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.
Pete,
Venice is sinking……so is New Orleans. Sea levels are not rising.
Classic how you called a “truce” when you couldn’t defend your statement to Max. You should consider running for public office.
Sorry Pete; you did mention subsidence in your post. I stand corrected.
This is the graph from JZ’s link……quite dramatic. (Couldn’t view the graph using the link).
National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-9WsKlKXJI
Peter
Instead of reading third hand information from Wiki please go direct to the sources which have been referenced here numerous times, and then also link to Exeter conference and the Met office which updated the information.
The reference to ‘lie’ (actually ‘the greatest lie’) is linked here. Professor Morners unparalleled credentials are also detailed there.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0708/S00012.ht
We are talking about 10 inches a century here and a figure that is being revised downwards based on actual observations not computer models that make Dr Hansen (and Al Gore) believe we will see rises of up to 20 foot by the end of the century.
http://www.independent.com/news/2007/jul/05/new-study-predicts-greater-sea-level-rise/
As James Hansen is supposedly the worlds leading climate scientist does that mean his absurd statements on sea levels should also be taken as factual or should we treat it for the complete nonsense it is?
Tide gauges-electronic and manual, tide floats, satellites, no records demonstrate the consistent and substantial increases suggested, other than in isolated locations for specific reasons which are countered by reductions elsewhere. Satellites have a very considerable margin of error but are increasingly relied on as their information can be readily downloaded for computer modelling. They are consequently used instead of the much more accurate (but perceived as old fashioned) tidal gauges
You continually quote wiki as some sort of font of all knowledge. The sea level rise they use comes directly from the IPCC. This is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post when I mentioned how non facts get into the public domain and become ‘official’ facts-whether or not they have a shred of truth in them.
This is Wiki’s editorial policy
“Verifiability
Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.”
If you keep referencing wiki you will keep getting information from the IPCC which will keep confirming your understanding of the aspect of the science involved.
Calculating sea level rises are enormously complex and the nature of regional discrepancy is nicely handled here.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=scipapers
The sea levels along the 200 mile stretch of UK coast of which I have particular knowledge has not moved a single mm in height since the railway and sea wall were built 150 years ago.
I have previously posted the sea levels of the official Newlyn (south west England) station whose records dating to 1910 also show no change whatsoever.
Levels are dropping in the Arctic at the rate of 2mm a year (one of the few places where proper studies are being made using consistent and unadjusted information). The comment by ‘MK’ in the link sums up the complexity of this subject and that wiki needs to get itself another author and not rely so much on bogus science from the IPCC
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-124264.html
The basic fact is that sea levels have been generally on the rise for hundreds of years but then experience reverses-all quite natural and partly to do with thermal expansion. It was hotter around 900-1200AD and sea levels then responded by being slightly higher than today, and they have since dropped through the little ice ages then have slightly risen again from around 1880. If you ever come to Britain you can see the site where William the conqueror landed- now a metre above the sea which in the interim became a lagoon, and also view some of the great sea castles whose sea gates were constructed to permit the entrance of ships, but these days are high and dry as the water level has dropped (all taking into account stasis and other factors) The Vikings also made use of higher sea levels to sail up our tidal rivers and pillage our towns.
Many sea temperatures have been dropping over the last few years -as referenced previously so it is not surprising that thermal expansion reduces and sea levels fall.
This article from a sensible left leaning journalist (you might have his book) confirms the recent drop in sea levels and berates the scare mongers such as Hansen who manage to muddy the waters (pun intended)
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg30
Peter, please do us all a favour and look at sources other than wiki and you might pick up other information not emanating from the IPCC that challenges your views. That is exactly what I am doing by going to see Dr Iain Stewart lecture on AGW. I will give you a report.
Max- Prof Morner might have said ‘nonsense’ as well as a ‘lie’ he probably also said ‘rubbish’ ‘laughable’ and ‘ridiculous’ as well.
Max
I previously posted information about Miskolczi and his theories on the importance of water vapour and his understanding of the true impact of CO2. You might like to catch up on interesting developnments here. You might want to verify the information elsewhere as well.
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=556
TonyB
Pete,
I’m just curious…..what is your theory regarding this temperature graph depicting falling global temperatures while CO2 Levels consistently rise? Why are the temperatures dropping?
http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin
Here’s more awful news for you Pete.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
For the life of me, I cannot understand why global warming Alarmists are unhappy when the evidence/observations demonstrate that the world is not going to come to a fiery demise…..or dismiss evidence contrary to the apocalyptic ending of the world due to Anthropomorphic Global Warming, (unless the concern really isn’t about the environment).
Any sane person would be happy that their Alarmist catastrophic prophesizes were wrong and the polar bears aren’t going to drown……that we don’t need to spend a gazillion dollars on “mitigation” and can instead feed people, build houses, expand industry, create more jobs, prosper and grow.
One would begin to think that the Alarmists detest mankind and would be happier if there were less of us……if fewer people had access to clean water, a roof over their heads and cheap fuel to keep warm.
I’m certain that Al Gore and the eco-chondriacs will figure out a way to blame this on big oil, greedy industrialists, conservatives or President Bush…..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3222476/Suns-protective-bubble-is-shrinking.html
I’m not sure what you are trying to show with the graphs of Arctic ice. Sure, 2008 wasn’t quite as bad as 2007 but to argue that an increase in sea ice extent of 10%, 20% or whatever, over the worst year on record, somehow proves that there is no AGW is just laughable.
No doubt that we’ll have you tell us that ice is refreezing at record rates etc , but no matter how fast it refreezes it won’t be able to be classed as perennial ice. The more ice melts during the summer, the more will be refrozen the following autumn and winter.
It doesn’t follow that because there might be 2% supporting what Roy Spencer is currently publishing on the Wattsupwiththat website, that 98% will be totally opposed. You’d have to be a complete idiot, or a complete bigot, or a rabid anti AGW denier, to either reject or accept a paper until you’d actually seen it. So, the sensible approach would be to reserve judgement until the final (peer reviewed?)version is issued.
If Spencer had published a paper which was more in line with the IPCC would you be accept that? Or do you just accept those which suit your prejudice on AGW? Did you decide that AGW was unlikely before or after listening to all the scientific arguments?
For my part, I can say that if the sceptics turn out to be right and AGW turns out to be wrong, then I’ll change my opinion as soon as the evidence tends that way. I’d actually be pleased to see the Arctic permafrost freeze up solid again and the Australian climate go back to what it was fifty years ago.
TonyB,
For once you might unintentionally have said something sensible:
“If you keep referencing wiki you will keep getting information from the IPCC which will keep confirming your understanding of the aspect of the science involved”
Exactly. The IPCC do represent the scientic community. If you accept the IPCC you are accepting the scientific evidence such as it stands at present. If you reject the IPCC you are rejecting science. Its as simple as that.
Brute and Max,
You’ll notice that in the above reply to TonyB I quoted his remarks exactly. I didn’t make up a sentence of my own, put it in quotation marks, and furthermore falsely claim that this is what he had said or written.
If I had changed anything TonyB would have been quite justified in calling me a lying bastard! But I resisted the temptation to use those words, when Max did that to me :-)
Peter #2161
I have continually referenced factual information from respected and world renowned sources which you consistently refuse to respond to with either comment or rebuttal.
To say;
‘For once you might unintentionally have said something sensible’ suggests the information provided by me is not sensible, therefore the govt organisations providing it are not sensible either.(Hadley, Met Office, Exeter, Proudman, Dutch met services, various scientists attending climate conferences, IPCC authors, IPCC assessment reports et al.
You have failed to respond to any of the information I post other than on sea levels and rather than rebut it you have fallen back on wiki which admits that what it says has to be verifiable not necessarily true.
If you want to dispute any of the many figures I have provided on subjects ranging from sea levels through temperatures please summarise them and also send a copy to the organisations involved asking why they are producing information that Peter Martin believes to be incorrect. We can then examine your own figures in a sensible manner and have a proper debate instead of your making an ad hom attack. Please excuse a lack of reply for several days but I am leaving to see Dr Iain Stewart in a few minutes.
TonyB
It doesn’t really matter what I think, it the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people who are working in the field that you should be listening to, rather than those who accuse them of fraud and charlatanism.
For instance Dr Iain Stewart has an interesting take on the problem with his comment:
“What is truly scary about climate change is not any of the specific scenarios of rising seas or melting ice, but the sense that our planet’s climate exists on a knife-edge balance and we really don’t understand what pushes us over the edge, which makes our great chemistry experiment with the world’s oceans and atmosphere all the more short-sighted.”
So I hope you’ll listen carefully to what he has to say.
I perhaps should have mentioned one proviso to my previous comment. The IPCC do represent the state of scientific knowledge as best as any large body of members can. Those very few scientists who are sufficiently astride their topic to be able to see any flaws in the IPCC case, can, of course, disagree with the IPCC conclusions, without being outside the realm of science. But, it is just crazy for anyone to disagree soley on the basis that they have a problem with what they may think the political implications of accepting the scientific argument might be.
Hi Peter,
We’ve had a long discussion on the validity of the IPCC climate model assumptions leading to an estimated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (with all feedbacks) of +3.2°C, as claimed by IPCC AR4.
As I pointed out, there are two weaknesses in the IPCC claim. Let’s summarize the situation.
In its AR4 report, all IPCC models are programmed to show a strong net positive feedback from clouds, strong enough to raise the 2xCO2 warming by +1.3°C, a significant part of the total 2xCO2 warming estimated by IPCC of +3.2°C.
Yet, despite this strong feedback assumed by the IPCC models, IPCC concedes that feedback from clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty.
In an earlier study, Ramanathan et al. state that both the magnitude and the sign of net cloud feedbacks are uncertain. They lament the fact that the GCM knowledge and treatment of cloud feedbacks are so rudimentary, conceding that physical observations are required to check the model assumptions and conclusions.
Following IPCC AR4, two independent studies were published (Spencer et al., Norris) on cloud feedbacks. While the two studies use a different approach, they are both are based on actual physical observations rather than climate model studies. Both show a strong net negative feedback from clouds.
These studies provide the previously lacking physical observations, which Ramanathan et al. suggested were needed to provide the understanding of whether clouds have a net positive or negative feedback and thereby to clear up the large uncertainty of IPCC on cloud feedbacks.
If we correct the 2xCO2 warming with this newly acquired knowledge on clouds, we arrive at an overall figure of <1°C.
In addition, physical observations (Minschwaner + Dessler) have shown that the IPCC model assumption of “constant relative humidity” with warming is not supported by the observed facts, so that the positive feedback from water vapor as assumed by IPCC is grossly exaggerated. (Note: Unlike the cited cloud studies, this study preceded IPCC AR4 and is even mentioned in one sentence, yet the observations were either ignored or not considered to be important and IPCC stayed with its “constant relative humidity” assumption.)
The physically observed reduced water vapor feedback further weakens the IPCC model assumption of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks of +3.2°C.
The correct number is probably no more than +0.5 to +0.8°C (as estimated by Lindzen and Shaviv + Veizer).
Peter, if you have any specific points in the above you would like to rebut, please do so. I have already provided the links to the cited reports.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Thanks for information about Miskolczi (2156). Will study it more closely.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You quote the TV scientist and eco-alarmist, Dr Iain Stewart, who warns us that “that our planet’s climate exists on a knife-edge balance and we really don’t understand what pushes us over the edge”.
Does he provide any evidence for this claim?
Can you please provide links to the specific physical observations, which support his rather hysterical viewpoint on “knife-edge balance” (or is this just based on regurgitated Hansen hyperbole?).
Regards,
Max
Pete,
Exact Quote:
I would suggest to you that the IPCC represents the scientific community in the same way as the members of the US Congress represent the experts on Wall Street and the US Banks. As the official mouthpiece of the US for economic health, (for the banks and Wall Street), they were obviously mistaken.
Hi Peter,
Your sentence (2160) makes sense, “For my part, I can say that if the sceptics turn out to be right and AGW turns out to be wrong, then I’ll change my opinion as soon as the evidence tends that way.”
Stay tuned to Solar Cycle 24, Peter. Also watch closely the development of global temperature based on the 4 records: Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH. Check closely to see which way these signs and other evidence are tending. Also check your Arctic sea ice “canary” as well as developments in Antarctica. Check ocean temperature development, as well.
Where possible, rely on the root data rather than someone else’s “interpretation” of what the data are really saying (including that of IPCC, who are, of course, trying to sell the world the AGW story, as it represents their sole “raison d’être”).
You will no longer accept at face value that IPCC is the gold standard, un-biased scientific body on climate science, supported by an overwhelming 2,500 climate scientists, and that everything they publish is therefore impeccably correct and objective.
In short, you will become skeptical of spoon-fed hype and will be able to make up your own mind.
This is the first step toward becoming a rational skeptic.
Enjoy the journey!
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
One other thought:
Watch out for “black swans”: totally unexpected anomalies or “ouliers” that come from outside the normal “paradigm” or box. These are the factors that frequently upset the scientific apple-cart and result in a total “paradigm shift”.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Back to your link to the study by Miskolczi, for a review of this see:
{http}://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Note: please remove {parantheses} from link.
The author, Ken Gregory, reviews the Miskolczi theory on a greenhouse equilibrium mechanism, which limits the total amount of greenhouse gases in the troposphere.
Gregory provides a graph from NOAA, which shows the development of relative humidity over the past 60 years at various altitudes. This shows that relative humidity has decreased in the troposphere over the years (as CO2 increased).
He shows that the IPCC assumption of “constant relative humidity” with increased CO2 concentrations and at increased temperatures is false. He concludes that the “greenhouse sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 0.24K”.
Gregory cites Minschwaner + Dessler, “the increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity”, and Spencer, “we don’t know why the greenhouse effect is limited to its current value”, and goes on to point out that Miskolczi provides the detailed explanation for this reduced increase in water vapor with increased temperature plus increased CO2 concentration and, therefore, why the greenhouse effect is limited to its current value.
I cannot vouch for the validity of the Miskolczi theory, except to observe that it is an interesting new theory supported by physical observations that may change the way we think about anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
(Of course, some may pooh-pooh Gregory’s paper, and with it the Miskolczi theory, since Gregory is affiliated with Friends of Science, and therefore a certified “climate denier”.)
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
The Miskolczi hypothesis of a natural greenhouse equilibrium mechanism as published in his paper “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” puts in question the very foundation of the AGW hypothesis, namely that increased atmospheric CO2 levels resulting from human CO2 emissions will cause an increased greenhouse effect and, therefore, lead to increased global warming.
{http}://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
I have not tried to follow all the equations, etc. in the Miskolczi study, but have just tried to follow the reasoning and the conclusions drawn.
The hypothesis postulates that the total greenhouse effect from all greenhouse gases (primarily water vapor and CO2) is limited to a finite “saturated” greenhouse effect, so that if one GHG increases (for example, CO2), the other (water vapor) automatically decreases in response, thereby acting as a greenhouse equilibrium mechanism and preventing run-away warming.
This would mean that with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration the atmospheric water vapor concentration would actually decrease, providing a negative feedback, essentially canceling out most of the warming impact from the increased CO2, rather than a strong positive feedback (as assumed by all the IPCC climate models), which would result in increased warming.
It would also explain why we have not had “tipping points” in our climate leading to irreversible run-away conditions in the past.
Have the observed increased CO2 levels resulted in an observed reduction in tropospheric water vapor concentrations? A NOAA chart showing recorded relative humidity at various altitudes based on radiosonde measurements shows that this is, indeed, what has been happening. The measurements show that water vapor has dropped by 21.5% at 9 km altitude or 300mb from 1948 to 2007; over this same period atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by around 24%.
The hypothesis says that the flux optical depth and overall greenhouse effect will show short-term fluctuations but will always return to a constant equilibrium value as a result of the greenhouse equilibrium mechanism.
In the ClimateAudit blog which you cited, Ken Gregory goes one step further in asking Miskolczi to calculate a 60-year trend of flux optical depths using the NOAA radiosonde data cited above. According to Gregory, Miskolczi confirmed that there had been no increase in the effective amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere over the past 60 years.
Is this new “greenhouse equilibrium” hypothesis valid? If so, it questions the very foundation of the AGW hypothesis.
If you can find any other studies referring to the hypothesis developed by Miskolczi, I would be very interested.
Regards,
Max
Pete,
I wrote at post 2158:
You replied at 2160:
Thank you for proving my point. You see, the problem that I have is with the Alarmist stance is that it is patently obvious that you want some type of environmental disaster to occur…..you crave it so strongly that you dismiss outright any information that could possibly jeopardize your position.
You don’t truly care about the environment…….all you really care about is chanting the tired old mantra that all mankind endeavors to achieve must be destroyed to bolster your environmentalist faith.
The graphs show an obvious increase in Arctic ice this year over last. To a true “environmentalist” this would be positive, encouraging news…..however, in the pessimistic, gloom and doom world of the global warming Alarmist, any encouraging news or data must be ridiculed and vilified. It really is a pity that so many harbor such resentment to their fellow men.
Message to Brute and PeterM,
Your recent exchange on Arctic sea ice got me to checking the blurbs out there.
A recent PR release by Stephanie Renfrow of NSIDC is headlined:
“Arctic sea ice hits second-lowest extent, likely lowest volume, say CU-Boulder researchers”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/uoca-asi100208.php
Despite the fact that Arctic sea ice has recovered sharply from the all-time low a year ago, the article says: “The 2008 low strongly reinforces the 30-year downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, said CU-Boulder Research Professor Mark Serreze, an NSIDC senior scientist. The 2008 September low was 34 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 and only 9 percent greater than the 2007 record. Because the 2008 low was so far below the September average, the negative trend in the September extent has been pulled downward, from a minus 10.7 percent per decade to a minus 11.7 percent per decade, he said.
“When you look at the sharp decline we have seen over the past 30 years, a recovery from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all,” Serreze said. “Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous.”
One should keep in mind that Serreze was the guy who predicted “an ice-free summer 2008 in the Arctic”.
But rather than admitting that his prediction was false and that the Arctic sea ice appears to be on the way of recovery, he states that “a recovery from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all.”
The second statement, “Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous” ignores the fact that Antarctic sea ice has continued to grow and has reached an all-time high.
This just demonstrates that PR releases by NSIDC are not to be confused in any way with serious scientific reports.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I’m certain that Peter “the glass is half empty, we’re all gonna die” Martin would agree with the Serreze assessment.
Only in the bizarre world of the global warming Alarmist does a 10% increase in ice extent mean “no increase at all”. After all, a 390,000 square kilometer increase in sea ice extent is nothing remarkable.
These guys have better things to do such as frighten little children and pad their government subsidized expense accounts.
Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
I’m certain it had to do with all of the prehistoric automobiles……