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
As a refresher, I’ll re-post the chart on 20th century sea level trends.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
As Bob_FJ has stated, sea level appears to have leveled off (pardon the expression) most recently, so we aren’t hearing too much about it in the press.
The rise over the 20th century was 0.17m (with slightly more in the first half than in the second).
Mörner and Wunsch are probably right (0.1 to 0.16 m by 2100), as is the lower end of the IPCC range (0.18m), with the upper end (0.59m) stretching credibility a bit and the higher guesses (Gore, Hansen, etc.) totally absurd.
Max
Hi Max
Some weeks ago I was in personal contact with Simon Holgate who confirms the rise was less in the last few decades of the period than it was in the first few decades.
We can clearly see this deceleration in current charts, with any rise being barely perceptible and within the margins of error of the recording mechanisms, (gauge/satellite)
The current rate needs to increase from 1mm a year to 11mm a year immediately if it is going to reach its ‘target’ by the end of this century
tonyb
Hi Tony,
Thanks for latest input from Simon Holgate (another real expert on sea level trends, along with Wunsch and Morner).
Yeah. Looks grim for the alarmist sea level forecast, especially now that the upper ocean seems to be cooling, so no thermal expansion.
I guess Al and James need to go to Greenland and bloviate a bunch of hot air to melt some of that ice cap.
Max
ALL
Here is a thoughtful summary of where the climate debate now stands from a blogger named L. Graham Smith on Judith Curry’s ClimateEtc. Blog. This appeared on the thread relating to Kevin Trenberth’s speech to the AMS, in which he berated climate “deniers” and made the strange statement (for a scientist):
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#comment-32846
This all makes very good sense to me and I think the blogger has summarized the current situation very well.
Max
L Graham Smith like most climate sceptics seems to be labouring under the delusion that somehow climate science is discredited. Judith Curry understands the issue of uncertainty a little better.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/15/learning-to-love-uncertainty/#more-1981.
One quite effective tactic used by climate contrarians is to beat up the uncertainty around the issue of climate science. In the popular mind uncertainty = doubt = no need to do anything!
However, lets think about the practical problem, of which I had some recent close hand experience, of a river flood. Say the inhabitants of a city receive a warning that a 3 metre flooding is expected.
In that case, flood defences can be accurately targeted. Areas which are, and are not, at risk will be precisely known.
However, say the hydrologists aren’t quite sure and they say the floods could be anything between 1.5 and 4.5 metres. Is that better or worse?
Of course the city could take a risk, assume that the flood will come in on the lower end of the scale. If their gamble pays off they will be better off afterwards. But, its more likely not to because the odds are well against that happening.
On the other hand if an assumption is made that the flooding will be at the top end of the scale, effort will likely be wasted on trying to protect areas which won’t need it.
If the city goes for the mid point then that will be about a 50-50 chance. That’s probably not the best assumption either. The cost of being wrong will probably outweigh the benefits of being right.
The city would need to do a cost/risk analysis and they would probably end up assuming a figure of something like 4 metres.
So, as you can see, uncertainty isn’t better at all. It always ends up costing more in the end.
TonyB and Max,
I suspect that you are only allowing Simon Holgate “expert” status because you don’t really understand what he is saying!
And, yes, Simon Holgate is certainly a much more credible source tha Nils-Axel Morner.
So what is he saying?
1) “The mean rate of sea-level rise is 0.86 mm/year based on the first half of the record [total =1880 -1994 PM] and 1.98 mm/year based on the second half of the record.”
2) “model predictions currently appear to underestimate observations”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5846/1866.2.full#related-content
There has been some discussion between Simon Holgate and Stefan Rahmstorf. The last I’ve seen on the matter is this article from the latter
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5846/1866.4.full.pdf
Whether this means that all issues are now resolved I’m not sure.
Pete,
I understand that based on long range metrological forecasts which predicted extensive drought due to global warming, municipalities relaxed building codes allowing Australians to build dwellings on floodplains?
Shock as a Floodplain Actually Floods
http://appliedphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/floodplain-actually-flood/
Brute,
No, there has been no reputable scientific report, at least as far as I’m aware, suggesting that building on the floodplains is now safer that it was, either in Australia or anywhere else in the world. But, if you know of one, maybe you could post up a link.
The scientific advice, from the IPCC and others, is that climate change will lead to a greater frequency of extreme events. ie Dryer droughts and deeper flods, and is actually the opposite of what you indicate.
What has actually happened is, that during a period of drought, those with vested interests in wanting to build on a flood plain have misused the scientific evidence for their own purposes. But that’s not quite the same thing.
Oh, you mean where municipalities allow previously unsuitable areas to be built upon in order to collect more revenue through property taxes?
Queensland scraps the desal plant Tim Flannery sold as essential
The Queensland Government was just one of a whole church of green Labor governments which invested in hugely expensive desalination plants:
HOUSEHOLDS are paying at least 10 times more for energy-guzzling desalinated water than for traditional dam water…
What made them do something so mad? Because Premiers like Queensland’s Peter Beattie believed – or pretended to believe – the predictions of professional alarmist such as Tim Flannery:
Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming….Desalination plants can provide insurance against drought. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.
And they trusted the predictions of dud global warming models that the rains would dry up:
Mr Beattie said the effects of climate change on our region meant we could no longer rely on past rainfall patterns to help us plan for the future…
“We need purified recycled water on top of everything else we’re doing – desalination, dams, pipelines, rainwater tanks and recycling for industry – to ensure we have the water we need now and for the future…
“My advice indicates if we continue to experience below average rainfalls it could take several years (anywhere from five to ten years) for our major dam system to climb back up past 40 percent even with purified recycled water, desalination and the other measures we’re taking to supplement our water supplies.
“Given the current uncertainty about the likely impact of climate change on rainfall patterns in SEQ over coming years, it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower than usual rainfalls could eventuate.
The Victorian Labor Government cited the very same reason for building its own $5.7 billion behemoth, now behind schedule because of heavy rains, instead of building a dam on the Mitchell for a third of the money but three times the water:
Climate change—while the Mitchell has flooded recently, investing billions of dollars in another rainfall-dependent water source in the face of rapidly changing climate patterns is very risky.
But heavy rain this year, and public fury at the rising bills caused by such green follies, has now forced the Queensland Government to scrap what warmists such as Flannery had once claimed was essential:
A QUEENSLAND desalination plant is set to be mothballed as part of sweep of State Government water grid reforms to cut rising household water bills.
Natural Resources Minister, Stephen Robertson … confirmed speculation the $1.126 billion desalination plant at Tugun near the Gold Coast will be placed on standby mode. The move will save $10 million per year and the plant will be turned off later this month.
Max,
You say in connection with carbon taxes “The current administration’s use of the (non-elected) EPA to by-pass the will of the (elected) Congress ……)”
I suspect that you just forgot to mention it, but the ‘current administration’ was elected too!
You’ve actually put your finger on the disadvantage of having both an elected Head of State/President and an elected assembly as do both the French and Americans. What happens when there is a conflicting result? The Westminster system of having a non-executive HOS is superior in that regard, I would suggest.
“Green” policy resulted in numerous deaths Pete……
The Floods in Australia and Green Policy Failure
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2011/01/19/the-floods-in-australia-and-green-policy-failuren-learn-form-cycli/
From other articles, it appears that the Climateers managed to convince planning councils that there would be no more floods, it would be very dry. So, in earnest, billions were spent on desalination plants and homes were allowed to be build on flood planes…exactly where the floods occurred last time, and the time before that…
Pete,
Maybe Hansen and Al Gore will be able to convince the widows and orphans that their loved ones were sacrificed on the altar of the Church of Global Warming…………to appease the earth god Gaia and to “save” polar bears?
Think they’ll buy it?
Brute,
You need to put up or shut up, re-climate change and floods. I myself wrote to a Murdoch owned newspaper a few years ago to suggest that there was too much development happening in unsuitable locations on the Flood plain. I was right. They’ve now gone under and the stick losses alone have run into $miliions. The newspaper didn’t print my letter, and neither did they run their own campaign against it. They didn’t want to upset their friends who were raking in the profits.
When you think about it, if you are capable of that, you should see that is a ‘Green argument’. It’s not been the Greens who have built factories and housing estates near flood prone rivers and creeks. Its not been the Greens, or the CSIRO (Australian Science) who have in any way suggested that this is safe. Why would they?
Peter You say
“I suspect that you are only allowing Simon Holgate “expert” status because you don’t really understand what he is saying!
And, yes, Simon Holgate is certainly a much more credible source tha Nils-Axel Morner.”
And then;
“model predictions currently appear to underestimate observations”
Peter, why don’t you actually do the work for a change then you might believe what you find. You have cited a three year old report which relates to the accuracy of models against actual real world observations. The real world once again does not agree with models, where Co2 is factored in so as to reach the expected end result.
Do a bit of hunting round for yourself and you will come across Simons research where the scenario I outlined (and Max refers to in the graph) is clearly set out. It has been cited here before but you didn’t like it.
tonyb
Brute says;
“From other articles, it appears that the Climateers managed to convince planning councils that there would be no more floods, it would be very dry. So, in earnest, billions were spent on desalination plants and homes were allowed to be build on flood planes…exactly where the floods occurred last time, and the time before that…”
Brute is quite right that ‘climateers’ impose an overall policy. In our case it is a govt dept called Defra that sets the agenda and all the bodies below them- from councils to schools- have to take into account the notion that we will get warmer by up to 2.4 degress and need to account for up to 60cm increase in sea levels.
They also need to take into account that winters will be warmer (hence councils havent ordered salt for roads)and we will have hotter drier summers (which is why coucils have to spend money on teaching businesses how to take advantage of our looming mediterranean climate) HAH!
As householders we are advised to change our gardening habits and plant cactus so we don’t need to water our traditional plants as our summers become hotter and drier. HAH!
They believe that nonsense because their models tell them it is happening-observations show it isnt.
All govts that sign up to kyoto have to follow the cascade of directives from the IPCC.
Peter is right that ultimately (certainly in the UK) developers collude with councils to build properties where they shouldn’t be placed-such as flood plains- but the pressure for new houses is overwhelming and flood plains are highly desirable as they are flat and in desirable locations next to the water.
tonyb
TonyB,
You’ve misunderstood. The sentence “model predictions currently appear to underestimate observations” wasn’t mine. It was Simon Holbrook’s.
Just to get back to the question of floods , droughts and building in flood plains the lesson that needs to be learned, by Governments and those voting for them, on all kinds of environmental dangers is simple enough:
1) Use the most qualified available experts to report on the issue in question.
2) Read and understand those reports.
3) Make sure they are easily accessible to everyone and well reported in the media
3) Act on them.
4) Ignore the ravings of those unqualified d***heads who feel they are the real experts.
Peter
You don’t even know the guys name let alone the context of what he wrote! Try again.
To your 4 point plan I would add that the decisions should be based on facts, observations and local knowledge and should be free of political interference (such as from the IPCC or the local council) and pressure from developers.
tonyb
Did Australia’s obsession with global warming contribute to the Brisbane floods?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100072049/did-australias-obsession-with-global-warming-contribute-to-the-brisbane-floods/
ClimateSmart 2050
http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/initiatives/climate_change/ClimateSmart_2050.pdf
Global Warming Hysteria: Did Dire Predictions of Drought Lead Aussie’s Not to Prepare for Flood?
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/01/19/global-warming-hysteria-did-dire-predictions-of-drought-lead-aussies-not-to-prepare-for-flood/
Interestingly, this paper, provided by the international journal of Socialist review, prophesizes never ending drought for Australia. I’m curious as to why a journal devoted to a political system would be involved in “science”……..but I digress………
Funny how now the Global Warming Alarmists whine that the opposite of their prophecies, increased rainfall, is a result of global warming………
Which is it Pete? Increased rainfall or severe drought?
I guess both, right?
Too dry = global warming……….Too wet = global warming……..Too warm = global warming……..Too cool = global warming
Australia: Global warming and the ‘Big Dry’— What prospects for the Murray-Darling river system?
July 20, 2009
http://links.org.au/node/1158
What was the role of warmists in the Queensland flood disaster?
Australia was told to prepare for droughts as a result of climate change, and let down its guard against flooding………..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8262064/What-was-the-role-of-warmists-in-the-Queensland-flood-disaster.html
Brute,
You can only quote ignoramuses like Christopher Booker who naturally wish to put their own political spin on the scientific advice given to governments.
This report produced by the Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy was last updated in November 2010 just a couple of months ago.
FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM for the BRISBANE RIVER BELOW WIVENHOE DAM TO BRISBANE CITY
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/brisbane_lower/brisbane_lower.shtml
It clearly states that:
“Although Wivenhoe Dam significantly reduces the frequency of flooding in Brisbane City, major flooding can still occur.”
They’ve never said anything different.
The problem for scientists, as always, is that warnings are issued but no-one takes enough notice until after the event, by which time its all too late. Maybe the meteorologists concerned should have chained themselves to the railings of City Hall.
Maybe they should have got themselves arrested! But then that’s not how scientists are supposed to bbehave , is it? You’ve told us often enough.
Brute, Reur 3247:
Christopher Booker’s article included:
She has reportedly recently enjoyed a needed improved reputation with her involvement in flood relief etc, but if this gets out, it may somewhat dent her political future , I would think. Booker is an excellent writer, and I highly recommend his book “The real Global Warming Disaster” (Amazon)
It’s interesting to look at the Oz BOM summer rainfall data, it being summer here we are told:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5002/5373443033_687ca6a158_z.jpg
Quite baffling that the BOM data is apparently not taken seriously, what?!
Bob_FJ,
Wivenhoe Dam was built in the early 80’s, long before Anna Bligh’s time, to a capacity of approximately 2 million ML. 1 million ML for drinking water another 1 million ML for flood mitigation. That was how the priorities were defined at the time.
The target storage for the dam is 1 million ML and is defined as 100%. Take a look at the recent levels for yourself:
http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels
Its always been run like this and there have been no recent changes either by Anna Bligh or any other politician. Furthermore, there were no calls for any changes in the balance by any Opposition politicians.