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
Thanks for linking your paper on historical CO2 levels. I had read it earlier, but enjoyed re-reading it. Interesting are the comments. Here is a sample:
Let’s hope Peter reads the whole thing along with the comments and references, in order to broaden his view a bit with a few more data points than he has recognized so far.
Max
Max
Thanks for taking the time to reread the article and its attendant links and comments. Peter would be extremely arrogant to dismiss it all out of hand as ‘kookie’and therefore I am sure he will want to be considered and fair minded in his assessment. :)
I am intrigued as to how he will answer the sub question as to why he believes in global temperatures, but not the Co2 records, even though the former are demonstrably inaccurate whilst the latter aren’t.
Perhaps whilst we are waiting for Peter you would like to have a stab at why anyone should accept one data set so enthusiastically but reject the other?
I also look forweard to his replies on the other questions he was asked. He is probably at a loose end as he will not want to spend any time watching the cricket
Tonyb
Peter Geany said
“Now on WUWT some time ago was the first of the data from the satellite that was to measure CO2 emitters. I believe that someone leaked the data, as I have not seen hide nor hair of it since.”
Yes I saw the same piece but I havent come across any more information despite asking several people that might be expected to know.
Tonyb
TonyB
You accuse me of misrepresenting Beck by saying that he claimed CO2 levels in the 19th century were higher than they are now.
You may want to read what he says for yourself:
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
Energy & Environment Vol 18 No. 2 2007
There is no evidence that CO2 levels in the atmosphere can vary this rapidly. Present day scientific opinion is that the analytical readings which indicated such high levels are erroneous. Measuring the background CO2 level presents much greater levels of technical difficulty than the measurement of temperature – so it is not reasonable to equate the two. But naturally the uncertainty in 19th century measurements is greater than those taken later.
Peter said
You accuse me of misrepresenting Beck by saying that he claimed CO2 levels in the 19th century were higher than they are now.
You may want to read what he says for yourself:
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
Beck identified three high level maxima. He then discounted the readings as outliers. You are implying he said that levels were consistenly higher and he supported that assertion.
His graph displaying his findings was on my link but here is the original.
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
It shows 360ppm to 380 and with a large error margin of readings that he researched and discarded.
Pleae read the material.
Tonyb
TonyB,
Right. Lets take your figures of between “360 and 380″ ppmv for the level of atmospheric CO2 in the 19th Century. With another highpoint in the mid 1940’s which may, or may not, have been significant.
What does this mean? Currently, levels of CO2 are around 385ppmv. So, according to Beck, they are only slightly higher than normal, even though there has been large scale burning of fossil fuels, increasing at an exponential rate, for at least 100 years.
You think this is ‘essentially correct”? If that’s the case what’s the point in discussing whether elevated CO2 levels are responsible for the warming we have already had, as you clearly don’t think they are elevated anyway? According to Beck reducing CO2 emissions will make stuff all difference to CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
The choice is either accepting the results of modern science or 19th century science.
You can choose the latter if you like. Maybe Max would like to discuss it with you?
Peter
So it appears that you seriously believe that a complete rookie (Keeling) was able to achieve in a couple of months what many briliant minds had (apparently) failed to achieve in the preceding 120 years, which included over half of the twentieth century?
Perhaps you can explain as to how Keeling achieved this feat? Incidentally in his autobiography Keeling himself acknowledged that the Historic records were more accurate than he had believed at the time (when Callendar was promoting his pet theory to the young and gullible Keeling who needed a reference point as to what the readings shoud be, as he had no idea, having no knowledge of Co2 measurements)
There was a whole society built aroud CO2, a factories Act was passed, Patents obtained on analysers, numerous readings taken by eminent people and apparently they ALL got it completely wrong!
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here;
“According to Beck reducing CO2 emissions will make stuff all difference to CO2 atmospheric concentrations.”
I can’t ask Beck himself as he died of Cancer recently, so perhaps you can interpret?
Anyway you have missed the point, as my original question asked whether it was right for the IPCC to airbrush this vast amount of collective knowledge out of the story? Here it is again to prevent you having to go all round the houses trying distract everyone from the basic fact that you haven’t actually answered the question.
“Question 5 Why do the IPCC airbrush out of history tens of thousands of Co2 records and make no mention of them in official history by pretending Keeling was the first to measure them?”
Tonyb
PeterM
I believe the real issue here is not (as you wrote) comparing “19th century science” (which carries forward to the late 1940s, as TonyB has pointed out) with “modern science” (based on ice core stuff prior to 1958 and the Mauna Loa record since then).
It is simply including earlier analytical determinations of atmospheric CO2 within the uncertainty range of the record prior to 1958.
Since everyone knows that ice core data are inherently fraught with potential errors for a number of reasons whereas chemical gas analysis is a more reliable technique (especially for CO2), it would be wise to include these other data points.
Not including them is “cherry picking” (not a good thing, as I’m sure you will agree).
Now to the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 (since 1958) versus the human CO2 emissions over the same period, there are some striking observations:
On a year-by-year basis the amount of atmospheric increase varies between under 20% to over 90% of the amount emitted by humans, with an average over the years of somewhat over 50%. This tells us that something else is affecting atmospheric CO2 levels on a year-by-year basis beside simply the human emissions.
We also do not know “where” the missing 50% (on average) is “disappearing”. Recent studies by NASA show us that the amount going into the terrestrial biosphere is much higher than assumed previously (in other words, terrestrial plants are acting as a “negative feedback” at higher CO2 levels). “Where” the amount being absorbed by the oceans is going is another big unknown: is it being gobbled up by phytoplankton, who are then gobbled up by higher life forms, thereby acting as another “negative feedback”? Does it end up as calcium carbonate sinking to the ocean floor or is it disappearing forever as CO2 in the enormous alkaline sink of the deep ocean? Or is some of it being dissipated to space?
The Earth’s natural carbon cycle is so much greater than the relatively tiny amount of human emissions that these things are still very much unknown.
Over the longer-term paleo-climate record we observe that atmospheric CO2 increases several hundred years after temperature does and this makes sense from the standpoint of CO2 solubility in sea water. But there is still the question: “why is there a lag of several hundred years?”, which begs the next question: “are we now seeing increasing atmospheric CO2 as a result of warming that occurred several hundred years ago (e.g. MWP)?”
The point here is that we really do not know all there is to know a) about our planet’s natural carbon cycle and b) the direct human impact on it.
To claim otherwise is both ignorant and arrogant.
Max
Max and Peter
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/08_Beck-2.pdf
This is chapter and verse on how Keeling made his measurements. Certainly my own research shows that Callendar was highly selective and I remember posting all that some two years ago as I found information quite independently of Beck, who I hadn’t contacted at the time.
Tonyb
Max
I wonder if you have noted the sheer illigicality of Peters position.
He blithely quotes the 19th Century scientist Arrhenis, then cites the work of Callendar
and Keeling taken from exactly the same body of 19th century data that Beck used!
So 19th century science appears to be fine when HE quotes it but not when anyone else does!
Amazing!
tonyb
TonyB,
There is lot of good science from the 19th century and none of it is rejected, per se, just because it was done then. Otherwise we might both be looking for an alternative to Darwinian Evolution.
On the other hand, 19th century folk didn’t get everything right. Besides thinking that their atmosphere contained higher and much more varied levels of CO2 than we now know to be the case, they also thought, for example, that they lived on a shrinking Earth which in the process of shrivelling created various mountain ranges.
http://www.answers.com/topic/what-was-the-shrinking-earth-theory
Of course, as Alex Cull recently reminded us, Wegener came along in the 20th century with a better theory than the one they had.
19th century science is better than 18th century science but not as good as 20th or 21st century science, and if there is a conflict (usually there isn’t) you’d have to be a pretty strange sort of person to favour an older theory over a newer one.
Peter 2911
So your selection of 19th Century science is better than OUR selection, even though they come from exactly the same piece of cloth?
Did you read my 2909 describing how the choices were made?
tonyb
PeterM
You state:
No one is talking about choosing between a 19th or 21st century THEORY here, Peter.
TonyB is simply telling you that to throw out many CO2 readings from actual analyses taken over the 19th and 20th centuries (prior to 1958), simply because these data points do not confirm the favored hypothesis of constant natural CO2 levels prior to industrialization is CHERRY PICKING THE DATA TO MAKE THEM FIT THE HYPOTHESIS – something NO competent scientist of ANY CENTURY should do. That’s all.
They should be included in the overall data series, as a part of the “range of uncertainty”, rather than simply “airbrushed” away. That would be the scientifically correct thing to do.
But, go ahead and defend the CHERRY PICKING. It just weakens your whole argument.
Max
TonyB
As I wrote earlier, I have not studied the pre-1958 atmospheric CO2 record as you have, but I can appreciate the logic of your argument.
Callendar/Keeling had a hypothesis, namely that CO2 levels had remained constant over thousands of years at 280 ppmv prior to the Industrial Revolution.
So they accepted all the data points from analytical determinations, which confirmed their hypothesis, and rejected those that did not.
This is CHERRY-PICKING the data, which is BAD SCIENCE (by definition).
IPCC liked the looks of the Keeling curve (despite the fact that it was based on BAD SCIENCE), because it conveyed the message they wanted to “sell”.
The later ice core stuff gave them a good excuse for closing their eyes to “inconvenient” data points lying outside the linits of the favored hypothesis.
This was GOOD POLITICS and SALESMANSHIP.
Peter has difficulty with the nuanced logical thinking that is part of rational skepticism (as we have seen on this thread), preferring black and white dogmatic reasoning based on arguments from “authority”.
As a result, he is physically unable to grasp that eliminating data points that lie outside the favored hypothesis (in order to support it) is simply cherry-picking.
And that is the real issue here.
Max
PeterM
You are on thin ice when you try to use the Wegener example (2911) to support the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
It is an excellent example of how the “peer reviewed mainstream consensus” can be dead wrong (despite Prof. Cox’s silly assertion to the contrary – see other thread).
Max
PeterM
In 2914 I wrote (by error)
I should have written:
Sorry
Max,
You say the “peer reviewed mainstream consensus can be dead wrong (despite Prof. Cox’s silly assertion to the contrary ”
Did Prof Cox ever assert that the consensus was always right? Let’s take a look at what he actually said about it and the system of peer review:
“This is the method that has delivered the modern world. It’s good. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the current scientific consensus is of course correct, but it does in general mean that the consensus in the scientific literature is the best that can be done given the available data”.
So, yes, Prof Cox is saying that the consensus is possibly wrong about AGW. But, if it is, it is equally likely to be wrong in underestimating the scale of the problem as it is in overestimating it.
We can’t know for sure, but going with the consensus is the “the best that can be done given the available data”.
Does that make sense?
PeterM
You asked
It didn’t back in Wegener’s day, it didn’t back in Galileo’s day.
But let’s look if it “makes sense” today.
I have concluded, based on all the data I have been able to see out there, that the “mainstream consensus” on “dangerous AGW” is not supported by empirical scientific data from physical observations or reproducible experimentation, in other words the “mainstream consensus” is an uncorroborated hypothesis.
Then I have seen that temperature measurements show that our atmosphere has cooled both at the surface and in the troposphere over the past decade and that the upper ocean has also cooled since accurate measurements were installed in 2003, all this despite record increase in CO2 over the same time period. Unless these data can be refuted somehow, they represent a direct falsification of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
I have also seen that there are serious flaws in the claims made by IPCC in support of the “mainstream consensus” and in the “science” supporting the “dangerous AGW” notion.
As a result, I will remain rationally skeptical that the “mainstream consensus” today is any better than the failed “mainstream consensus” was during Wegener’s (or Galileo’s) day.
Does that answer your question?
Max
PeterM
If the consesus is good enough why is the Motto of the Royal Society ‘Nobodys world is final?’
You have failed to answer my original question as to why the IPCC should want to pretend an extremely well documented body of work carried out by top scientists overe 130 years should be ignored.
You also fail to answer why 19th century science is fine when you want to use cherry picked examples, but the main body of exactly the same information is wrong when I use it.
Lets just say you’re completely illogical and can’t answer my original query 5 and move on.
Why don’t you go on to one of the others-perhaps your justification of the absurd SST’s back to 1860 would be as amusing as has been your efforts over Co2.
Tonyb
TonyB,
“Nobody’s Word is Final” is a good motto. Newton who was an early President of the Royal Society had an almost supreme position in the 19th century Science. His word wasn’t considered to be final either. It was modified as new evidence became available.
Why have the 19th century CO2 readings been discarded? The simple answer is that they are considered unreliable and wrong. They are at variance with CO2 readings from ice cores taken in many parts of the World. One or other must be wrong.
So which one to believe? The modern ice core readings, which can be repeated, or the historical readings which can’t? Logic says we should go with the modern readings which can be repeated.
That’s not just my opinion BTW. It’s the position of modern mainstream science – and if I’m illogical so too is just about everyone who actually works directly in the field.
Peter 2920
One reading is supposed to validate the other.
In this case a much more reasonable interpretation of the ‘old’ records (that Callendar and Keeling decided not to use) is higher than the 290ppm or so they selected as validating Callendars 1938 paper.
(As I mentioned Keeling later admitted that the old records were more reliable than he believed when he was young, and Callendar later decided his Co2 theory wasn’t as robust as he had thought when HE was younger)
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.
The documentation is there for all to see Peter, but you obviously don’t want to read it. It is pefectly reasonable to suggest there should be an independent audit of them, as they are so key to our understanding.
Anyway, I am keen to read your attempts at vindication of the other questions, starting with SST’s
Consequently I’ll put you down as having no valid answer as to why the majority of old Co2 records had been airbrushed out of history, whilst a few demonstrably unrepresentative ones from the same period and same scientists were used.
So let’s move on shall we?
Tonyb
TonyB and PeterM
Before you move on to another topic, you should read this study, which (among other things) points out some of the technical problems affecting the accuracy and reliability of ice core CO2 analyses.
http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf
From the Abstract:
From the Conclusions:
In a separate paper one of the authors states:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
He points out that the analysis from one ice core showed a “year 1890” value of 328 ppmv CO2. This problem was solved by introducing an “ad hoc assumption”:
Hmmm…
And this information should be more reliable than those good ol’ “real time” analytical determinations made by leading scientists of the time?
Max
Max
I am looking forward to when Pete gets on to the question I posed about global temperatures,(number 8) which, as we know, are soaring due to Global warming.
Curiously they 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
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?
Your guidance on these apparent anomalies is sought whilst we wait for Peter.
I have repeated the original questions here as they were posed far back in the thread, but he doesn’t seem to have gotten very far due to his prevarication over CO2 history.
Repeat of questions
“You say that if I pose my questions yet again you will try to answer them. This was in response to my general question; Do you get concerned that scientists themselves are actually INVENTING (interpolating) information they then cite as scientific documents?
A good example are SST’s the majority of which are made up and much of the rest utterly unreliable.
Does that count as misinformation?
SO QUESTION 1- Do you believe the SSt’s are an acurate record of ocean temperatures globally back to 1860?
Question 2 Does it bother you that most are completely invented because the data doesnt actually exist?
TonyN said in relation to the new climate rapid response team;
http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/testimonials.php
“Their FAQ B13 has the Radiative Forcing Components table from AR4 SPM, but with an interesting modification:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/2A953C90-CC12-42B2-BD0A-B51FECC2AEC3/FAQ_e.pdf
I can understand why they might have edited out columns 3 and 4 as this is for the general reader rather than the specialist, but taking out column 5, which deals with levels of scientific understanding, would seem to be understandable for a quite different reason. There’s nothing like hiding the …. when it might raise awkward questions.”
My reply;
Interesting. The chart you are talking about is this one. This is precisely the sort of thing Peter was accusing the Daily Mail of doing. It is positively misrepresenting the situation.
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/figtableboxes/figure-2.htm
You are right they have missed off several columns (excluding the technical stuff-which is understandable)
Question 3
Why would the climate rapid response team miss out this key information?
There’s more-at a brief glance- I found this in their resources page;
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming
Number 4) Mentions the 1906 Arrhenius paper but just like Peter seems to forget the 1906 version which substantially reduced the estimates.
Question 4 Why would they’forget’ the later paper (Nasa also do this)
Number 6) Mentions the Callendar paper of 1938 but not the much more convincing rebuttal by Giles Slocum in 1956 which also mentions the generally accepted levels of co2 as being 400ppm. Also no mention of the 1936 paper on which Callendar based his temperature calculations, on a very small sampling, which even he wasn’t impressed with.
Question 5 Why do the IPCC airbrush out of history tens of thousands of Co2 records and make no mention of them in official history by pretending Keeling was the first to measure them?
The link to the Critique of IPCC AR4 by Paul M “Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report” is here
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Question 6; Please answer the various points made in the link above, many of which we have raised before, in particular sea levels and arctic ice levels.
The hockey stick shows a serious downturn in NH temperatures from 1600 until man supposedly warmed things up circa 1900 with the dramatic uptick. Trouble is that all our NH records (which I collect as you know) show a temperature rise from 1660 and as our coldest decades were 1600-1610 the warming began then.The stick is completely misleading.
Question 7; Please justify this re writing of history
Question 8 Are you aware as to how Global temperatures are manufactured?
Question 9 Does this bother you?
That will do for a start Peter. Note that single word replies will not be sufficient. Please give us proper references for your rebuttals. Pointing us vaguely in the direction of the IPCC will not do
Look forward to your replies.”
Tonyb
Max 2922
Yes I saw that when I was writing my article, its very interesting.
Ice cores are a poor proxy for a variety of reasons and I find it curious as to why anyone should believe these when we have actual direct measurements made at the time by clever scientists using reliable equipment.
Having said that these same Co2 records ARE used to corroborate the Ice cores, but only the very lowest ones in the range. Wonder why that should be?
Life is full of mysteries.
Tonyb
TonyB,
You say “So let’s move on shall we?”
To what? If you don’t accept the ice core record , and the Mauna Loa and other similar world CO2 readings which are all consistent and repeatable, there really isn’t any point.