This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
PeterM
Your long ramble on solar forcing calculations does not change the fact that there have been several studies by solar scientists (which I have cited), which have concluded that roughly half of the 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years).
That is the real issue here, Peter.
And that is the issue which you should address, in order to support your incorrect statement to Paul Cottingham (2592):
As you see, there is “credible scientific evidence” that does, indeed, confirm that solar forcing has been “responsible for [at least half of] the last 100 years or so of warming”.
Address this issue, Peter, rather than going off on irrelevant side tracks.
Max
PeterM
This is for your info. It is from yet another study on solar climate forcing in addition to the several studies which I have cited.
Excerpts from the paper by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
And, further down:
This is just one of the papers concluding a significant solar component in the 20th century warming (I have cited several others, all with similar conclusions).
Unfortunately, Dr. Landscheidt is no longer alive, so I’m afraid you can’t challenge him on his estimates and method of calculation.
But the authors of the many other papers I cited are still alive, so you could check their calculation methods if you have any questions.
Max
PeterM
As TonyB and others have also observed, it is quite clear from your past performance here that you see AGW as a “political” clash between those representing the “scientific consensus” on one hand and politically motivated “right-wing nutters” on the other, who have no real interest in the “science”.
This rather irrational position makes it difficult for anyone to rationally discuss the validity of the “science” behind the “dangerous AGW” IPCC consensus position with you. As soon as the discussion moves into this direction, you attempt to deflect it back to a purely “political” rather than a “scientific” discussion.
I find this puzzling, since you have told us all that you are a scientist, yourself, having studied physics.
But let me just play back some of your statements over the past several days here, so you can see what I am talking about.
Peter, tell me honestly – do you see a trend in your behavior here? If so, what is that trend?
Thanks for commenting.
Max
Max,
If you are claiming to be able to judge the general state of climate science on a scientific basis you should at least be able to trust your own calculations.
You were definitely on the right track and once your simple error was fixed up you even got the correct answer. Except that for a climate change denier the right answer isn’t the same as the correct answer. The right answer is what you want it to be not what the calculations tell you it is.
So, instead you’ve resorted to what you often dismiss as “an appeal to authority”. Actually that’s usually not a bad thing to do. For instance I have absolutely no idea how genomes, DNA, genes etc all work in the way they do. But I do accept that conventional and mainstream science is on the right track.
OK. If that’s what you want to do on solar effects and temperature, you may want to read these procedings of the Royal Society:
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2007/Lockwood_PRSA1.pdf
“However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.”
PeterM
Re my #2603, you’ve done it again (believe it or not)!.
This time in #69 to Maurizio on the “Bloggers’ submission” thread:
Ouch!
Max
PeterM
Thanks for Royal Society link. Have already read that, but it is interesting.
Did you read the Landscheidt paper?
Also interesting.
Did you read the many studies from solar scientists, which I cited, which concluded on average that around half of the observed 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years)?
Also interesting.
Have you seen any studies invalidating these many solar studies?
Neither have I.
Max
PeterM
BTW, the Lockwood et al. study you cited (2604) concludes:
This checks very closely with the conclusion reached by the many papers I cited, namely that early 20th century warming (to about 1970) was primarily caused by the unusual high level of solar activity, whereas after around 1970 (Lockwood et al. put it at “after 1985”) the warming was caused principally by other factors, with the average over the entire 20th century being around one half attributable to solar effects.
It all makes sense to me, Peter.
Max
Max,
You write on the topic of “AGW as a ‘political’ clash between those representing the ‘scientific consensus’ on one hand and politically motivated ‘right-wing nutters on the other, who have no real interest in the ‘science’ “.
Almost right. Except that there is still a cynical campaign by the mining and fossil fuel industry to put their short term benefits and profits first. Profits, and the well being of their companies, to these guys are everything. To their way of thinking, they are probably acting quite rationally in spending a bit of money to discredit unwelcome scientific findings..
PeterM
I have written that you apparently see the AGW debate as
I then go on to say that this position is “irrational”, making rational debate on the “science” difficult:
You now appear (2608) to be confirming that this is your view, with the add-on:
Since I have nothing to do with the “mining and fossil fuel industry”, I guess I am just
in your opinion.
Do I have that right?
Please clarify.
Max
PeterM
Not to change the subject too drastically, but (as someone living in the Southern Hemisphere) I thought I’d pass on this good news to you, which is all based on empirical data from actual physical observations. No model “mumbo-jumbo”, Peter.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm
The study shows all the temperature data from various sources, broken down by latitudes, and here is the conclusion:
So you (and Bob_FJ), in Australia don’t have to worry.
TonyB in the UK and I in Switzerland will see a bit of welcome warming. Bring it on, baby!
Sorry, Brute, you are just about at the cusp, where there hasn’t been much change; you’ll have to continue to endure hot, sticky DC summers and cold, sleety winters.
The polar bears have seen significant warming, but not quite as much as they endured back in the 1930s/1940s, when their population was about one-fifth of today’s population.
The penguins have seen slight cooling, but nothing for them to worry about. What’s a tenth of a degree more or less at minus 50 degrees?
Best of all, the folks in the tropics (where it is warm enough already) have not seen any warming.
The empirical data apparently show that CO2 only causes warming at higher northern latitudes.
Thought you would be happy to hear this good news, Peter.
Max
max (2610): here I was in Feb 2008 establishing by way of rank analysis that warming has been a mostly hemispheric phenomenon. Not bad, uh. ;-)
Maurizio
Looks like you pegged it very closely (of course, Peter will not agree – those S. Hemisphere thermometers must be wrong).
Max
Hey Max,
Looks like global warming is creating havoc a little early this year in the US. The searing heat is causing white out conditions and massive snow drifts exactly as the Warmist Nuts prophesized. Looks like Peter and Al Gore will have to wait another year to claim the demize of the planet due to fossil fuels and “greedy” coal miners. Global Warming seems to be impacting everywhere except North America. The snow falling is just an illusion………….the models are correct.
Nov. 20, 2010 5:15 pm ET
Snow and wind expands across the West Sunday as arctic air spills southward into the Northwest.
While only fairly light snow showers across Washington and Oregon, heavy snow from the mountains of California to the northern and central Rockies will add 1-to-2-foot accumulations. Snow levels along the West Coast will range from near sea level in western Washington to between 1500 and 2000 feet in southern Oregon and northern California and between 3500 feet and 4500 feet in Southern California. Across the interior West, snow levels will be to the valley floors as far south as northern and central Utah.
Ridge top wind gusts of 65 to 100 mph will cause white-out conditions and huge drifts in the Sierra and Wasatch as blizzard conditions develop in Colorado’s San Juan Mountains.
Temperatures will be 5 to 35 degrees below average across the Northwest, 5 to 15 degrees below average across California, Nevada, Utah and Arizona. Lows will be below zero in parts of Montana. Highs will range from the single digits and teens in Montana.
The snow and cold continue across much of the West Monday.
Hi Brute
Sorry to hear about the “severe weather events” you are experiencing due to “anthropogenic climate change”.
Must be the “tipping points” caused by “dangerous level“ of CO2 (from the coal “death trains”), which has resulted in “irreversible deleterious effects” on your climate, as James E. Hansen has warned us all. Looks like Peter was right, after all.
Pardon me for saying it so bluntly, Brute, but I think that it’s only fitting that the USA, the largest “CO2 polluter” (when you include the indirect pollution occurring in China to produce products for export to Wal-Mart, Target, etc.) is the first to suffer these dire consequences. Gaia’s revenge, one might say…
Max
Max #2614
If we’re going to hold the USA responsible for the pollution created in China by the manufacture of products sold in the USA, shouldn’t we also hold Africa responsible for the pollution created in the West making all the stuff we’ve sold them over the years? Shouldn’t they be compensating us?
(Not to mention the pollution created by the Swiss banks who financed the whole business)
I should get into the “defense of the planet” business……..Although philosophically, I’m againest greed and corruption.
Shafting dupes like Peter Martin evidently is quite lucrative………but on the other hand, the cost of shuttling Al Gore’s ponderous girth around the planet in a private jet to bloviate to audiences wringing their hands out of concern for polar bears can get expensive…………..
Sierra Club, EDF, and NRDC’s big money
Environmentalists don’t expect ‘Boehner bump’ – Darren Samuelsohn – POLITICO.com
The sour economy, an exhausted donor base after this year’s climate bill debacle and leaders distracted by other big issues during the next two years undercut the conventional wisdom that a resurgent cast of environmental enemies equals more dough for the activists fighting them.
..
The Sierra Club experienced what Bosso calls a “Gingrich bump” from 1994 to 1996, with revenue jumping from $38.5 million to $46.6 million, according to records he maintains using tax returns and annual reports. The amount kept growing during the Bush years, reaching more than $80 million by 2003.
The Environmental Defense Fund’s coffers also grew during that three-year period, from $21.2 million to $27 million. By 2007, with Democrats pushing for climate legislation in the House and Senate, EDF took in almost $95 million in revenue.
Like other groups battling Republicans, the Natural Resources Defense Council saw its budget grow from less than $17 million in fiscal 1991 to almost $56 million a decade later, at the start of the Bush administration. With the global warming bill beginning to move, NRDC saw its donations reach $75 million by 2007.
Brute
There are some problems with becoming a “defender of the planet” (BTW, I also briefly considered this career until Mrs. Max told me to “get a job, Dummkopf”).
First of all, the field is already over-represented, with politicians (e.g. Gore), climatologists (Hansen), money shufflers (Soros), corporate CEOs (Immelt), “science” journalists (Monbiot), green activists (EDF’s Krupp), and a host of others already elbowing their way up to the multi-billion dollar tax-payer funded trough.
Then there is the problem that it appears there will be no trillion dollar mandatory global carbon tax boondoggle to really jump-start this whole gravy train, as the voting populace around the (democratic) world begins to see what it is really all about, shenanigans of IPCC and several climate scientists are being exposed and an increasing number of scientists, engineers and other technically savvy individuals begin to openly question the validity of the scientific foundation in scientific papers, the press and the blogosphere.
The final problem, as I see it, is that there is no ROI in “shafting dupes like Peter” (as you put it). These individuals are not tossing any cash into the kitty by making voluntary carbon tax contributions as indulgences for their carbon footprint transgressions. They are fighting the noble battle with words, not with cash. And, as we both know, words are cheap.
Max
geoffchambers
Your point 2615 is well taken, but there are some practical problems.
The biggest is that “holding the USA responsible for the pollution created in China by the manufacture of products sold in the USA” could be a carbon tax revenue generator (despite its $13.8 trillion public debt, there is still a considerable amount of money to be squeezed out there).
The annual GDP (PPP adjusted) is $14.6 trillion, with a population of 310 million, or an annual per capita GDP of around $47,000.
Africa is a different story – all the squeezing in the world will not generate much revenue.
Africa, on the whole, has a population of 1,030 million and an annual GDP (PPP) of $2.2 trillion, for an average per capita GDP of around $2,100.
The 10 “wealthiest” (or “least impoverished”?) nations in Africa have a combined population of around 72 million and an annual GDP of $1.8 trillion, for an average per capita GDP of around $4,000.
This leaves 43 African nations with a combined population of 960 million and an annual GDP of $0.56 trillion, for an average per capita GDP of around $580.
So much for the “economics” – how about the “politics”?
Africans nations have a total of 53 votes in the UN General Assembly (1 per nation), while the USA has only 1 vote.
Yeah, but there are more Africans, and the vote should be “democratically spread”, you might object.
OK. USA citizens get 1 General Assembly vote per 310 million inhabitants. Africans get 53 GA votes for 1,030 million or 1 vote per 19 million inhabitants.
Ouch!
Max
(PS As a Swiss, I shouldn’t complain about the per capita GA votes. We have one vote for around 7.6 million inhabitants.)
Max #2618
Wow! Swiss pocket diaries must be like Swiss pocketknives. How do you cram so much in there?
You do take my point though, that the argument that the moral carbon burden should be spread around is absurd, since it can be taken logically to any lengths you like.
Similarly, the guy who reduces his carbon footprint to zero by living entirely on locally grown turnips is wasting his time if all it does is make the farmer rich enough to buy a 4X4 and holiday in the Seychelles.
geoffchambers
Actually I just pulled all that stuff off of Wiki (Peter’s favorite source of info), but your point is well taken.
Max
PS The turnip farmer better take his Seychelles holiday soon – IPCC tells me they’ll soon be under water (due to Brute’s carbon footprint?)
Max
I fear that Switzerland has now caught AGW madness
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/21/swiss-academy-of-sciences-swiss-academy-of-sciences-skepticism-is-scientific-unless-it-comes-from-climate-skeptics/
I was thoroughly amused to read about sceptics ‘selective use of science’ having just been on a warmist web site (where censorship would do credit to North Korea).
Here I used in context, and verbatim, material to demonstrate that Chapter 5 of AR4 (sea levels) demonstrates the uncertainty and contradictions of official science on this subject.
This was received with howls of protest; What were these controversial sources contradicting the status quo? WUWT? Climate Audit? Co2 Science?
No. The IPCC (many times), Nasa, Noaa, Wikipedia, Dr Jeff Masters, University of Colorado, Proudman, Jerry Mitrovica, Grinsted, Moberg, Professor Brian Fagan and William Connelley. So now you know, all the above are apparently sceptics.
Obviously selectivity isn’t just restricted to some sceptics.
tonyb
tonyb (2621): Which warmist website are you talking about? They all more or less use Pyongyang as their human rights teaching point.
Good news for Everyone-especially Peter
We are now back to the value of temperatures in the 1730’s. The bad news? This was followed by further periods of intense cold.
The latest CET figures (the oldest dataset in the world) shows a curious thing-that, as claimed, temperatures have been plummeting over the past few years. (h/t Roger)
This from the 1772 CET record (the preferred measure of Hadley) shows anomalies up to this month;
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
However we also have the much older CET records (also maintained by Hadley but curiously underused) which enables us to take a further step back in time to 1660.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/m2_1.htm
My long post citing contemporary evidence of our changing climate throughout the instrumental record is at 5.08 here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/22/missing-the-big-picture-on-co2/#more-28156
tonyb
Brute (2613)
So the arctic is still bloody cold, then? I could have sworn it was supposed to be warming up…
Geoff (2619)
The guy with the turnips will be all right if he trades at a suitable profit, although how that is supposed to save the planet is harder to fathom. You just know it’s a scam if a bank is involved…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9212000/9212389.stm