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.
Hi TonyB,
You took the position, “That warming is mostly natural with some small residual temperature rises caused by increased co2 that lies within natural variability. Due to log co2 it will not increase temperatures further and therefore reducing current co2 emissions will have no practical effect whatsoever.”
This is exactly what I believe to be the case.
Recent physical observations have shown that the model assumptions on positive feedbacks made by IPCC exaggerate the minor influence of a doubling of CO2 by a factor of at least four.
From “pre-industrial 1750” to 2005 IPCC tells us that atmospheric CO2 has increased from around 280 to around 380ppmv (values before 1957 are based on proxy studies, so should be taken with a grain of salt).
According to IPCC a doubling of CO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv, as expected by 2100) will result in a temperature increase of around 0.8°C. As the relationship is logarithmic, we have experienced around 45% of the total increase to date (0.36°C), leaving us a further 0.44°C from 2005 to 2100, all other things being equal.
As we see from solar cycle 24, from changes in the ENSO oscillation and many other factors, “all other things” are not equal.
However one looks at it, it is clear that “mitigation” is an extremely expensive exercise in futility.
First, as Robin has pointed out repeatedly, there is no clear evidence that carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes will “force” a significant reduction in the use of fossil fuels, particularly in the fastest-growing economies of China, India and Brazil. Second, it is clear that even a drastic reduction in emissions back to the world-wide level of 1991 will have a theoretical impact of less than 0.5°C on “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” by the year 2100.
The whole exercise is really “Much Ado about Nothing”.
It will be interesting to see whether PeterM will take up your challenge to debate your position without sidetracking to Arctic Sea Ice, recent Hadley proclamations or some other irrelevant side issue.
Regards,
Max
Here’s an excellent take on the “science” of economic forecasting: idiomics or the principle that no one understands anything. Is climate-forecasting exempt from this principle? I don’t think so (and not only because climate forecasts depend on economic forecasts). And yet it seems that, if climate forecasts (or “projections”) dictate that we must impose damaging distortions on our already fragile economies, we must humbly comply. Future generations will think we were mad.
Hi Robin,
Your link to the article on economic forecasting pointed out many similarities to the climate forecasting (or “projections”) being done by IPCC.
And, yes, you are right. If we take these forecasts seriously and actually allow ourselves to “impose damaging distortions on our already fragile economies” to “mitigate” against these computer-generated impending virtual disasters, future generations will indeed think we were mad. And they will have been right.
But, Robin, I truly believe that sanity will prevail over “idionomics” when it comes to the current AGW hysteria, despite the James E. Hansens, Al Gores, Taminos, Joe Romms, Gavin Schmidts and all the other self-serving disciples of doom and well-meaning but confused followers like Peter M out there plus the billions of dollars of support they have from power-hungry politicians around the world.
Why? Because it has stopped warming for the past ten years, and people are beginning to notice this, despite the shrill warnings that man-made global warming will “come back with a vengeance” once the current natural cooling stops.
And, as you have pointed out before on this site, the developing countries whose future growth into prosperity depends upon increasing fossil fuel consumption, such as China, India, etc., will not accept a reduction in their growth and future prosperity, arbitrarily imposed by the already wealthy nations, just to “mitigate” against some theoretical computer-generated disaster of the future, particularly when it has been clearly demonstrated that these “mitigation” efforts will have no impact whatsoever.
So I am really not that pessimistic for the future despite all the media hype and hysteria out there today.
But I agree that the skeptical voices of reason must continue to counter the hysteria in order to block the political AGW power grab.
Regards,
Max
It will be interesting to see whether PeterM will take up your [TonyB’s] challenge to debate your position without sidetracking to Arctic Sea Ice, recent Hadley proclamations…….
For a start, Max might wish that Arctic ice didn’t allow such an obvious counter agument to your case and he might wish that the Hadley Centre weren’t so keen about shooting down your arguments too, but wishing doesn’t make these things happen. Sidetracks? Not really.
OK lets kick OK off the debate on a scientific topic. Maybe TonyB can validate his scientific credentials by explaining to me how the theory of AGW violates, as he claims, one or more of the laws of thermodynamics?
I suspect that, as with nearly all climate sceptics, TonyB’s motivation will turn out to be almost entirely political and nothing to do with concerns about the veracity of the scientific process to date.
Robin,
Economics isn’t really like Physics. It is not absolute and is intermingled with a whole lot of Politics. So, it is necessary to view all proclamations by economists through a political filter.
And I don’t mean just a ‘left wing’ filter either. Take a look at the writings of Peter Schiff. He got it right several years ago. The science of economics may not be perfect but it isn’t meaningless either.
The situation is more understandable if you recognise that the so-called ‘economists’ who you’ll have seen appearing on TV are , by and large, employed by the banks, hedge funds, real estate, the fincial sector generally and their supporters in the media.
At the first signs of looming trouble these guys will try to minimise it. You’ll have heard the phrase ‘soft landing’. Then they’ll push the idea of a necessary ‘market correction’. In Australia , they pushed the line of how Australia’s economy was ‘decoupled’ from the US economy and in so much better shape. As if!
Micheal Hudson, another economist who predicted the crash, refers to the FIRE economy. Finance Insurance and Real Estate. They don’t make anything yet they blather on endlessly about ‘wealth creation’. I do feel these people really believe that wealth is created when peoples homes double in price. Its all crap. If you already have a house it doesn’t make much difference. Except that if you have kids who can’t afford anything themselves, it makes the situation worse.
Roll on the crash! It’s time to get back to real economics.
TonyN: Author’s name edited, see #1930, 1940 and 1941
Peter
I have posted a variety of information from bona fide govt organisations. I have posted factual data. I have posted sea level data from the premier organisations in the world. I have posted abstracts from the Climate change conference at Exeter. In return I have asked for you to demonstrate how 2+2=5. This is at the heart of the co2 hypotheses and violates known laws by arriving at an answer that isn’t possible without some secret added factor that the IPCC scientists seem reluctant to divulge.
Miskolczi has produced an A to Z for his water vapour theory. Where is the parallel for Co2? Nowhere. Please provide a link to the solution so I can read it.
In the meantime please respond to the numerous pieces of factual data I have posted. When you have done that I will be delighted to respond on Arctic ice melt. The satellite records on this go back to 1979. Mine have been painstakingly assembled over many years and date back to the 7th century Thule. Do you really think the current episode is unprecedented? As for Hadley, the graph I provided showing the various episodes of warming since 1659 come directly from the Hadley figures!
I look forward to this part of the debate once you have responded to my previous posts
Incidentally you might like to clarify your comments on my political motivations-it mystifies me. It’s not me that has been indulging in very long political debates on this site.
TonyB
Sorry. The last post was from me not Robin. I must have been thinking I was addressing the post to him.
I didn’t think you could do that. I’m now tempted to invent several ‘sock puppets’ who would all agree with me!
TonyN: Don’t even think about it Peter. This thread is quite confusing enough as it is.
TonyB,
Well I must say that the science of climate change isn’t easy. I’m wondering how you’ve managed to decide that the world’s major instititions NASA, the Royal Society, The Hadley Centre, The AAAS , NOAAA, the NSIDC etc etc have have it all wrong but you, Tony B, who clearly doesn’t understand that there is no possible way that AGW theory can possibly be at variance with any of the thermodynamical laws, have it all right?
And, I’m also wondering, if it isn’t the science that’s giving you a problem, what is?
Peter 1931-enjoyed your joke!
Do you ever answer posts Peter? You are also talking in riddles, firstly questioning my non existent political motivations, then suggesting that something else is the problem. What?
As you must know there are numerous scientists questioning this unproven hypotheses.
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-independent%20experts.html
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20to%20the%20un%20secretary%20general.html
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-other%20professionals.html
The above three links are the recent open letter to UN secretary general plus listing of its supporters
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/appendix4.pdf
The above are authors to IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/appendix5.pdf
These are the reviewers
http://climatesci.org/2008/10/02/an-essay-the-ipcc-report-what-the-lead-authors-really-think/
What those involved in the IPCC process listed above really think. Extremely revealing. Have a read and see the doubts that lie at the heart of the establishment. I have previously posted links on the problems of modelling expressed by the IPCC themselves.
This all gained momentum by ignoring the history of climactic events and linking an unremarkable modern period of warming to a rise in CO2. I have posted the Hadley figures showing temperatures fluctuations back to 1650. Historical records demonstrate many more such events-again I posted links to these. Al Gore himself admits to these past events and wrote a good book on them.
Please provide the link to the answer to the conundrum and please respond to the factual data on sea level, temperatures etc etc that is at variance with what we are being told. Co2 levels continues to rise whilst temperatures stubbornly refuse to do the same.
If you won’t engage on the points that people have made to you it is a fruitless debate.
TonyB
Tony B,
These two comments demonstrate you are talking crap.
“In return I have asked for you to demonstrate how 2+2=5. This is at the heart of the co2 hypotheses and violates known laws by arriving at an answer ……..”
“……coherent theory that explains how the law of thermodynamics has suddenly changed.”
I challenge you to prove me wrong by explaining, in your own words, not lists of ‘references’, what laws are violated and why? If you can’t do that, what is the point of debating with you?
Max,
Looking at this graph…..do you suppose that the media will report that the winter of 2007/2008 recorded the 2nd highest sea ice extent in 6 years?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Sea ice extent recovering quickly
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/09/sea-ice-extent-recovering-quickly/
Looks like the “experts” were wrong about the “newer”, “thinner” ice melting more quickly than the “older”, “thicker” ice. The statement below from NSIDC is very profound……it states that the “newer”, “thinner” ice didn’t melt as quickly as expected because it has been colder this year. And to think that I couldn’t figure that one out by myself……I’m not even a “climatologist”……Wow, maybe I should be eligible for a Nobel Prize.
High retention of first-year ice
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the 2008 melt season was the higher-than-average retention of first-year sea ice (see earlier entries, including April 7). Relatively thin first-year ice is more prone to melting out completely than older, thicker ice. However, more of this year’s first-year ice survived the melt season than is typical. Sea ice age maps from Sheldon Drobot, our colleague at the University of Colorado at Boulder, show that much more first-year ice survived in 2008 than in 2007. This is one of the reasons that 2008 did not break last year’s record-low minimum.
And this pearl of wisdom…..
“One cause of the high first-year ice survival rate was that this summer was cooler than in 2007. Lower temperatures slowed the melt rate in the early part of the season. While conditions in August favored rapid ice loss, they were not enough to make up for this early-season “cushion.”
Brute,
You are very fond of quoting the NSIDC but less fond of referencing their website, instead you link to Wattsupwiththat
Lets have a look at their site:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
That wasn’t difficult was it? I wonder what they have to say?
“Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume. Despite cooler temperatures and ice-favoring conditions, long-term decline continues”.
See, these guys actually write in terms that everyone can understand too. They are doing a real good job, giving the US taxpayer full value for their money. You should be proud of them.
Or, at least proud enough to reference them directly rather than accepting hearsay evidence of what someone else has claimed they have said by selective and out of context quotes.
Pete,
This is what it reads. I wish I was getting my money’s worth also; as opposed to politically biased spin. The link is below and the text is about 2/3 of the way down the page VERBATUM. (Couldn’t include the graphs).
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
September 24, 2008
Arctic sea ice begins autumn freeze-up
Arctic sea ice extent, after reaching its seasonal minimum last week, has begun its annual cyclical increase in response to the setting sun. A cooler melt season, retention of first-year ice, and dispersive ice motion set the 2008 melt season apart from 2007.
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent on September 23, 2008, was 4.59 million square kilometers (1.77 million square miles), an increase of 77,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) above the minimum extent of 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles) measured last week.
Conditions in context
Arctic sea ice extent, after reaching its seasonal minimum last week, has begun its annual cyclical increase in response to autumn cooling. The ice will grow over the cold, dark winter months and reach its maximum annual extent sometime next March.
During the intervening time, NSIDC will continue to provide updates on conditions. Also, note that as the season of ice growth progresses, NSIDC will slide the x-axis in Figure 2 to focus on the five-month window around the most current month. In our January entry, we will include a calendar-based full-year timeseries showing January 2008 through December 2008 extent compared to 2007 and to the 1979 to 2000 average.
High retention of first-year ice
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the 2008 melt season was the higher-than-average retention of first-year sea ice (see earlier entries, including April 7). Relatively thin first-year ice is more prone to melting out completely than older, thicker ice. However, more of this year’s first-year ice survived the melt season than is typical. Sea ice age maps from Sheldon Drobot, our colleague at the University of Colorado at Boulder, show that much more first-year ice survived in 2008 than in 2007. This is one of the reasons that 2008 did not break last year’s record-low minimum.
One cause of the high first-year ice survival rate was that this summer was cooler than in 2007. Lower temperatures slowed the melt rate in the early part of the season. While conditions in August favored rapid ice loss, they were not enough to make up for this early-season “cushion.” Furthermore, much of this year’s first-year ice was located at higher latitudes than in 2007, covering even the geographic North Pole. Regions that are far north have lower melt rates because they receive less solar energy than more southerly regions.
Dispersive sea ice motion
Sea ice motion also helps determine how the ice will fare each melt season. In 2007, a strong northward sea ice motion at the end of the melt season pushed ice floes together, compacting the ice. The tightly packed ice and high temperatures worked together to create a record-low extent.
This year, the wind patterns were different, leading to a less compacted ice cover. This, paired with slower summer melt, helped keep the overall extent larger.
TonyN: I don’t know who posted 1928 (presumably Peter as it exhibits his usual ability to miss the point [of my 1926]) . But it was not me!
Aha – I presumed correctly. See 1930.
TonyN: See my note on #1930
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “For a start, Max might wish that Arctic ice didn’t allow such an obvious counter agument to your case and he might wish that the Hadley Centre weren’t so keen about shooting down your arguments too, but wishing doesn’t make these things happen. Sidetracks? Not really.”
Yes, Peter, these are sidetracks.
When someone is discussing global temperature trends as measured at the surface (by thermometers sometimes located near AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots) or in the troposphere (by satellites) and you throw in Arctic sea ice development, this is a sidetrack, as it would also be a sidetrack if I threw in Antarctic sea ice development. This is because the two have nothing to do with globally averaged land and sea surface (or tropospheric) temperature, as is clearly evidenced by the fact that one is growing while the other is receding. Obviously there are local factors at play here, which have nothing to do with global temperature trends.
As to Hadley rationalizations of why it is cooling (when it should be warming) or Hadley predictions of future warming (“wait’ll next year!”) which invariably turn out to be wrong, they do not shoot down any arguments, nor are they relevant to a discussion concerning global temperature trends. Throwing these into the debate is a sidetrack, intended to deflect attention from the fact that temperatures are dropping rather than rising as the AGW hypothesis tells us should be happening.
Peter, you’ve got to learn to stick to the topic of discussion rather than rambling about into all sorts of other interesting, but irrelevant, topics.
Just a tip.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Not to give PeterM an excuse for digressing too far off topic, but I noticed that there were 36 individuals (presumably all scientists) on the “list of IPCC authors” and 61 individuals (presumably partly scientists and partly non-scientific politicians/bureaucrats) on the “list of IPCC reviewers”, for a total of 97 folks.
Where are the rest of the “2,500 scientists” we read about so often, which are supposedly “lock-stepped in consensus”?
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Very interesting stuff you posted from NSIDC. This report cites local factors (sea and wind circulation patterns, local cool summer 2008) that help explain the record low 2007 sea ice extent, the 2008 recovery and the “unusual” survival of the supposedly more vulnerable “new ice”. Looks like Arctic sea ice trends are much more complicated than Peter likes to think and really have very little to do with “global warming”.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Back again on sea ice. For the raw NSIDC data on both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent (without all the “interpretive BS” normally found in the “press releases”) check the link below. It is updated monthly.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
Like with Hadley, GISS and other agencies, I’ve found that it is best to avoid the “press releases” plus other PR articles and just stick with the raw data (and make up your own mind what is going on), rather than having someone “interpret” the data for you.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote to Robin (1930), “Economics isn’t really like Physics. It is not absolute and is intermingled with a whole lot of Politics. So, it is necessary to view all proclamations by economists through a political filter.”
Yes. And the Earth’s climate isn’t really like (simple) Physics, either. It is also not “absolute”. The “unknowns” are greater than the “knowns”. The new (pseudo?) science of climatology is also “intermingled with a whole lot of Politics” (and a multi-billion dollar agenda-driven budget, funded by politicians), putting it into the corner of BIG-time economics and politics. So, just as with “Economics”, it is “necessary to view all proclamations by climatologists through a political filter.”
Good analysis, Peter. As you see, it applies equally for “climatology” as for “economics”.
Regards,
Max
Max ,
Climate sceptics generally do not understand enough about the science of global warming, as evidenced by Tony B ‘s claim that it breaks several “known laws”, to disagree on scientific grounds alone.
JZ also agrees with me that politics is a big influence, and maybe religion too. Therefore as far as I can make out these are not OT items for discussion.
I’m not saying that climate sceptics are much different from the rest of the population in that respect. But you do have to wonder about the mentality of someone who can decide that every major world scientific body has got it all wrong on the basis of what they have read on some right-wing contrarian web site.
Brute,
How come the NSIDC guys are putting a ‘politically biased spin’ on their reports? They are talking about ‘ice melts’, ‘first year ice’ , ‘wind patterns’, ‘dispersive ice motion’ etc etc. Max doesn’t want me to talk about Arctic ice. Maybe he thinks it’s political too?
Am I missing something here? For the life of me, I can’t make out any politics at all.
I’m not sure about Max. He keeps giving me tips to improve the level of my argument which is very kind of him. But, it’s a bit like the manager of the Swiss football team giving the opposition manager tips on how to beat their offside trap. Maybe he’s thinking of switching sides? You might want to keep an eye on him.
Tony B,
I haven’t read all your links properly. Just had a quick look. I was a bit puzzled by the last of your links in 1934. Did you read that yourself. It seems to be one from ‘our side’. At least I can’t see much wrong with it.
TonyB
You may have seen this Met Office press release about flood risks in the Thames Estuary which also refers to the recent Exeter conference. If not, I suspect that you will have a field day with it!
As I posted in comment # 1936, there are a couple of ways of viewing things. Using this piece of information, I could write a headline and narrative in two different ways. Here are two examples:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
ARCTIC ICE GROWS TO SECOND HIGHEST LEVEL IN 6 YEARS! (April 2008)
We’re all going to freeze to death!
ARCTIC ICE 2ND LOWEST RECORDED LEVEL IN HISTORY! (or at least since 1979) (September 2008)
Al Gore was right; give the government complete control of the economy!
Perspective is everything……think of two people viewing a glass of water sitting on a table filled halfway. The pessimist would remark that the glass was half empty; the optimist would remark that the glass was half full. Newspaper editors write headlines designed to sell newspapers and increasingly to forward the agenda of people/groups that they are affiliated with monetarily or ideologically. Hundreds of thousands of airline flights are successfully accomplished every year; but if there’s a crash, it’s reported on ad nauseam with headlines suggesting that airline safety in general has been compromised.
Sensationalism sells and if you think that the person at NASA or the New York Times that write the headlines or “edits” the stories is unbiased you are more naïve than I thought you were. I don’t care how “honest” or unbiased a person professes to be; their views taint the way that they convey information. NASA’s budget is heavily dependent on their research concerning this topic; the New York Times has a dog in this fight as they support Socialist causes/ideology.
You are being duped; open your eyes and use your brain for God’s sake. These people are trying to sell you something; an idea, an agenda, an ideology, or some kind of gadget to “save the planet”……you’re falling for it like a schoolgirl with an adolescent crush.
By the way, concerning economic troubles…..I think that it’s safe to say that government screwed up the economy, (or at least had a significant role in screwing it up or allowing it to get screwed up) and now we turn to the government to fix it?
Not Looking Good for the Bailout Plan
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a whore house and selling booze?
Pete,
# 1949 should have been addressed to you.