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.
Yes Bob, the “hottest year on record” proclaimed by radical activist Hansen is a fraud……he’s simply fabricated data as did Phil Jones has done to line his pockets and support the global warming industry……it’s shameful that a “scientist” would stoop so low as to falsify data to promote his personal agenda.
It’s ‘the hottest year on record’, as long as you don’t take its temperature
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8211948/Its-the-hottest-year-on-record-as-long-as-you-dont-take-its-temperature.html
Hi Brute,
I heard about this study on the ABC news this morning:
Are political beliefs hard-wired?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2010/12/are_political_beliefs_hard_wir.html
It would be interesting to conduct a brain-scan on Hansen and several other serial pests.
I don’t know how he gets away with it, but;
Strange how Hansen relatively recently claimed that 2005 has been the hottest (full) year globally, but everyone else has always shown 1998 to be way-way out in front, (like an anomolous spike), as a consequence of the so-called 1997-1998 “Super El Nino”. He might have to do some serious adjustments for 2011 eh?
James Hansen is on record as having previously supported both Republican and Democrat candidates and, in fact, describes himself as “moderately conservative”. Which is fair enough, of course.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_new_scientist/
Ideally, weather stations would be equally spaced around the globe. Say one for every 100 sq km. To get a global average all you’d need to do is add up all the numbers and divide by the number of stations.
You can still do that of course even if they aren’t equally spaced and still get pretty much the same answer. Every group have their own algorithms to correct for having far fewer readings in places like the Arctic and over the oceans.
Consequently, even from the same data, the overall results, of different groups, would still be different. Whereas NASA had 2005, and now 2010, as the warmest years other groups did , as you say, came up with a warmer temperature for 1998.
These differences are small however, smaller than anyone would term “statistically significant”.
Nice try Pete, but Hansen has been proven a liar time and time again. The guy is a lunatic.
NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html?cat=58
1934 was the warmest year on record, not globally, but for the USA only. The USA is just 2% of the world’s area so I’m not sure if there is any statistical significance in that.
It isn’t just James Hansen who is saying that BTW.
Hi Peter #2982
I can only assume that you are consumed by grief over the cricket, which has caused you to lose any sense of objectivity.
Way back I asked a number of questions. You are still floundering on the Co2 aspect so I generously suggested you move on to Global temperatures- Land and SST’s
We have the inconvenient fact that the idea of a global temperature is Nonsense, and if anything Hansen is recording the temperatures of Airports, Urban areas and using thermometers that started off at completely different micro climates. Add to this that we have NO temperatures for large parts of the world and the stations continually change AND are based on unreliable readings- inaccurate to up to 1.5F- and the idea we can parse temperatures back to fractions of a degree to 1850 is palplable nonsense-unless you can show me otherwise?
The questions that need answering are 1 and 2 and 8 and 9 but I have helpfully repeated the entire post.
By the way you might also like to see current temperatures put in their proper historic context;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/
My questions:
“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
Also cooling in Germany;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/18/how-germanys-weather-team-views-the-hottest-year-ever/#more-29647
In fact, 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
TonyB,
Look. I’ve tried to do my best to explain the concept of AGW. But the first thing you need to accept, lesson 1, is that CO2 levels were 40% lower in pre-industrial times and that the subsequent increase is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels.
We’ll move on to lesson 2 when you’ve shown me you accept lesson 1.
Peter
Do stop prevaricating and answer the questions.
Give me your best shot on Global temperatures. Why not start with SST’s? The idea that anyone can believe we know global ocean temperatures back to 1860 is frankly hilarious. But apparently you do. So tell us how you believe that is possible?
Tonyb
The point is that Hansen attempted to defraud the public by stating that 1998 was “the warmest” year on record.
You write that this data represents the land area only of the United States………are you writing that CO2 does not diffuse evenly over the globe?
Is there an invisible barrier surrounding the United States that limits the amount of carbon dioxide entering US airspace?
Face it Pete……anthropogenic global warming is a sham……………wake up and use your brain. You’re being duped by corporate interests and politicians that want to steal your money.
You are a “useful idiot”………
Brute Your 2986 and My2983
Its remarkable how co2 can both Cool AND Warm the planet at the same time. How do you think it does it? Peter doesnt seem able to explain-hes still stuck on measurements of co2.
tonyb
TonyB,
Prevarication? Not at all. The build up of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels is just the starting point.
If you can’t accept that you’re the climate contrarian equivalent of a “Young Earther”. What’s the point of discussing Evolutionary Theory with anyone who can’t give up the idea that the Earth is just a few thousand years old?
By the way Pete, how do scientists date fossils?
Peter
You often come up with silly and obscure arguements to support your total belief in the IPCC, but young earther is the silliest yet.
How about dealing with the questions? You airily dismiss hundreds of thousands of Co2 measurements conducted over 120 years by some of the most famous scientists of their time in favour of believing that a complete amateur (keeling) then managed to get it right first time in 1957. When asked to explain why you believe this you go off at tangents.
Why not stop embarassing yourself and move on to Global temperatures? See my question 1 and 2 and 8 and 9.
You surely to goodness don’t believe in the nonsense that Hansen and CRu et al came up with?
Are you seriously going to defend Sea surface temperatures to 1860?
Tonyb
Brute,
Hansen is at it again. 1934 is no longer the hottest year on record in the USA:
According to the GISS website this figure was: Last modified: 2010-02-16
Extract from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
This is shown in more detail, giving “correction” methods etc, in Hansen et al paper of 14 December 2010. (29 page PDF)
GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf
He clearly likes to gradually rotate the data anti-clockwise over time. (and hide the decline or plateau)
Yes Bob, Hansen/Jones/Mann, et al have corrupted the record and the process so thoroughly that no one believes their “faith” prophecies any longer………..If Hansen said the temperature was declining I wouldn’t believe him.
The man has lost all credibility and is simple a shill for the global warming industry and his warped Humanist agenda.
Incidentally, concerning GISS/NASA publications such as cited in my 2991. Are these subjected to the same rigours of “peer review”, like in those prestigious Science & Nature journals I wonder?
Brute, You ask about the dating of fossils. Is this a genuine request for information or do you have something to say on the matter?
On the question of 1934 vs 1998 or 2005, or whatever year, you’d be better looking at five or even ten year periods. One year is too short. Rather than ask about the warmest year, ask what is the warmest decade or half decade? That’s a more intelligent question.
TonyB, Until you’ve accepted that Co2 levels have been significantly changed by human activity, the answer is ‘no’.
Peter
I said:
“You surely to goodness don’t believe in the nonsense that Hansen and CRu et al came up with? Are you seriously going to defend Sea surface temperatures to 1860?”
You replied in 2994:
“the answer is ‘no’.”
Well done! At last! Or perhaps that distortion was cherry picking almost as grand as that by Callendar?
It was a very simple question and there is simply no need to dance around trying to avoid answering it.
Here it is again;
“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?”
I am not asking you to change your mind on the origin of the Co2, just asking why the IPCC airbrushed the previous record out of existence. Surely you must have some explanation? Let me recap the facts for you (for FACTS they are)
*There are hundreds of thousands of Co2 measurements
* The gas has been measured since 1820
* Accuracy was to plus or minus 2%
* The measurements were carried out by numerous well known scientists.
* GS Callendar looked at the records and selected the ones needed to support his 1938 paper
* His workings are clearly shown in his archives
* He persuaded Keeling to accept them
* You believe that Keeling-a complete amateur- was immediately able to do what everyone else in history had failed to do-take an accurate Co2 measurement.
* Keeling later admitted that the old time measurements werre more accurate than he had believed when he was younger
* GS Callendar came to doubt his own theory.
Why do you feel unable to answer the question which is why the records were airbrushed out of history?
tonyb
Brute,
This is fun too!
Here is a 1999 version of GISTemp global average. Compare it with the following later version. Various “corrections” are made but the obvious whopper was for 1998, as highlighted at WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/
This adjustment down for 1998 hides the plateau which is so prominently seen on all the other sources, but other “corrections” give anti-clockwise rotation, which is dramatically shown in the flip-flop overlay video at the first cited link.
How does Hansen get away with this?
See also concerning fraud and retractions in scientific papers:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/25/u-s-scientists-top-research-fraud-list-how-concerned-should/
How many “Climate science” papers are retracted?
He’s a bureaucrat and extremist that no one takes seriously…………He’s a laughing stock.
His warped ideological bent has been unmasked and no one will confront him for fear of another temper tantrum.
Hansen is the crazy aunt hidden away in the attic………let him rant and paint his worthless silly graphs……everyone knows he’s a raving lunatic.
If you don’t know the answer the just write: I DON’T KNOW………It’s easy Pete…..just three words…….sheez.
Brute,
Its not something I can say I’ve ever studied but there are quite a few links on the topic like this, which seem straightforward enough:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Do you know people who have a problem with any of this?
TonyB,
The answer is “no” – not to any questions about Sea temperatures, or James Hansen, or the CRU or whatever else you would like to discuss, but to your request for further discussion.
Yes, I know that I did promise to answer your questions but, for it to be worthwhile, you at least have to have some confidence in modern day science. Like it can get the CO2 record right!
If you don’t think that the burning of fossil fuels has had any significant effect on GH gas levels then I can’t help. Period. (as our US friends would say)
Some lunatic, some crazy aunt !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Peter 3000
You said;
“The answer is “no” – not to any questions about Sea temperatures, or James Hansen, or the CRU or whatever else you would like to discuss, but to your request for further discussion.
Yes, I know that I did promise to answer your questions but, for it to be worthwhile, you at least have to have some confidence in modern day science. Like it can get the CO2 record right!”
So after tens of thousands of questions, your dancing round the head of a pin, your obfuscation, your introduction of spurious topics and diversions, when it comes down to it you can not answer some simple questions on the foundations of climate science.
As regards Co2, its not a matter of having confidence in modern science, its merely a simple question as to what happened to the settled science that WAS the modern version up until 1957 when Keeling took Callendars cherry picked figures.
You also feel unable to comment on all the other fundamentals of AGW-most of which have nothing whatsoever to do science but are statistical manipulation of often suspect or non existent data that have been distorted in order to put forward a narrative.
Global temperatures to 1880, as constructed by Hansen aren’t worth a light-surely you must have realised after all these months as to how he constructed them and how meaningless they are?
You must know how many places are cooling but that their global signal is overwhelmed by the readings from warm stations-many now at airports.
No wonder you don’t want to debate Sea surface temperatures. Nonsense and Hubris from beginning to end-the idea we know a global SST average to 1860 is so ludicrous we ALL should be laughing at it.
I’m away on holiday from Saturday. I wish you and yours a Happy New Year.
Tonyb