing).
Human sacrifice? These guys were intense! Talk about passion!
I plan on divesting January 2012 and having a really good time until, (I think the solstice is), December 21st. If I’m wrong then I’ll just go to the government with my hat in my hand and blame someone else for “misguiding” me. Those gullible Liberals will believe anything.
Brute 1416 wrote in part:
I’m going to have to go with the Winter Solstice 2012, [for the end of our existence] (The Aztec….. or was it Omec end of the world date)?
Brute; As I understand it, the aborigines that did stuff like big civilizations in the Americas; great monuments and cities and whatnot., (including sacrifice of human virgins), were knocked-over by a small bunch of Spaniards with superior technology, sitting on strange integral beasties which we know as horses. I don’t think that this was included in the Aztec/Olmec calendar^.
Thus, I’m far more convinced that one Friday in the year 2013 is when we all meet our deserved end for the crime of raping Gaia!
^ Pete: Please note another long-term projection that was hopelessly wrong!
Bob,
I misspelled the name of the tribe in my earlier post. The correct spelling is “Olmec”.
My apologies to any members of the Olmec tribe participating in this dialogue or their ancestors who may have been offended by my reckless, politically incorrect and thoughtless, racist, anti-Indian ommission.
The Olmecs and Aztecs were the original “sky is falling” Alarmists.
Peter: that question again:
Do you think that, although the natural changes that caused the earlier warming are uncertain [as confirmed by the IPCC and by the UK met office, with whom you agree], there’s no need [as Dr Akasofu stated] to identify them and to remove them from current trends (to determine the GHG contribution) because re the more recent warming we have, as you claimed earlier, “the data … to quantify all the factors involved”?
That’s the question – it’s simple enough. So what’s your answer? Without distractions, please. Thanks.
I enjoyed this. A quotation:
There you have it: clear confirmation of my post 1402.
Robin,
I’m not sure about the words “no need” in your question. They would imply that what you were asking was possible but its been decided that its not worth taking the trouble to do it.
Even the word ‘uncertain’ is vague. Everything in science is subject to uncertainty and measurement error. It needs to be quantified.
A ‘simple question’ is something like “what’s that game called where the players slide granite rocks on ice?” Once you start loading a question with subordinate clauses, which themslves are questionable, they cease to be simple.
I would have expected that someone with some legal training wouldn’t have needed me to point that out to them.
Bob_FJ,
Most of the above comments apply to you too. You ask complicated and loaded questions and then get annoyed if you don’t get a ‘yes or no’ type answer.
Hi Peter,
You wrote (1410), “There’s an interesting article [on sea ice] by Tamino (ever heard of him?)”
Ta-who?
Peter, are you referring to Mozart’s handsome prince that went prancing off into the deep woods with a magic flute to save the beautiful princess, Pamina, from some bad guy? (It has a happy ending and lots of great music).
Or are you talking about the computer guru, who, against all evidence, still holds on to his blind faith in the validity of Mann’s “hockey stick”?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2920
Believe the handsome prince has more credibility, and T’s latest blurb is typical of his blurbs, which distort the facts to “sell” his message. Bob_FJ and others have cited several references to this on this site.
If you REALLY want to know what is happening to Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, Peter, don’t rely on a Tamino rehash, but go back to the original data as published. Then download and plot the data for the end of each month, starting in 1979.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
You will see an mean reduction in the Arctic of 4% per decade and an increase in the Antarctic of 2% per decade. Both records show a 2007-2008 increasing trend.
Regards,
Max
Peter,
Re ur 1396, where you drifted from weather/climate to the price of oil.
How about this on one? You’ve got to predict tomorrow’s high temperature at the Melbourne airport. I have to predict the high temperature at the Melbourne airport on September 4, 2018.
Give it up with your “how about” stories, Peter. Your logic is flawed.
Regards,
Max
Sep 03, 2008
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
By Michael Asher, Daily Tech
Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany. With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.
See larger image here
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Arctic0708.JPG
The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.
William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was “definitely colder” than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.
Earlier predictions were also wrong because researchers thought thinner ice would melt faster in subsequent years. Instead, according to the NSIDC, the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth.
Most concern has focused on the Arctic regions, rather than Antarctica. Recent research has indicated Antarctica is on a long-term cooling trend, for reasons which remain unclear. Earlier this year, concerns over global warming led the US to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal’s numbers were increasing. Read more here.
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12851&red=y#340331
Brute,
Who are we to believe? The NSDIC who say:
” Arctic sea ice extent on August 26 was 5.26 million square kilometers (2.03 million square miles), a decline of 2.06 million square kilometers (795,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 430,000 square kilometers (166,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 1.97 million square kilometers (760,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.”
Or, the “mickey mouse” source you have chosen to quote who claim differently, even though they themselves cite NSIDC as their source? They claim that the melting has stopped for the year. NSIDC say that it hasn’t.
NSIDC say that 2008 is already the second worst year on record.
Why don’t you get facts right, and check with NSIDC directly rather than with a shonky outfit who obviously just make the numbers up? You pay your taxes to support very good scientific organisations in the USA. Do yourself a favour, get your money’s worth, and use them.
Max,
I like your “trend” drawn from two data points! Sceptical science at its best!