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
From what you write, Judith Curry is apparently interested in the psychology of some so-called “climate deniers”, whose motivation appears to be religious.
I am not, since it does not apply to me or anyone I directly know. So I see no point in dwelling on this topic.
I am interested primarily in the “science” (or lack thereof) behind the IPCC claims of a potentially serious threat from AGW. So far this “scientific evidence” has not convinced me as it contains major flaws; in fact, the more I learn about all this the more rationally skeptical I become of these claims.
This topic is also one, which Dr. Curry has spent some time discussing on her site. She has expressed problems with the many uncertainties, starting with the very basic model assumptions regarding 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, net “amplifying or mitigating” effects of feedbacks, past climate reconstructions (such as the “hockey stick”), etc.
As a secondary related topic I am also interested in the proposed “mitigation” steps from a cost/benefit analysis standpoint. So far I have seen no specific actionable proposals that would have any discernible impact on our climate. Those few specific proposals made would result in no perceptible change in theoretical future warming at very high cost.
A third point that interests me is the “doomsday” psychology of many supporters of the IPCC premise of dangerous AGW; in many cases this appears to me to be a strange case of mass hysteria driven by some perceived guilt for living in too much affluence and the fear of resulting “retribution” for these excesses. I am referring here to those who are genuinely afraid of catastrophic AGW, not to any individuals who are simply using fear mongering to further their own selfish goals.
So let’s get back to the “science”. Please answer the question I asked you in 3092, namely why have the IPCC estimates of warming been so far off the mark? Do you have an explanation for these discrepancies?
Max
Max,
I’m not sure that you recognise the scale of the problem that Judith Curry is talking about here. You seem to have spent a lot of time in the States where Judith Curry says ” it is estimated that 40% of U.S. adults believe in young earth creationism.” And you don’t know any one of them yourself? Well if you say so :-)
You say that “As Curry’s site points out, there are SOME so-called ‘climate change deniers’ that are either motivated by religion or by politics And then there are MANY who are…. “[the real deal-PM]”
I suppose you think you are the real deal. But I’m starting to think you are one of the delusional types with the imaginary friend too. Try as I might can’t find anywhere at all on Curry’s site where she says that. Maybe I’ve just missed it? Yes I’m sure that will be the answer. Maybe you’d be good enough to point out to me where that’s written?
Max,
Just to change the topic slightly but still with what Judith Curry recently says on her website:
“Of course, if there is no CO2 climate problem and no dangerous consequences, then this is all moot. But there is a potential looming tragedy of the commons issue associated with global warming. Even if the chance of the IPCC being correct is only one in three, this remains a potential tragedy of the commons. So how to deal with this from the libertarian perspective? Assume for the sake of argument that the IPCC assessment is correct. Then how should this problem be addressed from a libertarian perspective? This is the question that I meant to ask. Note, I am politically independent with libertarian sympathies.”
So the old Judith Curry has clearly not totally gone away! Taking on board her assumption, how would you answer the question?
PeterM
The first part of the paragraph you quote is fairly straightforward:
I believe that until there is empirical evidence to support the notion of a “CO2 climate problem” with “dangerous consequences”, it is premature to start speculating on actions to be taken to avoid this “potential tragedy of the commons”.
So far this evidence is lacking and the uncertainties in the data both for past climate and in the models projecting future climate are far too great to support the notion of future danger. Moreover, the most recent cooling of our planet despite record CO2 levels represents a direct falsification of such a notion.
Before answering the question: “how should this problem be addressed from a libertarian [or any other] perspective?” one has to establish that there is a “problem” with potentially “dangerous consequences” in the first place.
The first step in this process would be to explain how the most recent cooling has occurred despite record CO2 increase and how these observed facts are consistent with the premise of future dangerous warming from human CO2 emissions.
If this cannot be done, then it is clear that “there is no CO2 climate problem and no dangerous consequences”, therefore “this is all moot”.
So it’s really back to the “science” to identify that there really is a problem before we worry about how this suggested problem should be solved.
Max
PeterM
To get this back on track, let me repeat my question to you (3101):
Max
Max,
It seems that Judith Curry might not be quite the ally you were assuming her to be. All these awkward questions she keeps asking on her website! Maybe life was much simpler when she could be just be dismissed as one of those so-called experts who were just in it for the grant and research money!
She gives me the impression she’s torn between her “libertarian political sympathies” which makes her want to go along with what she might read in the Wall St Journal, and her scientific knowledge which tells her that potentially there is a big problem which needs dealing with.
She’s also intelligent enough to know that libertarians, and other right wing conservative types, shouldn’t leave themselves open to the charge that their politics just can’t deal with the possibility of the IPCC being scientifically correct. She knows, too, that isn’t a reason for declaring the IPCC to be wrong.
My guess is that she’ll tire of having to deal with crackpots on her site in time and will get back to a more sensible position. Hopefully she’ll take a few converts with her but we’ll have to see, I guess.
Max,
I’m feeling a bit guilty about ignoring your requests to “get back to the science” as you put it.
You want to talk about IPCC estimates of warming, right?
I seem to remember asking you how the global temperatures of first decade of the 20th century , which you may have noticed has just ended, compared with previous decades.
But I don’t remember what your answer was. Did you tell us that temperatures had fallen back to what they were in the 80’s?
You seem to have all these figures to hand. If you can just refresh my memory we can have another look at them.
Sorry I’m a 100 years out! Should be first decade of 21st century.
Peter Martin,
I hope you will not be too badly affected by the anticipated Brisbane floods on Thursday. Or of course any family or friends in those astonishing flash floods elsewhere. I was watching the 7:30 report an hour ago, and the latest modelling suggests a disaster equal or greater than in 1974. (Although it was pointed out that Brisbane is a very different place now to that back then) Were you there in 1974?
Peter M, ditto what Bob_FJ said – I’m just looking at the news and it’s not great. Hoping that you and your home, family etc., remain high and dry.
UN : Entire Nations To Be Drowned Before The Year 2000
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/un-entire-nations-to-be-drowned-before-the-year-2000/
PeterM
To answer your question about 21st century temperature trends:
Both the surface record (HadCRUT) and the tropospheric record (UAH) have shown that global land and sea atmospheric temperature has cooled since the end of 2000 (average linear rate of cooling of 0.08C per decade).
You will recall that IPCC had forecast a warming of 0.2C per decade due to increasing human GHG levels (principally CO2).
The record CO2 increases did occur, but the warming did not.
Max
PS Hope you are not affected by the floods in the Brisbane area. Looks pretty bad.
Brute
Your link to the 1989 climate disaster forecast of “senior UN environmental official”, Noel Brown, is hilarious.
Looks like we missed the “10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect” by another 10 years and still the predicted “crop failures, exodus of ‘eco-refugees'”, or “drowning” of “entire nations”, did not happen as Brown predicted back in 1989.
It appears that Brown was smoking the same stuff that Hansen was back in 1988, when he made his now infamous global warming forecast that also never happened in real life (and this despite the fact that Hansen, himself, “massages” the global temperature record).
So much for the doomsday prophets! No wonder no one (except a few die-hard “believers”) takes them seriously any more.
Max
PS Next to be buried (along with the discredited “hockey stick”) is the Stern doomsday report.
PeterM
Back to my post 3092, with the question to you regarding the discrepancy between the IPCC model-based calculations and actual observations on temperature:
This study by Stephen Schwartz at Brookhaven may explain why the model-based IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C (±1.2°C) is too high by a factor of around 3:1 when compared to actual observations and, therefore, why the past warming has been much lower than would have been calculated using the IPCC model estimate.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Of course the IPCC model-based forecasts for future temperature increase would also be exaggerated by a factor of 3:1, based on this new data.
Any comments?
Max
Max,
You write “To answer your question about 21st century temperature trends”
No. Try again. I asked about decadal temperature trends.
All,
You’ll all be pleased to know that my house is well above the flood plain. Never did believe that Wivenhoe dam would prevent any recurrence of previous flooding. So I am a sceptic by nature! But thanks for asking and hopefully I’ll be around for a while longer to keep giving you a hard time.:-)
PeterM
Your personal thoughts (3106) on what drives Judith Curry to be what some have described as a “climate heretic” are interesting (but obviously just your own unsubstantiated opinion).
I’d say it goes much deeper than that. She is a genuine scientist, who really wants to know what is going on regarding our planet’s climate, who sees large uncertainties in the IPCC model assumptions plus projections and who is genuinely concerned about the loss of confidence in climate science resulting from the Climategate revelations.
This is what her blog posts show. She raises highly relevant questions without simply being dogmatic (like RealClimate, etc.).
Unfortunately, many “consensus insiders” have attacked her for her rationally skeptical views.
Your stated “guess” that she will
is based on the false assumptions a) that she does “deal with crackpots” (her site rules do not allow crackpot outbursts) and b) that she now does not espouse “a sensible position” (which is rather presumptive and arrogant on your part).
You should really spend some time “lurking” on her various threads covering the science – these are very educational with input from all sorts of scientists and other knowledgeable individuals. Tune in and you will undoubtedly learn something new that you don’t know yet. I certainly have.
Max
PeterM
Glad to hear that you are not affected by the floods in your region.
You asked (3115) about decadal temperature trends.
Here is what the HadCRUT record shows (linear decadal trend per period)
1901-1910 cooling (>0.1C/decade)
1911-1920 warming (>0.1C/decade)
1921-1930 warming (>0.1C/decade)
1931-1940 rapid warming (>0.2C/decade)
1941-1950 rapid cooling (>0.2C/decade)
1951-1960 slight cooling (<0.1C/decade)
1961-1970 slight cooling (0.1C/decade)
1981-1990 warming (>0.1C/decade)
1991-2000 rapid warming (>0.2C/decade)
2001-2010 slight cooling (<0.1C/decade)
These results confirm the
· Early 20th century warming cycle (1910-1944) of around 0.5C warming over 35 years
· Mid-century cooling cycle (1945-1975) of around 0.2C cooling over 30 years
· Late 20th century warming cycle (1976-2000) of around 0.4C warming over 25 years
· Early 21st century cooling (2001-2010) of less than 0.1C cooling over 10 years (too early to tell if this will become a new multi-decadal cycle like the others)
Max
Brute
You will undoubtedly be pleased to know that your tax contributions are helping scientists determine just how disastrous AGW will be:
http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cc-funding2011.pdf
[Peter should commend your country for this heroic effort.]
The total 2011 budget for climate change related research is $16.6 billion, or an annual cost per US household of around $145.
Let’s hope these billions are not simply being poured down a rathole.
Max
Max,
You’ve missed out 1971-1980 but that’s better overall.
How about a graph showing five and ten year averages?
Max,
Where does the figure of $16.6 billion com from? I did a search on the pdf file you linked to but couldn’t find that figure. Whatever the correct figure may be, I’d just make two points:
1)US taxpayers might want to compare it with total US defence spending of over a $ trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
2)US taxpayers are only going to get value for money if they actually take some notice of the outcome of the research its spent on.
Brute
Here you can hear a reasoned argument why global climate change will destroy our planet (just like Peter says):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cdxaxJNs15s
Max
PeterM
Here’s the decade I missed
1971-1980 warming (>0.1C/decade)
The rest is OK.
5 or 10-year averages do not tell us anything. As a physicist you should know that it is the decadal rate of change that tells us whether it warmed or cooled over that decade. And, as the record shows, this has occurred in a cyclical manner with multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles of around 30 years each. The entire long-term record shows us that it has warmed by about 0.04C per decade with these ~30-year swings of ±0.2C, roughly like a sine curve on a slightly tilted axis.
There is no statistical correlation with either atmospheric CO2 concentrations or human CO2 emissions and temperature.
It is what statisticians call a “random walk”.
Max
PeterM
Just add up all the individual climate change budgets in the report and you will see that the US total is $16.6 billion.
Max
Max,
Just one more thing. You claim “2001-2010 slight cooling ”
Using figures from a link Brute posted, the inclusion of the likely figure for 2010 does mean that there has been slight warming this decade.
There is not much in it, but if you’d like to give me a reference for the figures you’ve used I’ll take another look.
I posted two comments and they haven’t appeared…….I think I’ve been banned.