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.
TonyB
The analysis you cited (2623) for CET confirms the rather obvious conclusion that in a cyclical record resembling a sine curve, trends taken over shorter time periods can be chosen, which will show greater rates of acceleration than those over longer time periods (really pretty obvious when you look at a sine curve).
You will recall that IPCC used this obvious statistical fact in its AR4 “smoke and mirrors” attempt to show alarming acceleration in global warming over recent years.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f_o.jpg
“E pluribus unum”.
This laughable example is just one of many misleading or outright false attempts by IPCC in its AR4 WG1 report to show “alarming AGW” (when, in fact, there is none).
Max
TonyB
A riddle:
Why did IPCC choose the year 1750 as the start of its “pre-industrial” period, rather than, for example 1730?
Hint:
Look at the CET chart you posted for a hint.
Max
PS [Answer: because if they had started in 1730 there would have been essentially no warming to 2005, and the whole “anthropogenic radiative forcing” gobbledygook would have looked totally different.]
Max 2627
I’m shocked Max, I’m sure its pure coincidence that the global record starts when it did. Are you saying they wanted to ignore the previous warming periods as evidenced by instrumental temperature records?
AS you know, if you can go back far enough you can see these cycles start to recurr
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg
As you note we have a nice sine wave which has the characterisics you observe. This from my article with Verity Jones;
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Various stations are at different stages of their cycles which is why a great number have been cooling for at least thirty years-a statistically meaningful trend and Global warming is a complete misnomer because it isn’t!
Still I’m sure Peter will be pleased that we’ve regressed to a period in the middle of the LIA.
Tonyb
Jmaes P,
Yep, curious thing that…….Hmmmmmm, and I’ve noticed that the “dangerous C02” levels keep rising.
Max,
Your reference showing the Northern Hemisphere , and particularly Arctic temperatures rising sharply isn’t too bad by your usual standards. Although I’m not sure how this is consistent with your previous arguments that the Arctic isn’t warming at all and sea ice is increasing. But hey, sorry I keep forgetting, you are a denier so you don’t have to be consistent! Why would you?
Yes, the Northern Hemishere will warm quicker – it has a much higher ratio of land to water than the Southern Hemisphere. The Arctic is a shallow sea so doesn’t have the thermally stabilising effect of a large mass of water as is found in the Southern Oceans. Furthermore, as snow and ice melts in the Arctic the surface albedo falls too, meaning that solar energy is then absorbed rather than reflected. This is a simple to understand positive feedback effect.
This doesn’t mean that the Arctic will always show a higher degree of warming that the rest of the Earth. It is just happening quicker there.
Aw shucks!
The local press tells us that Switzerland will miss its Kyoto goal to reduce CO2 to 8% below 1990 values by 2012.
Switzerland represents 0.17% of global human CO2 emissions, and the proposed (but not attained) reduction would have represented 0.013% of global emissions. Obviously, a major global worry.
However, there is a “silver lining” to this “dark cloud”. The reason is that the economy is picking up (GDP is projected to be up 2.7% in 2010, instead of down by the same amount, as was projected).
And there is more (local) good news: The (very green) past Minister of Environment and Transportation has been replaced by a more moderate member of the 7-member federal executive committee (“Bundesrat”). Maybe we won’t make any more silly promises in the future. Besides, it’s a lady, and (as we know) a real “lady” never says “yes” – just “maybe” (no male chauvinism intended).
Max
PeterM
You are right (2630). What the data showed (2610) was that Arctic temperatures have risen recently while those at other latitudes have not shown much warming (if any at all). A rational skeptic might ask about the coverage density and accuracy of the Arctic surface temperature data, in order to see if there is a spurious signal here, which is less apparent elsewhere (but that is another question).
I cannot recall ever having said that “the Arctic isn’t warming at all”, only that this warming is not “unusual” (since it warmed just as much and just as rapidly in the 1930s and 1940s, before starting a cooling cycle, which ended in the mid to late 1970s, when the modern satellite record on sea ice started).
You say “the Northern Hemisphere will warm quicker”. I’d say that this statement is inherently false, since you (or anyone else) has no earthly notion on what the Northern Hemisphere “will” do in the future.
You could say “the Northern Hemisphere (particularly at higher latitudes) has warmed more rapidly” (a true statement).
Or you could say “climate models estimate that the Northern Hemisphere is likely to warm more rapidly” (a speculation based on theoretical deliberations made by climate models).
Either one would be OK – but your statement is not.
The sea ice extent has shrunk in the Arctic and grown in the Antarctic (since measurements started in 1979). It is known from Russian studies that it also shrank in the 1930s and 1940s, during the observed warming cycle then.
It reached its low point (in the Arctic) in late summer 2007 and has recovered slightly since then, although the 30-year 1979-2010 trend is still one of shrinking.
All seems very indicative of a cyclical oscillation of both temperature and sea ice extent (no big surprise that the two are in “synch”, since the inter-seasonal oscillation of both parameters is far greater than the inter-annual one). It also seem to be linked to the same 30-year oscillations in the global temperature record.
You wrote:
“Always” is a mighty big word, Peter, and should be avoided. “Will” (future indicative) is out-of-place in science; should in this case be replaced with a more nuanced or uncertain “may” or “could likely”.
But I fail to see the point you are trying to make, except possibly attempting to show a purported lack of “consistency” in my viewpoint regarding the Arctic, which I fail to see.
But, then again, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote over 200 years ago
Max
The bad headlines (2631) in the Swiss press caused me to start worrying seriously.
OK. We saw that Switzerland’s total emission represents 0.17% of the global emission, and that the “missed” reduction would have represented 0.013% of global emissions.
But, before I start self-flagellating in guilt-driven remorse, I thought I’d see just how horrible the impact from this will be.
First I started by figuring out:
What would happen to global CO2 and resulting GH warming by 2100 if Switzerland just shut down completely?
0.17% of world CO2 emission is 51 million tons (0.051 Gt) CO2 per year
Over the next 90 years (to year 2100) that represents 4.6 Gt
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt
So Switzerland’s cumulative CO2 emission to year 2100 represents:
4.6 * 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 0.89 ppm(mass) or 0.59 ppmv
Today’s CO2 level (C1) is 390 ppmv
The 2100 level (C2) is estimated (including Switzerland) to be 560 ppmv
C2/C1 = 1.436
ln(C2/C1) = 0.362
2xCO2 = 2
ln(2) = 0.693
IPCC tells us that the 2xCO2 dT is 3.2°C (and that the CO2/temperature relationship is logarithmic)
So by 2100 we should have warming (including Switzerland’s cumulated emissions – with no reduction) of:
3.2 * 0.362 / 0.693 = 1.670°C (obviously a real disaster!)
But what if we “shut down” Switzerland?
The CO2 level by 2100 would then be 560 – 0.59 = 559.41 ppmv
Going through the same calculation as above we then arrive at warming by year 2100 of
1.665°C
So, by shutting down Switzerland, we reduce global warming by year 2100 by
1.670 – 1.665 = 0.005°C
And by not meeting our reduction goal we have increased global warming by year 2100 by
Less than 0.001°C.
Great! I can sleep again!
Max
PS You guys living in the UK may want to make a similar calculation, in order to be able to sleep more soundly. I figure your total CO2 emission is around 12 times that of Switzerland, so your planned reductions may actually reduce the 2100 temperature by as much as 0.01°C. And if you simply shut down your whole nation (except for the windmills) you might reduce global warming by 2100 by as much as 0.06°C.
Peter, Australian emissions are at about 2/3 of those of the UK, so if you shut down completely, you could reduce 2100 global warming by around 0.04°C.
Looks like we can all sleep well!
Max,
Since Switzerland missed the mark on CO2 emmissions the only “green” thing to do is for Switzerland to fork over 600 Trillion dollars to the United Nations as climate penance.
Switzerland must pay reparations to the world community for being so irresponsible.
Brute
Re 2634 on “climate penance”, I would have agreed (and even forked over my share of the penance), until I got out my pocket calculator and figured out Switzerland’s contribution to the impending disaster. We couldn’t change anything if we shut down completely (including all the fondue burners, ski lifts, raclette ovens, etc.)
The news is good for Peter, too. He can take off his hair shirt and stop lashing himself, because even if he shut down all of Australia (including Bob_FJ’s camping vehicle and his two high-energy-meat-eating dogs) this would not have a measurable effect on global warming.
We should all rejoice!
And, as far as paying a “guilt tax” is concerned, I believe this is a very good idea (although the UN might not be the best outfit to administer it – I’d think a better choice would be the Mafia).
But this tax should be fully voluntary. Those (like Peter) who feel “guilt” should be allowed to ease their remorse by paying this tax, while those who feel no “guilt” should obviously be exempted.
Max
Brute,
I’ve noticed that you have not responded to my 2485/Pg.17.
I’m rather surprised because I made a deeply thoughtful effort in that comment, with great emphasis towards sensitivity, that in outcome I hoped would have appealed to you.
However, there was one element in it that ever more since has left me fretful; namely my quote from the CIA “World Fact Book“:
According to the CIA “World Fact Book”, Australia has a population of:
21,515,754 (July 2010 est.)
However, although all around the world, everyone is deeply envious of the profound accuracy of CIA intelligence, I’m suspicious about their 21,515,754 number for Oz! For instance, is a one-legger human a whole human or maybe ¾? Is your great friend in Queensland (aka Tempterrain), perhaps only half human, given his almost complete absence of cognitive thinking? (as distinct from the general population)
Shouldn’t the number be accurate to at least one decimal point?
Distressed of Melbourne
The wasted efforts for infinitesimal changes in world temperature just for the sake of “sharing the burden” or worse, “leading by example” must be staggering. Perhaps we should stop talking in terms of billions, and start measuring national efforts at cutting carbon emissions in terms of degC/billion US$, i.e. the projected lack of warming that each billion dollar spent in emission reduction is likely to bring.
I suspect this would make Europe a leader in shame.
Maurizio
Your point (2637) on “wasted efforts for infinitesimal changes in world temperature” is spot on.
As a matter of fact, the politician’s “commitment” to a “X% reduction below year Y emission levels by year Z” is a totally worthless pipedream of wishful thinking and political hot air, since it is not tied to an “actionable proposal” (which could conceivably actually be implemented).
However, there have been such specific proposals.
We discussed one here last August (with bloggers Bob_FJ and Tempterrain or Peter Martin), so I’ll repeat my post on this topic.
In a recent NASA-GISS paper in Env. Sci. Tech., Hansen’s latest petard calls for the shutting down of all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030, in order to avoid catastrophic global warming caused by the emitted CO2.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Kharecha_etal.pdf
But wait!
The nuke builders would love this proposal, but what effect would this drastic step have on global warming?
The paper tells us that 1,994 billion kWh/year were generated from coal in 2009 and that the average CO2 emission is 1,000 tons CO2 per GWh generated.
So by 2030 Hansen’s plan would reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 2 GtCO2 per year.
Roughly half of this “stays” in the atmosphere (with the rest disappearing into the ocean, the biosphere or outer space) so the annual reduction after 2030 will be around 1 GtCO2/year and over the period from today to year 2100 the cumulative reduction would be 80.5 GtCO2.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
So the net reduction in atmospheric CO2 would be around 16 ppm(mass) or 10 ppmv.
If we assume (as IPCC does) that by year 2100 the atmospheric CO2 level (without Hansen’s plan) will be around twice the pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv or 560 ppmv, this means that with Hansen’s plan it will be 550 ppmv.
Today we have 390 ppmv.
Using IPCC’s (exaggerated) 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C we have:
Case 1 – no Hansen plan
560 ppmv CO2
ln(560/390) = 0.362
ln(2) = 0.693
dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.362 / 0.693 = 1.67C
Case 2 – Hansen plan implemented
550 ppmv CO2
ln(550/390) = 0.343
ln(2) = 0.693
dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.343 / 0.693 = 1.58C
So Hansen’s plan will result in a total reduction of global temperature by year 2100 of 0.09C.
But what will this non-measurable reduction of global temperature cost?
The capital cost investment to replace 1,994 billion kWh/year capacity with the least expensive alternate (current nuclear fission technology) is $1,500 per installed kW (a conservative estimate). [Note: If we replace it with wind or solar, it will cost several times this amount.]
1,994 billion kWh/year at a 95% on-line factor represents an installed capacity of:
1994 / 8760 * .95 = 0.247 billion kWh
This equals an investment cost of 0.247 * 1,500 = $371 billion
[Maurizio: to answer your question, $1 billion gets you 0.024C less warming (maybe) ]
So much for this hare-brained scheme.
Why do Hansen and his co-authors not run us through this calculation?
Max
Maurizio
Sorry there is a typo in 2638.
The answer to your question should read:
OR
Not much “bang” for a whole lot of “bucks”.
Max
I’m not certain what you’re asking of me Bob….according to Wikipedia:
Are you asking about the disparity in the number? If so, I’d say it was due to a shipment of defective Chinese condoms, a large oyster harvest, an electrical blackout or a full moon.
Or all of the above.
‘ey, mate – are you countin’ the kangaroos, too?
Brute,
Sorry Brute; the Wikipedia Oz population thingy that you quote is based on:
“Population clock”. Australian Bureau of Statistics website.
You cannot be seriously suggesting that this is superior to the worldwide awesomely respected intelligence of the CIA, such as contained in their “World Fact Book”?!!!! Sheez!
You also try to incriminate cheap Chinese condoms as a possible culprit for a suggested discrepancy in Oz population growth statistics. However, as I understand it, although Oz is ethnically very diverse, only less than 10% of the population can sensibly use Chinese condoms because they are simply too small for the average Oz crown jewels. (potential customers likely also place strong emphasis on quality and hopefully enforceable warrantee outcomes)
Bob,
Using “Cheap” & “Chinese” next to each other is redundant.
Looks like Peter and Al Gore were right……..the sea ice has all melted away…….except for 10 million square kilometers.
Brute
OK
10 million square kilometers (and growing, now that winter is coming).
25,000 polar bears (population also growing – possibly – according to WWF “scientists” and Al Gore – in a last “spurt” before extinction)
That figures out to 400 square km of ice per polar bear.
Bad news is, there’s only half that amount per bear in the late summer. No wonder they feel cramped.
Max
Damned greedy polar bears…….they need to share some of that ice with bipedal mammals….
Brute
You’re right about the greedy polar bears sharing all that ice with humans. But few humans are foolhardy enough to venture up there.
A year ago, TonyB’s neighbor, Pen Hadow, tried to demonstrate that the ice was getting thinner, but got iced in several hundred miles before his planned destination at the North Pole and had to be rescued with his party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/13/catlin-arctic-survey-ends
Even though he never got there to really measure it, this report from BBC News tells us that, before his rescue, he found that the ice was getting thinner.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7897392.stm
Hmmm… Who measured the thickness earlier, which Hadow couldn’t measure this time, before he arrived at the conclusion anyway that it was “thinner than expected”?
And, wait a minute – even though it was “more likely to totally melt this year”, it didn’t!
I’m sure the polar bears are chuckling…
Max
In-between seal recipes and advice on how to stay away from trigger-happy scientists, “Polar Bear News” recently reported the general disappointment in seeing Hadow’s party turning back so soon instead of making themselves available for a snack
max
Have you come across this excellent (non peer reviewed) study before?
http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist_temperature_reconstructions_2009.pdf
tonyb