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.
TO EVERYONE
A rumour has reached my hill-top in Wales that there is about to be some kind of election in the US. Please bear the following in mind when posting comments over the next few days.
If Al Gore, or one of his acolytes, is offered a job by the new administration, commenting about it will certainly not be off-thread. Speculation about what the new president is likely to do on AGW or energy policy will probably be OK too. Just about anything else to do with the election will be way-off-thread so far as I am concerned.
My cyber-scissors have been sharpened, and any transgressions will be ruthlessly snipped.
Max: I’ve had a long hard think about your very reasonable suggestion at the end of #2329.
The NS thread is nearing its first anniversary and has almost become a community, with everyone knowing everyone else pretty well. I certainly understand that there are things that contributors would like to discus that lie outside the scope of Harmless Sky, but I can think of no way of accommodating this without compromising the structural integrity of the blog.
General political discussion just does not belong here, and as the hit rate continues to grow steadily I do not want visitors to be in any doubt as to what the focus of the discussion is. This also points to another problem: new contributors joining in who are not interested in, or informed about, climate, the countryside or landscapes, with the risk that the character of the blog would be changed.
I considered the possibility of creating a hidden, password protected, page for the purpose you suggested but if, as is likely to be the case over the next few months, the site is exposed to scrutiny by people who are not well disposed to what it has to say, then that would inevitably lead to speculation about what lies behind a closed door; an easy target.
TonyN
Theres a strong rumour that myself and Max are going to be offered key posts in an Obama cabinet. If offered one I shall gracefully accept and donate 10% of my wages towards the running costs of this excellent blog.
TonyB
TonyN: Thanks for making sure that Harmless Sky got a world exclusive.
TonyB: you may find this Douglass/Christy paper “Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth” useful.
Hi Robin,
Somehow I couldn’t access the Douglass + Christy paper with the link you provided. I did get in with this link. Remove {parentheses}.
{http}://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Regards,
Max
Robin and Max
Thats an interesting and well reasoned report with understadable hypotheses. Its easy to miss the good graphs which are tucked under the long list of refernces.
TonyB
What about the ice core record from Antarctica?
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_CDIAC_CO2_SIPLE_ICECORE.html
Maybe TonyB should write to NASA and suggest that they would get better results if they put away their IR spectrometers and bought a chemistry set for their lab instead.
Hi Peter,
Re your 2406 (Antarctica proxy estimations versus actually measured CO2):
You miss the point here a bit, Peter.
Actually observed and chemically measured CO2 concentrations (at the time) are a better indicator than ex post facto IR spectrometer readings from ice cores (many decades or centuries later).
Those are the facts, Peter, like them or not.
Regards,
Max
Peter
You have given me a real conundrum Peter, Should I accept the direct readings, taken at the time by competent scientists using well proven methods, or that of proxy ice cores readings with well documented shortcomings taken years later?
Happily we can deal with the shortcomings of ice core samples from siple plus the proven reliability of 19th century direct readings all in one link, which is provided under;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
On balance I’ll go with the readings taken at the time-but it was a close call…
TonyB
Hi Peter,
We’ve shown that the “positive feedbacks” and “2xCO2 climate sensitivity” as assumed by IPCC are not supported by the most recent actual physical observations.
TonyB has also identified the same problem with the atmospheric CO2 record (prior to 1958) as assumed by IPCC.
The IPCC claims on accelerated sea level rise in the late 20th century have also been shown to be inconsistent wit the actual physical observations on sea levels.
Other IPCC claims have also been questioned.
Here is another problem (ex pluribus unum) with the AGW hypothesis as promoted by IPCC.
IPCC bases its global temperature anomaly and trends on the surface record alone, ignoring the more comprehensive tropospheric temperature measurements of satellites, which show a lower anomaly and lower trends than the surface record. To confirm this one only has to compare the official published records:
{http}://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 and
{http}://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
When adjusted to the same baseline, the anomaly at the surface itself is around 0.1°C higher than that in the troposphere, even though the greenhouse theory tells us that just the opposite should be true.
The warming trend is also higher at the surface than in the troposphere. IPCC reports a most recent trend of 0.2°C per decade, the surface record shows a trend of 0.17°C per decade and the satellite record shows 0.14°C per decade since satellite readings started in 1979.
This is strange, since greenhouse warming should be more rapid in the troposphere than at the surface.
Despite the fact that satellite and surface readings clearly show that the troposphere has warmed more slowly than the surface, IPCC doggedly claims the contrary.
AR4 Ch.3 (p.237), “Lower-tropospheric temperatures have slightly greater warming than those at the surface”
(p.237), “It is likely, however, that there is a slightly greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface”
(p.252), “Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface”
Ch. 9 (p.699), “Since 1979, it is likely that there is a slightly greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface”
These statements are obviously false, as the surface and satellite records show.
How do you account for this discrepancy, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Re TonyB 2402
Yes, the rumor is that TonyB has been asked to take the newly created post of “Special Environmental Advisor to the President”, and that I will work closely with Sarah Palin in coordinating a global energy policy (in a new McCain/Palin administration). Our efforts will be coordinated by the newly appointed “Policy Tsar for Energy and Environment”, Brute, with JZSmith as key technical/scientific advisor and Bob_FJ taking charge of the “southern hemisphere” desk.
If Mr. O wins, it is rumored that PeterM will be asked to leave his home in Oz to help the USA undo all the environmental evils they have perpetrated over the past decades by 2012 – a truly formidable task, indeed!
So, no matter how it turns out tomorrow, we’ll all be busy.
(And it will be the job of TonyN to “keep us all honest and on topic” – an even more formidable task.)
Max
Max
I’m all ready to go. Ive got my suitcase packed and cancelled the milk deliveries.
Hmm wait a minute. How come I have to work with Obama whilst YOU get to work with Sarah Palin?
TonyB
Pete, in your 2392; Keeping it simple, you wrote in part:
Here is a very simple question:
WOULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY SOME REFERENCES THAT MAY SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Sorry to shout but I’m really gob-smacked, as to where this might have originated.
Do you make stuff up? (MSU)
TonyB and Max,
The Antarctic CO2 measurements are not proxy measurements. A proxy measurement would involve an inference of CO2, or temperature or whatever, from a third party parameter such as the width of a tree ring or the growth of a coral.
They are actual measurements of the CO2 concentrations in bubbles of air trapped in the Antarctic snow and ice. They can be dated according to layer. Contamination? Of course that could happen. But, if it did, the deep samples would show the same CO2 levels as are measured today. Instead, the deeper samples show a decreasing CO2 concentration until the depth corresponds to the mid to early 19th century, then it flattens out to about 280ppmv of CO2.
The spectroscopic, and other, anaylsis techniques which are now available are orders of magnitude better than any that were available to scientists in the 19th century or early 20th century.
What have your usual allies such as Lindzen, Spencer, even McIntyre, to say on the subject? Are they silly enough to agree with you? I don’t think so. Sorry, but I doubt that you’ll find any credible scientist opinion at all to back you up this time.
Pete, you wrote in part in your 2413, claiming: The Antarctic ice-core CO2 measurements are not proxy measurements.
Of course amongst a bunch of other things, it is claimed that the ICE in which the bubbles are trapped is “some” thousands of years older than the air that has been ultimately entrapped at some time via an assumed process of diffusion, at the magic moment of closure of the ice bubbles. Additionally, the molecular diffusion rates of different molecule sizes and masses, through a great depth of snow and firn can only be theorised over those thousands of years. Then of course too, various chemical processes can also be theorised.
I’ll stop short there, but will quote you definition 5 of ‘diffusion’ in physics, in the MS dictionary:
5 physics:
intermingling of substances: the random movement of atoms, molecules, or ions from one site in a medium to another, resulting in complete mixing
You have claimed to be a physicist?
Hi Peter,
You advised me, “The spectroscopic, and other, anaylsis techniques which are now available are orders of magnitude better than any that were available to scientists in the 19th century or early 20th century.”
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than ±3%.
Current new technology spectroscopic techniques are indeed much more accurate than this, as you say.
But, hey Peter, ±3% is good enough to distinguish between 280-300 ppm and 350-450 ppm, right? And that is the difference we are talking about here, not fractions of a ppm.
And, as Bob_FJ has pointed out, the pre-1958 data cited by IPCC are not based on actually measuring atmospheric CO2 levels with modern methods; they are based on ice core data. These data are certainly not “orders of magnitude better” than the actual chemical analyses made in the 1940s. You are comparing apples and oranges here, Peter.
Just to help clear this point up.
Regards,
Max
Note to TonyB
You asked, “Hmm wait a minute. How come I have to work with Obama whilst YOU get to work with Sarah Palin?”
Breaks of the game, Tony, win a few, lose a few…
Be sure to pack your Kevlar vest for DC, as earlier posts have demonstrated, it’s a war zone.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Further to my post (2409) listing false statements by IPCC, which claim that tropospheric temperatures (as measured by satellites) have risen at a faster rate than surface temperatures, here is another IPCC falsehood:
In the “Frequently Asked Questions” Section 3.1 (p.103) of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report, IPCC makes the statement: “Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface…” “This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results, which demonstrate the role of increasing greenhouse gases in tropospheric warming…”
{http}://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
Ouch! Maybe IPCC need to look at the actual Hadley and UAH temperature records.
Regards,
Max
Good ol’ Richard Black at BBC is actually trying to revive Mann’s hockey stick!
{http}://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592575.stm
Maybe “cold fusion” will be the next scientific hoax to be resurrected by BBC.
Max
Referring to Richard Black’s (BBC News) attempt to revive the Mann Hockey Stick, Black writes:
“However, a 2006 report from the National Research Council (NRC), commissioned by the US Congress, broadly endorsed its conclusion that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th Century were probably warmer than at any time in the previous 400 years, and perhaps at any time during the previous 1,000 years.”
Let’s analyze what Black has written.
“Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th Century probably warmer than at any time in the previous 400 years” (i.e. the Little Ice Age). Duh! Just ask any 12-year old school child.
But “perhaps at any time during the previous 1,000 years”. “Perhaps” is a BIG word…
Let’s see if Black is really telling us the truth about the NRC findings.
Here’s what NRC actually said: “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium’ because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales” (from Wikipedia, usually a pro-AGW site).
This does not sound like the “broad endorsement” claimed by Black. In fact, it is a clear statement questioning the Mann claims prior to about A.D. 1600 (i.e. the Medieval Warm Period).
And, then again, why did Black not mention Carl Wegman’s testimony before the U.S. Congress, which stated even more clearly that the Mann Hockey Stick was based on bad science and could not be used as evidence for the claim that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”.
Looks like Black is not giving us the facts here.
Is this the BBC News policy, when it comes to the AGW “sacred cow”?
Max
Note to TonyN: I am not trying to revive the debate on Mann’s discredited hockey stick, but am only questioning whether the news policy of BBC News meets Pallab Ghosh’s standard of professionalism and objectivity in science journalism…
Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=180#comment-20487
Peter #2413 said;
“What have your usual allies such as Lindzen, Spencer, even McIntyre, to say on the subject? Are they silly enough to agree with you? I don’t think so. Sorry, but I doubt that you’ll find any credible scientist opinion at all to back you up this time.’
I had selected four modern scientific studies showing the huge uncertainties associated with modern ice core samples-the science is by no means agreed or settled. As Max might do this however I thought I would concentrate on the social aspects through the ages of the effects of co2 -which you might enjoy-(and believe) more.
AS you well know, Co2 was not discovered by Charles Keeling in 1958 nor measured by him for the first time. It was discovered as far back as 1756 by Joseph Black at the start of a huge increase of knowledge in chemistry matters that laid the foundations for our modern understanding of the subject. The nature of co2 and its effects were well understood by the late 1700’s.
The first measurements were carried out around that time and became increasingly accurate and were routinely undertaken in various fields including medical and employment.
During the middle part of the 1800’s it was becoming increasingly recognised that in several industries- including cotton- various processes were being carried out that were possibly injurious to the operatives. This effect was written about by Florence Nightingale and the novelist Mary Gaskell in 1859 in ‘North and South’ where she described the manufacturing processes in the cotton industry. This coincided with a study by Lethbridge in 1862 who looked at the problems of carbon monoxide and dioxide.
The reason there are some 90000 samples of co2 recorded (see my posts re Beck) is that it was a common procedure taken to observe levels and ensure action where they contravened informally agreed measurements in factories or those laid down in local byelaws-mostly as a ventilation issue.
The cotton cloth factories act of 1889 set actual limits for Co2 at 900 ppm (modern commercial greenhouses operate at up to 1100ppm) This subject had been debated in Parliament for some 20 years prior to this and its relative success – observed in Hansard -was subsequently debated
Paste ‘cotton cloth factories act 1889 carbon dioxide levels’ into google-it will lead to Hansard and other references where they specifically talk about infringements of the agreed co2 levels.
The local agreements and subsequent legislation led to a rash of increasingly sophisticated methods for measuring co2 including a patent around 1895, although throughout the 19th century the methods used were accurate to plus or minus 3 % or so-not surprising as the basic principles of chemistry were so well understood.
The reference to the social elements is here-of particular relevance is the section entitled ‘The first limits’. The various references are worth following up.
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/299
In the following book more of the background that led to the parliamentary act can be read (page 154 onwards) which makes considerable mention of carbon dioxide in factories and how measurements should be controlled-by-for example- taking into account the gas lighting http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:yoxDE4U_T94J:www.victorianlondon.org/publications/westlondon-2.htm+cotton+industry+carbonic+acide+levels+victorian+era&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk
A complete bibliography of the cotton industry and the activities of the Roscoe commission -who investigated the effects of the carbon dioxide levels for Parliament- can be found here
http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk/web/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=257
Peter, Do you really believe all the 90000 readings (a fraction of those undertaken) were all incorrect, or that the chemistry was unknown and Charles Keeling invented the whole sum of co2 knowledge 50 years ago?
TonyB
Anthropogenic Global Warming’s Multi-Billion Dollar Tax Grab
Today in the USA, as most of you know, we have a general election. We’ll vote for president, as well as for some members of the US Senate and all members of the US House of Representatives.
In addition, state and local officials will be voted on in almost all states, and some states will vote on ballot measures; bonds for school funding, raising sales taxes (how come I’ve never had to vote on a tax reduction?), prohibiting this or that activity, and other matters crucial to democracy.
Here in California we have 12 such “propositions” on the ballot, three of which use the threat of AGW to justify spending nearly $30 billion USD on a high speed rail between LA and San Francisco, requiring the use of renewable energy sources for electrical power generation by large utilities, and to provide consumers with financial incentives for the purchase of ‘green’ vehicles and fund research into other renewable energy sources.
While these seem, on the surface like well-intentioned initiatives, the state of California has a chronic budget (spending) problem. We are deeply in debt and face a budget deficit of as much as $8 billion USD. In fact, the governator may even go to president-elect Obama soon—hat in hand—asking for a federal bailout. For sure he will be calling back the state legislature for a “special session” to try to resolve the budget crisis.
We cannot afford to properly fund our public schools, the primary responsibility of the state, nor the many other infrastructural replenishment’s we so desperately need, but that won’t stop the Greens and their friends in big labor (who want all those union dues from the rail construction jobs) from asking California tax payers for more money we don’t have… all in the name of “saving the planet” from AGW.
I voted against all three props. [Snip]
PS: One clarification, Prop 7 doesn’t authorize the sale of bonds, but the added costs of the renewable sources will be paid for by utility customers, aka tax payers.
TonyN: Sorry JZ, someone had to be the first victim of #2401.
Darn. I thought I’d slip it in there quietly…
TonyN: No hard feelings I hope.
Nope.
CO2 sequestration experiments.