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.
Peter
Please see and READ all of above.We are talking about HISTORIC records and you still haven’t answered why the very long history of them have been airbrushed.
As you dont want to answer that it would be best to move on to one of the global temperatures-sea or land. Both are equally amusing
tonyb
Bishop Hill has posted a comment to a recent interview of Mike Hulme by Eric Paglia on Think Globally Radio entitled “The state of the climate debate a year after Climategate and Copenhagen”.
The Mike Hulme interview was quite revealing and is worth hearing.
http://www.thinkgloballyradio.org/
Although Hulme has not backed down as far as supporting the “mainstream view” on AGW, he has apparently had a serious wake-up call. This has come partly from the “reality check” of Climategate and later revelations (although he maintains that “claims of fraudulent science were largely dispelled”). The failure of Copenhagen also played a role. But he points to the encounter with climate “activists” who berated him for expressing uncertainties relating to the scientific evidence with “you’re not making our life any easier” as the key turning point for him.
Interesting is his call for “fragmented” solutions (rather than the top-down UN approach with global carbon caps and taxes), which would include, for example, working on eliminating black soot (relatively easy to do) rather than concentrating on CO2 reduction (which he described as the “hardest part”, which only represents “45% of the problem”). This appears to be a major shift from the prevalent view on climate change policy.
Then, to climate science itself, Hulme agrees that it has had a “health check”, and that people are paying more attention to the data. As a result, he agrees that, in order to regain public trust, a re-analysis of the temperature data is required in order to answer the question “is it robust?”, more transparency is required across the board as is the open recognition and expression by scientists of the many uncertainties in the science.
As far as IPCC is concerned, Hulme states that its process misused science and that it has been shown not to be infallible. He does not see that another IPCC assessment report will make life any easier for policymakers, since it will only increase the level of uncertainty regarding the science and the projections.
But I think his statement: “If we hold science up as more authoritative than it is we are doing a disservice to science”, is revealing of just how profound his wake-up call really was.
Max
There is a graph near the bottom of the page on this link (Observed variations of CO2 in the atmosphere.) which shows just how variable CO2 levels can be even in areas which are well away from human influences.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
The problem for 19th century scientists wasn’t just the accuracy of their chemical analytical methods but the problem of obtaining air samples which were truly mixed and unaffected by both sources and sinks, natural and anthropogenic, of CO2.
TonyB
To your 2923 addressed to PeterM
Peter likes “late 20th century science” (the ice core data) better than “early 20th century and 19th century science” (the many CO2 analyses).
But even better is “21st century science”!
This “latest science” has shown us
– that the atmosphere at the surface and in the troposphere has cooled since the 21st century started
– that the upper ocean has also cooled since accurate Argo measurements were installed in 2003
In other words, our planet has inexplicably cooled overall (Trenberth’s “travesty”), with the atmosphere cooling by around 0.1C per decade.
But wait!
IPCC had predicted that it should warm by 0.2C per decade due to AGW.
And human CO2 emissions have been continuing over this decade as usual with record levels of atmospheric CO2 being reached.
The MetOffice tells us that natural variability (= natural climate forcing) has overwhelmed the GH effect of all that CO2.
But hold on!
IPCC has told us that natural forcing has had a negligible impact on our climate from 1750 to 2000, and that essentially all the changes we have seen since 1750 have come from anthropogenic forcing (largely CO2).
Ouch!
Something is fishy here.
The latest “21st century scientific data” are telling us in no uncertain terms that natural forcing is far greater than AGW.
This directly refutes the hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming or that it represents a serious potential threat for humanity (the “dangerous AGW premise”).
Oops!
How do we get out of that one?
Peter’s approach: by ignoring it (very simple)!
Max
Peter 2928
“The problem for 19th century scientists wasn’t just the accuracy of their chemical analytical methods but the problem of obtaining air samples which were truly mixed and unaffected by both sources and sinks, natural and anthropogenic, of CO2.”
But they knew this Peter. They had handbooks to tell them how to take measurements. They were aware for example that when taking measurements in Factories (to comply with the Factories Act) that they had to take into account co2 from the gas lighting. These measurements were fully described in various books which I have quoted here before. I even got one of them out from the Library dated around 1870 called Air and Water.
Tonyb
Max ~2929
My 2923. To the list of countries that have been cooling can be added Germany
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/18/how-germanys-weather-team-views-the-hottest-year-ever/#more-29647
I would be greatful for your advice as to how all these countries can be cooling when Co2 is rising so dangerously? I am perplexed. Perhaps Peter knows? Do you think he will tell us?
Tonyb
TonyB
I’m perplexed as well by the cooling that is occurring despite all that new CO2 in the atmosphere.
But as far as Germany is concerned, “Bundeskanzlerin” Merkel vowed to the world that she would hold global warming to below 2C, so maybe this pledge by a very powerful lady is now beginning to bear fruit; it certainly shows that (painful is this might be) Germany is “doing its part”.
We didn’t have a top politician who made solemn pledges to the world (and our past Minister of Environment and Transportation has been replaced by a more moderate individual), but we’re also “doing our part” to stop global warming in its tracks – as evidenced by the very cold weather we’re having in Switzerland.
Political will is a strong driving force.
Max
PS
Two of those airplanes grounded at Berlin (on WUWT) were Swiss – so we are doing our part by reducing emissions from air traffic, as well.
Every little bit helps, Tony.
What are you guys in the UK doing?
Max
We are doing our bit as well. My son is currently stuck in a blizzard near that little known rural lane-the M25-just North of that remote cold spot-London.
The traffic has been stationary for four hours so to conserve fuel they have switched their engines off thereby reducing carbon emissions which hopefully will cause yet more warming and thereby thaw out the snow drifts. (Cunning eh?)
I am sure Peter will be glad to tell us how so many places can be cooling (see my earlier email) when Co2 is at record highs.
It couldn’t be anything to do with Co2 being not quite the ferocious driver he believes it to be, could it?
Tonyb
If the global temperature is wrong then CO2 doesn`t matter does it.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/vincentgray-scam-2008.pdf
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/UHICities.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/peters27.gif
http://www.batgung.com/climate-change-urban-heat-island-hong-kong
0.05C per century looks a bit odd.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/UHICities.jpg
If only that insignificant amount has been removed from the global temps it means that the majority of the uhi warming is still within the global mean, above.
Perhaps someone can show me a city/rural station pair anywhere in the world that hasn`t a significant UHI signal.
TonyB,
You say “So the modern ice records are being used to validate something-Callendar and Keelings records- that are demonstrably incorrect, as I have shown you a number of times.”
Do you think the leading lights of the scientific world know this? And that they are sticking to their story even thought they know it is wrong?
Why would they do this, do you think?
Max,
On your point about 21st century climate: We are just ending the first decade of the 21st century.
How does that the average temperature of this decade compare with the last decade of the 20th century? How does it compare with other decades?
I take it, from what you are saying, it must be one of the coolest decades since measurements began? Oh well. Maybe you’d better let the IPCC know.
I suppose all you NH residents will be finding it difficult to get your heads around the concept of AGW now that you’re in your mid-Winter. Brute usually chips in with a posting about now to tell us how cold it is in his backyard and it certainly does seem cold in UK and European backyards at the moment.
I’m reminded of the plot of “Day after Tomorrow”, when AGW actually triggered off a new ice age. There is absolutely no justification to suggest that anything like that may happen. It must rate as one of the most scientifically inaccurate movies ever, but is there any reason to believe that, ironically, the melting of Arctic ice can actually cause colder winters in Europe?
Well its possible that this is exactly what is happening. Colder winters can still happen in a warming world. But to use that awful phrase the “jury is still out on the question”.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/
PeterM
Enjoy your nice Queensland summer, but while you’re at it, have a little pity for the poor people living in frigid Europe and North America.
We can live with the fact that warm spells and heat waves are defined as “climate”, while unusually cold spells are only “weather”. We just haven’t been blessed with any of the former and are getting an inordinate (if not “unusual” – or even “unprecedented”) amount of the latter.
But you are right. When you are freezing your rear end off while shoveling meters of snow it does make it very “difficult to get your heads around the concept of AGW”.
Makes the whole thing sound sort of like a fairy tale or a Santa Claus story.
Max
PeterM
You have asked about 21st century climate.
The remarkable thing that has happened is that the temperature of the atmosphere (surface as well as troposphere) and (at the same time) the upper ocean has cooled (i.e. lost heat), despite continued human CO2 emissions and increase of atmospheric CO2 to record levels.
Loss of heat means that something unexplainable beside AGW is happening (Trenberth’s “travesty”), which is much more powerful than the theoretical warming impact from AGW. Met Office calls it “natural variability” (or natural climate forcing), and I’d agree that this sounds like a logical explanation. Wouldn’t you?
Or do you think we’ve had a massive reduction in atmospheric CO2?
Think about it.
Since you are a physicist, I don’t think I need to explain to you the concept of heat (or energy) loss and reduction of temperature (i.e. cooling), but that is what this is all about.
It has nothing to do with being “one of the coolest decades since measurements began” (as you put it), simply with the observed fact that our planet is cooling (i.e. losing energy).
And it shouldn’t be, according to your “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
A dilemma.
Max
Peter
You reply to me;
You say “So the modern ice records are being used to validate something-Callendar and Keelings records- that are demonstrably incorrect, as I have shown you a number of times.”
Do you think the leading lights of the scientific world know this? And that they are sticking to their story even thought they know it is wrong?
Why would they do this, do you think?”
Well you tell me why you think the work of an amateur (that you are always scornful of) in this case Callendar, taken up by a complete novice (Keeling) the first of which subsequently doubted has own theory, the second of which admitted the old records were better than he had believed as a youth, should be accepted when they were demonstrably cherry picked from the very same 19th Century data base you are scornful of?
Also you can tell me how the novice Keeling was able to do in a few months what had eluded the worlds greatest scientists for 120 years?
That was the question Peter-Why was it airbrushed out? You have been squirming through this 5 day marathon on the subject. You have no answer., My suggestion of an independent audit of the measurements is surely reasonable.
Now how about moving on to Global temperatures- of the Land or sea type.
To help you I have repeated my earlier post pointing out the hundreds of places worldwide that have been cooling despite the constant assertions of the IPCC that the globe is warming, except for one or two very isolated places.
Look at the evidence instead of reading the IPCC reports Peter.
Helpful repeats of my earlier post on cooling;
“Curiously they (temperatures) aren’t soaring in Britain; Temperatures are lower now than in the 1730’s
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
They aren’t soaring in the US either -The 1895 start date used here was during the cold period that commenced 1880-just the time GISS started, curiously missing out on the warmer decades immediately prior to this(as I have written about before in several articles)
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/contiguous-us-temp.gif
This for Germany;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/18/how-germanys-weather-team-views-the-hottest-year-ever/#more-29647
There are lots of places cooling all around the world.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
I find it a bit surprising as to how that can happen when Co2 is apparently a global problem causing a global warming. Could it be the figures aren’t correct? Surely not?
I would be greatful for your advice “
Breaking news-on the BBC
Chief Scientist of UK has been asked by British Govt to re look at climate models bearing in mind the successive cold winters.
A Chink of light or merely the excuse to blame global warming for the global cooling?
Tonyb
TonyB,
Goodness me! You don’t think there might have been a conspiracy to hide the truth over the historical CO2 record do you?
Peter 2943.
I can only look at the actual evidence that is obviously hidden in plain view to those who wear glasses heavily tinted with green
Tonyb
tonyb says:
December 19th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Peter
You reply to me;
You say “So the modern ice records are being used to validate something-Callendar and Keelings records- that are demonstrably incorrect, as I have shown you a number of times.”
Do you think the leading lights of the scientific world know this? And that they are sticking to their story even though they know it is wrong?
Why would they do this, do you think?”
Why would they indeed, see below, it`s only a short clip, let it run and turn volume up, you are wrong, experiment is ill-conceived.
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=cosmicrays.mp4
Do you think this data is wrong, or do ice cores only accurately measure CO2.
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=greenlandicecoretemps.mp4
Bob Clive
Two very interesting clips.
Earlier I had written;
“They (temperatures) aren’t soaring in the US either -The 1895 start date used here was during the cold period that commenced 1880-just the time GISS started, curiously missing out on the warmer decades immediately prior to this(as I have written about before in several articles)”
As you can see I have written a number of times about the extraordinary coincidence that James Hansens Giss figures started just as the temperature turned down following much warmer decades. He is therefore measuring from a trough.
Temperatures have been very slowly warming since 1650 or so-with numerous reverses-and Hansen plugs into the end of it-his records do not mark the beginning.
For reasons best known to him he started his records at a very illogical time. If he wanted to get the hemispherical coverage he required he should have started in 1910 or so, not 1880.
Perhaps others here might want to conjecture why he did that? Having seen the activist he has become I am afraid I view his reasons with an increasingly jaundiced eye.
tonyb.
Bobclive
The two video clips you posted (2945) are both quite interesting, and I hope that PeterM has taken the time to watch them.
The first (Henrik Svensmark on the cosmic ray/cloud connection) shows how some staunch AGW supporters appear to fear physical experiments that could threaten their hypothesis. When it gets to this point, it’s no longer “science” – it’s pure “dogma”. [Incidentally one of the “climate insiders”, Dr. Judith Curry, has made this point recently, as well.]
As far as Svensmark’s hypothesis is concerned, it will be interesting to see what results come out of the CLOUD experiment at CERN.
The second clip points out what most scientists (except the “Mann hockey team”) have known for years (and TonyB has stressed on this thread): a) we have had past global climate fluctuations that were much more pronounced than the current warming and b) we started the “modern record” (around 1875) at what could well have been the coldest point in 10,000 years. [The large “uncertainty” of past temperature records is another point recognized and mentioned by Curry.]
So a part of the “mainstream” is slowly starting to recognize the flaws in the IPCC claims, although some “hard-liners” (like the scientist who attacked Svensmark verbally in the first clip) are dogmatically sticking with their story.
Max
TonyB
This might interest you.
A recent post by blogger Eric Ollivet on Judith Curry’s blogsite
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/18/climate-model-verification-and-validation-part-ii/
points out how poorly the climate models have actually done in projecting past climate changes (despite IPCC claims to the contrary in AR4 WG1 Ch.8 FAQ 8.1, pp.600/601). Here is the post in its entirety:
My Comments
1910-1944 warming period (Delworth + Knutson) showed linear warming of 0.53°C over the 35 years (linear trend of 0.15°C per decade)
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2000/td0002.pdf
Mean of climate models was 0.06°C per decade or 0.21°C over the 35-year period.
The actual warming was 2.5 times what the models predicted (confirming what Eric Ollivet stated in his post).
Post 2000 the models projected warming at 0.2°C per decade
2001-2010 actual shows slight cooling of 0.07°C per decade
The above examples show that the models clearly need verification and validation, and I hope Dr. Curry’s new thread will either provide this or confirm what blogger Olliver has concluded, namely that the models are unable to project climate changes.
Max
Are early sunspot counts unreliable and does size matter.
It appears not to matter whether small sunspots are counted, what appears to be important is that the absent of large sunspots in the Maunder minimum coincided with a very cold period in history, similarly in the Dalton minimum there was also lower sunspot activity but this was viewed through a far superior telescope and smaller sunspots would have been counted, this higher count still coincided with a very cold prolonged period.
It does not matter whether the science is fully understood, the link is there and it appears to be solid, a lack of LARGE sunspots ie Maunda min = a cold climate, see link below
and read concluding comments which show counts were very accurate.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g621x2918n7l05q6/fulltext.pdf
The modern count, as are global temps, biased upwards, in this case by using better equipment.
Framsteeds telescope,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Flamsteed.jpg
Galileo and Newtons telescope,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
This is the telescope that is compared to the modern telescope, it is supposedly used as a reference according to Leif, bit bigger than Newton`s, yes.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/telescope1850-1852.jpg
Modern telescope,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/McMath-pierce.jpg
Low solar activity link to cold UK winters (14 April 2010 00:33 UK).
Recent studies suggest that when solar activity is low, “blocking” events move eastwards from above north-eastern North America towards Europe, and become more stable.
A prolonged “blocking” during the most recent winter was responsible for the long spell of freezing conditions that gripped Europe.
Written observations from the period of the Maunder Minimum referred to the wind coming from the east during particularly cold winters, which strengthened the team’s “blocking” hypothesis.
The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun.
So THE SIGH, low large sunspot numbers ( if you want to compare with the maunda), THE CAUSE ( according to Peterson), solar activity linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun, maybe.
It appears Peterson supports the the sun climate link, but not cosmic rays.
But the bottom line is when the sun is dormant it gets cold and the lack of large sunspots tells us it is going to happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm
I meant to say,
The SIGN, low numbers of large sunspots( if you want to compare with the maunda), THE CAUSE ( according to Peterson), solar activity linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun, maybe.
It appears Peterson supports the the sun climate link, but not cosmic rays.
But the bottom line is when the sun is dormant it gets cold and the lack of large sunspots tells us it is going to happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm