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.
JZ Smith: I see that you have had detailed replies to item 1 of your post 148. But there seem to be none to item 2 where, commenting on the IPCC report, you asked if their
equated
Well, I’m not sure that I understand our question, but I would suggest that you read the Vincent Gray piece posted by Brute earlier today: http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/spinningclimate0608.pdf
He makes the point that the IPCC judgement of >90% confidence is “pure guesswork” and not based on mathematical statistics. I agree. But I would go further. Here is what the IPCC says:
OK, “very likely” is defined as “>90%”. But few seem to have commented about that first word “most”. What does it mean? It seems to me (oddly it seems there’s no IPCC definition) it could mean anything from 51% to 99%. So your SUV-sized gap could be far, far wider. Max: any thoughts about “most”?
But I would go yet further. A careful reading of the IPCC’s Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis” shows that at least some of the authors have a view of possible human causation that is considerably less certain than that usually claimed in view of the above quotation – undermining the commonly expressed view that near certain human responsibility for global warming is the consensus of most leading climatologists (i.e. the IPCC’s authors). I won’t bore you with the detail now, so you’ll have to take my word for it. But, if you would prefer it, I’d be happy to provide the detailed reference.
There is an article about the less respectable aspects of environmental science here:
Professor Aynsley Kellow
It includes some examples of scientific fraud and sharp practice that I haven’t come across before and some very astute observations about climate modeling.
I’ve found that Global Warming proponents use similar wording.
“Most”, “Many”, “Few”, “May”, “Might”, “Likely”, “Could”……all non-committal and unspecific.
Where I come from we call it “hedging your bets”.
As for the Arctic Ice I read an interesting quote yesterday…….
“Regarding the Arctic Ice story, I noticed that the sea ice graph starts at 1979, so did the history of Earth apparently.”
I’ll tell you what….. if the arctic sea ice extent amounts to as much as an ice cube larger than last year I’m going to gloat like a new father. Where is Peter martin anyway? I also find it curious that the Warmers never include Antarctic ice extent in their GLOBAL warming stories.
Bob_FJ (168) — Tamino’s decades are xyz0–xyz9 and plotted at about xyz5. Excepts for the 2000s, which are not over yet, so are just 2000–2007.
I would have preferred horizontal lines spanning the entire time averaged, but I can certainly read these as implying such.
If your point is that there is inter-decadal variability in the climate, this is so obvious that it doesn’t seem worth the time to bother with. But if one must, where is a statistically interesting determination of
Temperatures for the past 1200 years:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/langswitch_lang/po
Robin Guenier (172 & previous) — Somehow your comment on Joe Romm’s blog was taken by him as ‘disinformation’. He doesn’t allow that. You could rewrite and try again.
Regarding ‘computer projections’, do note the position JPL is in: flying robots without extensive testing of the software under anything but simulated conditions.
Reagrding climatology, its been around longer than you seem to realize. Read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Review of above:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63
With regard to computerized climate models, these have been around since early days of computers:
climate modeling development book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vnYeHl6AvgkC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=Jastrow+Hansen+GISS&source=web&ots=wOy1ydpPQp&sig=WX37YNQF7kcfxynebSYhUbJAWuQ&hl=en#PPA144,M1
and all the serious problems have long since been resolved. Further, every incremental addition goes through extensive testing, called ‘diagnostics’.
manacker (162) wrote “The 3K climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 is an unsubstantiated assumption which has been proven by observed physical data to be incorrect.” False. I’ve posted for you several itimes where you can go and read the papers setting the limits of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, using only actual paleodata, not GCMs.
You refuse to read these (assuming you can, that is). This is certainly not the mark of one who wishes to follow the scientific method.
Hi David,
You wrote: “I’ve posted for you several itimes where you can go and read the papers setting the limits of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, using only actual paleodata, not GCMs.”
David, let me give you some good advice.
Forget “paleoclimate proxy data”. It is not accurate and can be manipulated.
Forget GCM outputs. They are burdened with the GIGO effect.
Stick with physically observed data in today’s real world (such as Spencer et al.) to see what is really going on out there.
There is no real 3K climate sensitivity from 2xCO2. It is a myth. Wake up to reality, David, and forget your computer-generated virtual reality.
Regards,
Max
Hi David,
Back to your fantasy of a 3K “climate sensitivity” for 2xCO2.
The 20th century actual record shows this is a false assumption, as I have shown you with all the cited studies. 0.7K is closer to the observed reality, David.
The physical observations of Spencer et al., confirming the theory of Lindzen, confirm this as well.
Your assumption is an illusion, David. Forget it and get real.
Just some advice.
Regards,
Max
David: you’re not listening. Joe could either set out why he thought I was wrong or he could refuse to publish. He chose the latter – that’s censorship. Re computer models, take just one of the many aspects of the IPCC’s projections: do you really think “all the serious problems” of economic forecasting “have long since been resolved”?
David: more on computer modelling. See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140656.htm
In particular, note Professor Plane’s comment:
Just so.
David: more on computer modelling. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140656.htm
Note, in particular, Professor Plane’s comment
Just so.
David B. Benson 179:
You are a really funny guy! *
You wrote in part in 156:
I responded in part in 168 with:
“UH? The Tamino graph is very easy to read; it comprises HIS method of averaging, (NOT mine). Because it ends with a plot point in 2005, that suggests it is an end of block average to 2005. However, it does not matter if my suggestion of such bad practice is correct or not. Regardless of what he did, it is HIS simple graph that we are studying to see if it has any relevance to “climate science“….”
You responded in part in 179 with:
Oh really! I now present a slightly revised version of my comparison between your Tamino 10-year block averaged chart, (Regardless of how he did it), compared with the Hadley data which has TWENTY-YEAR SMOOTHING. I’ve added a vertical grid line at year 2000, in colour red. Do you see it there? It’s a vertical red line at 2000! Can you see that it dissects the penultimate and end data points exactly centrally, and that the interval between all data points is ten years? That means, that the final end data point is at 2005, NOT 2007 which seems to be what you are trying to claim
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2617145577_58bdc1fd82_o.jpg
You went-on with:
UH? Oh, and the last 1200 years you say….. and RealClimate? This is a triple mix of the unintelligible, irrelevant, and a total distraction in an attempt to change the subject, as far as I can see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Putting aside for the moment that you still have not answered various oft repeated questions, or their additional amplifications in my 143, let us see if we can agree in this text here, that the final data point on the Tamino graph is in 2005.
Also, if you are not exhausted by that single effort, you might also try to crease thy brow on the coloured text on the mark-up, for I will return to those matters. But, one S L O W step at a time! To repeat; do you agree that the Tamino end data point is at 2005 AD?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* I nearly forgot: When I say ‘funny’ I mean “funny peculiar”, not “funny ha ha”
Tony, I think I just got spammed again, but with only one Flickr link.
I’ll try it again without the link, and then a separate post of the link alone
David B. Benson 179:
You are a really funny guy! *
You wrote in part in 156:
I responded in part in 168 with:
“UH? The Tamino graph is very easy to read; it comprises HIS method of averaging, (NOT mine). Because it ends with a plot point in 2005, that suggests it is an end of block average to 2005. However, it does not matter if my suggestion of such bad practice is correct or not. Regardless of what he did, it is HIS simple graph that we are studying to see if it has any relevance to “climate science“….”
You responded in part in 179 with:
Oh really! I now present a slightly revised version of my comparison between your Tamino 10-year block averaged chart, (Regardless of how he did it), compared with the Hadley data which has TWENTY-YEAR SMOOTHING. I’ve added a vertical grid line at year 2000, in colour red. Do you see it there? It’s a vertical red line at 2000! Can you see that it dissects the penultimate and end data points exactly centrally, and that the interval between all data points is ten years? That means, that the final end data point is at 2005, NOT 2007 which seems to be what you are trying to claim
For link; see following post:
You went-on with:
UH? Oh, and the last 1200 years you say….. and RealClimate? This is a triple mix of the unintelligible, irrelevant, and a total distraction in an attempt to change the subject, as far as I can see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Putting aside for the moment that you still have not answered various oft repeated questions, or their additional amplifications in my 143, let us see if we can agree in this text here, that the final data point on the Tamino graph is in 2005.
Also, if you are not exhausted by that single effort, you might also try to crease thy brow on the coloured text on the mark-up, for I will return to those matters. But, one S L O W step at a time! To repeat; do you agree that the Tamino end data point is at 2005 AD?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* I nearly forgot: When I say ‘funny’ I mean “funny peculiar”, not “funny ha ha”
David B Benson,
here is the link to the graph I discussed above: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2617145577_58bdc1fd82_o.jpg
A Fundamental Failure of Current Climate Models
——————————————————————————–
Reference
Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
Background
The authors note that “an important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios.” Why is this so? It is because one of the most fundamental features of current climate-model simulations is “a larger warming in the free troposphere than at the surface when forced by increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols (IPCC 1996, 2001).” If this predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world, there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming.
What was done
Chase et al. assessed the likelihood “that such a disparity between model projection and observations could be generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by comparing all possible 22 yr temperature trends [for the years 1979-2000, which were similarly studied by the IPCC and a special committee of the U.S. National Academy of Science] in a series of climate simulations.”
What was learned
In the words of the authors, “at no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation of a large and highly significant surface warming accompanied with no warming whatsoever aloft,” which observations are openly acknowledged to represent the real world in both the IPCC (2001) report and the National Academy Report (2000).
What it means
Chase et al. conclude that these “significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations,” noting that “such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations.”
References
IPCC. 1996. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change. Houghton,J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Callender, B.A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A. and Maskell, K. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J. and Xiaosu, D. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
National Academy Report. 2000. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Zwiers, F.W. and Zhang, X. 2003. Towards regional-scale climate change detection. Journal of Climate 16: 793-797.
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V7/N9/C1.php
Climate models fail again! Scientist ‘startled’ to discover 50% of ozone destroyed in lower atmosphere
Destruction Of Greenhouse Gases Over Tropical Atlantic May Ease Global Warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140656.htm
Great post on . Keep up the good work. Cheers!
A message for David B. Benson
Hi David,
Brute linked to a very thought-provoking article by Professor Aynsley Kellow, which highlights the basic problem that lies behind the whole AGW hypothesis. It is that of relying on the virtual reality of computer simulations rather than on physically observed data.
This, David, is the essence of our debate. You have ultimate faith in the infallibility of the GCMs, even when they conflict directly with physically observed facts. If necessary, you are willing to bend the facts to fit the theory.
I have relatively little faith in the ability of GCMs to predict much of anything over an extended period, because of the extremely high margins of errors and the limitations of GIGO assumptions. I will be skeptical of projections of any kind until I can see some hard back-up data. And I will believe the observed facts (viz. Spencer) every time over the GCM-generated “projections”.
The quote below from Professor Kellow’s article sums it up very well:
“It is important to understand the way in which the revolution in information technology has transformed the conduct of science. Its impact has come not just in the ability to model complex phenomena of which scientists a decade or so ago could only dream-though that is part of the problem. Computer models are always subject to the Garbage In – Garbage Out problem and they can never be a substitute for hypotheses tested against the cold, hard light of observational data.
Many of the scientists working with models appear to have forgotten that science is about testing predictions against data. They seem to have fallen victim to the trap long-recognised at IBM, where it used to be said that simulation was like self-stimulation: if one practised it too often, one began to confuse it for the real thing.
One problem with observational data in areas like climate science is that they themselves are subject to substantial massaging by computers before they are of any use. Even data collection, therefore, provides opportunities for subjective assumptions to intrude into the adjustments made to data to make them useful.”
Did you catch the part about many scientists having forgotten “that science is about testing predictions against data”? I would suppose that computer scientists would be particularly prone to falling into this trap. After all, it’s their “bread and butter” to rely on computers for answers.
This “test” is precisely what Spencer conducted, when he showed that the ”data” showed a strong negative feedback from clouds, as opposed to the GCM-assumed “prediction” of a positive feedback.
In so doing Spencer thereby demonstrated that the “prediction” of a 3K climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 was not successfully “tested” against the data.
Just some food for thought.
Regards,
Max
Sorry.
It was TonyN that provided the link to the excellent Kellow article, not Brute.
I believe this should be a “must read” for anyone on either side of this discussion.
It truly clears the mind of all the hype and clutter to which we are all exposed today by the press and various “groups”.
Max
International Welfare…….
Kofi Annan Demands “Climate Justice”
Just when it seemed we had finally heard the last of the corrupt and incompetent Kofi Annan:
“We must have climate justice. As an international community, we must recognise that the polluter must pay and not the poor and vulnerable. […] We cannot allow the extra cost of adapting to climate change to be siphoned off from the ongoing poverty challenge. We should act immediately to provide them with additional funding and appropriate technical assistance.”
To summarize, climate justice = international socialism. No wonder they dumped him as head of the UN. If politicians don’t learn not to be upfront about the objectives driving the global warming hoax, they’ll scare people into putting up resistance.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Forum_launches_global_climate_justice_alliance.html?siteSect=105&sid=9262490&rss=true&ty=st
Some might be interested to see that the discussion re the Philip Stephens article in the Financial Times is showing signs of life. Go to:
http://www.ft.com/cms/6c2bf1ce-91b7-11da-bab9-0000779e2340.html?q=Y&a=tpc&s=646099322&f=4501057231&m=9311057231
Max,
There is more about Kellow here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3208#comment-265983
and in subsequent comments at the same thread. I had not heard of him before.
Robin,
WordPress has problems with very long URLs. This link to Philip Stephens’ blog at the FT may work better:
Philip Stephens’ Blog
Hi Brute,
Yep. Let’s get that paragon of honesty and virtuousness, Kofi Annan, on the bandwagon.
There are hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer cash to be shuffled around if we can get this set up right. A bonanza!
But we’ve gotta move fast, before folks start looking at all those thermometers out there, and find out the whole thing is just a giant hoax and scam.
Let’s hand out a couple of Nobel Prizes to dazzle the folks out there and sidetrack them from the real facts.
Regards,
Max