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
Well, the data are in!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5137/5391154219_b5e27a6141_b.jpg
You’ll be pleased, Peter, that HadCRUT tells us it has cooled by around 0.09°C over the first full decade of the new millennium (0.088°C to be exact).
Now this observed cooling may be “statistically insignificant” in itself, but it compares with an IPCC forecast of 0.2°C warming over the same period.
So the IPCC model-based forecasting error is “statistically significant” at almost 0.3°C per decade (or half of the total warming seen over the 20th century!
So much for the models.
And these guys are going to tell us what our “global temperature” will be in the year 2100 when they can’t even get the first 10 years of the millennium right?
Ouch!
Max
Max,
I think the IPCC were saying that each decade will be warmer than the previous one. Not necessarily that the start of every decade will be that much warmer than the end of the decade. I seem to remember posting up graphs showing that there tends to be a staircase like shape to the upward movement so you need to be sure that you aren’t just measuring along the same step.
So what would be the change from the 90’s to the 00’s?
I don’t suppose you’ll want to answer that.
PeterM
You wrote:
You “think” wrong, Peter.
IPCC told us:
As we know, GHG levels were not “kept constant at year 2000 levels”, but increased at record levels over the first decade of the millennium.
Yet this decade did not show warming of 0.2°C, as projected by the IPCC models, but a cooling of almost 0.1°C instead.
So much for the prediction capability of the IPCC models!
Face it, Peter. It’s lousy.
So how can we give the IPCC models’ longer-term forecasts any credibility when they cannot even predict the next 10 years?
Answer: We can’t.
Max
Max,
So you’re saying that the 00’s weren’t any warmer that the 90’s? Yes or No?
This is an interesting link:
http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/evolution-deniers-vs-agw-deniers/
Wendy’s “material evidence” sounds rather like your “empirical evidence”. Don’t you think?
Here’s a funny one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk&feature=player_embedded
Enjoy!
PeterM
Sorry, you’ll not get me into an irrelevant discussion on evolution. We have beaten that dog to death on this site and it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
But back to our topic: the cooling experienced over the first decade of the new millenium (as measured by HadCRUT).
As you must be aware (if you have read any of the IPCC reports), IPCC uses the linear rate of change (or linear trend) to define the warming (or cooling) over time periods.
In the infamous chart in AR4, WG1, FAQ section 3.1 (p.104), IPCC compares linear rates of temperature change over short and longer-term periods using this approach in a “smoke and mirrors” attempt to show acceleration in the linear rate of warming.
And in AR4 WG1 SPM (p.5) the same linear trend approach is used, again comparing longer and later shorter time periods.
Using this same linear trend approach, the first decade of the 21st century shows actually observed cooling of almost 0.1°C, while IPCC models had predicted warming of 0.2°C (i.e. the models got it wrong).
Quite simple, actually.
Max
Max,
So you’re saying that the 00’s weren’t any warmer that the 90’s? Yes or No?
PeterM
I am not going to get into a silly discussion with you, but I will try to clear up your question (3307).
The HadCRUT record shows that it cooled slightly over the first decade of the new millennium (at a linear rate of around –0.09°C per decade over the period).
By the same token, the same record shows us that it warmed fairly rapidly over the last decade of the 20th century (at a linear rate of +0.26°C per decade over the period – or 3 times as fast as the 21st century cooling).
As a result, it is quite obvious that the average temperature over the period 1991-2000 was lower than the average temperature over the period 2001-2010. Duh! No rocket science here, Peter.
In other words, it warmed on average over the 20-year time period 1991-2010, using this method of analysis.
A similar analysis comparing the average temperature over the period 2001-2005 with that over the period 2006-2010 would show that the earlier period was warmer on average than the later one.
In other words, it cooled on average over the 10-year time period 2001-2010, using the same analysis.
As a scientist, you should know that it is the rate of temperature change that is important, not the absolute value.
That is why IPCC uses the linear rate of change to describe what is happening to temperature over time periods.
And this approach shows that it has cooled over the first decade of the 21st century, as I pointed out earlier (and showed on a graph).
Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.
If not, I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Max
Max,
You’re making this hard work.
Simply (and according to the figures in your reference):
The average temperature anomaly in the 90’s (1990-1999) was 0.231 degC
The average in the 00’s (2000-2009) was 0.404 deg C
A decadal increase of 0.17 degC
Yes, the IPCC predicted, as you say, 0.2 deg C.
OK I agree that has turned out to be slightly too high a figure.
Max
The trend for this century is negative but it depends on what start point you use and which version of the temperature series is provided
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadcrut-december-anomlay-0-251c/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/04/the-c-e-t/#comment-251929
The comments on both sites are instructive and some make the same point as I do, that some of the individual (real world) records show startling cooling in recent years (such as CET) However their signal is overwhelmed by the warming signal from the nonsensical ‘global’ record that is the result of an increasingly urbanised data base which doesn’t take into account UHI adequately. ( I have a private email from the Met office showing what ludicrously small allowance they make in the CET record)
Whatever the end result the rate of change is statistically insignificant despite rapidly escalating levels (apparently) of Co2. Dr Trenberth now believes the heat is hiding below 700 metres in the ocean. The Argo buoys say differently. Historic SST’s can not be relied on (unless Peter can tell us differently)
Tonyb
Oh dear………more fraudulent alarmism spread by the United Nations.
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html
If not for the effects of global warming, we would have 36 inches of snow today and 7 blizzards this winter as opposed to the only 5 we’ve suffered thus far…….thank God that global warming has spared us………
NORTHEAST ON LOCK DOWN AFTER STORM
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/nationalforecast/index.html
Snowstorm Shatters NYC, Philadelphia Records…
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/44999/snowstorm-shatters-new-york-ci.asp
Commute from hell in DC: 12 hours to get home from work…
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Traffic-and-Transit-Update-12-Hour-Commute-114710519.html?dr
Obama stuck in traffic…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_snow
PeterM
Your arithmetic skills are definitely lacking.
IPCC uses linear rates of change to determine temperature trends throughout its reports. So did I.
These show 0.26C/decade warming over last decade of 20th century and 0.09C cooling over first decade of 21st century, with a net warming over both decades together, of course (as you have written).
‘Nuff said.
If you are unable to grasp this simple bit of arithmetic, I have to ask myself about the wisdom of the Australian school system awarding you a degree in physics. Maybe you should have taken statistics instead.
End of this silly discussion.
Max
TonyB
Yes. Of course I agree with you that the slight atmospheric cooling trend of 0.09C/decade observed at the surface by HadCRUT over the first decade of this century is statistically meaningless in itself (as I have written to Peter earlier, as well).
Unlike Peter, who is still stumbling over statistical analyses, the Met Office has acknowledged this “lack of warming” and has attributed it to “natural variability”.
Trenberth has also acknowledged it and called it a “travesty”.
Despite all this, Peter still denies it, by simply sticking his head in the sand with phony statistics.
The discrepancy between the IPCC forecast of +0.2C/decade warming and the actually observed -0.09C/decade cooling trend is, however, statistically significant, and that was actually my point.
IPCC models have failed miserably in forecasting what would happen to global surface temperature over the first decade of the millennium, so why should we delude ourselves into thinking that they can do better over the next 90 years?
But, once again, Peter sticks his head into the sand…
Max
Max 3314-
Peter’s way of measuring such things as the temperature seems more a way of reassuring himself that his belief system still functions, than a serious attempt to persuade anyone else that the Global temperature is doing anything other than flatlining. Both my links in #3310 confirm your measurement methods are the ones used by the IPCC.
Of greater interest I think is the examination of individual trends such as CET, Germany, US and other nations whereby warming seems to have gone into reverse.
A ‘global’ temperature in any case is no way to measure things as it is too contaminated by the nonsensical way in which it was originally compiled and the lack of UHI subsequently introduced to take into account that many of the stations now reside at airports rather than a rural field.
Mind you, I’m really looking forward to Peter answering my question as to why he disparages CO2 records -conducted by perfectly respectable scientists-but believes in a global sea surface temperature record conducted by fishermen throwing buckets over the side of a ship.
Tonyb
Brute
I’m sorry to hear about the disastrous impact anthropogenic global warming is having on your climate (‘scuse me, “weather”).
It appears that AGW is also causing the Himalayan glaciers to advance (just like it’s responsible for all that snow in your region).
I’m glad we have taxpayer-funded scientists to explain all this complicated stuff to us.
Otherwise I’d think it’s just plain old natural climate cycles as we have had for hundreds of years.
Now I know it’s “different this time”.
It’s just like Peter has been telling us, as his region recovers from some several meter “reverse droughts” (which were projected by IPCC).
The end is near! (Because IPCC says so.)
Max
Max,
If you want to obtain the average temperature for the year, and you only have the monthly figures, what do you do?
You add them all up and divide by 12. Right? I suppose if you wanted to you could weight each month, because they are of unequal length.
And if you want to calculate the decadal average you add up all the yearly figures and divide by ten. Right?
If you do that you’ll see that the average temperature anomaly for the 00’s was 0.17deg C warmer than for the 90’s. Pretty close to the IPCC prediction.
Its really rather elementary. You don’t need a degree, any understanding of graphs or linear regression. Any intelligent 8 year old can work it out for themselves.
But not you apparently! Perhaps you need to consider taking some adult remedial arithmetic lessons :-)
PeterM
Sorry, Peter.
NO SALE.
(Tell it to the IPCC.)
Max
Yes Max, due to the record cold temperatures caused by global warming this is the “snowiest” January for New York City on record beating the aged record of…………last January.
I see a trend developing!
Max,
You might have some trouble qualifying for Aussie citizenship should you ever apply. There is test that asks applicants about ‘Aussie values’ and they have known to ask about cricket, I believe.
As all followers of the game will know, there are lots of stats like batting and bowling averages.
Batters add up all their scores , then divide by the number of innings, and they get their batting average!
Simple really. I’d be happy to give you some further maths coaching at, say $25 per hour, over the net if you think it might be of benefit :-)
yo
Max, Reur 3301
Given that the developing La Nina may be stronger than that of 2008, (a relatively cold year), and other indicators, like various aspects of solar activity, it would seem that 2011 could be cooler than 2008, which is a prominent feature on your graph. Thus the downward linear trend method as favoured by the IPCC* can be anticipated to deviate even more from the IPCC’s decadal projection at the end of this year
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino4.png
* I actually don’t see the sense in linear trends on small parts of a cyclic curve, but clearly the IPCC does, to suit its purpose.
Max, further my 3322, & TonyB?
Here is the different concept NOAA multivariate index, showing the current La Nina development as very strong compared with 2008. I’m puzzled how they can have good data going back that far though. It takes into account winds, atmospheric pressure etc.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
Here’s another instance of where the IPCC have come unstuck in their predictions.
http://www.cee.mtu.edu/~reh/papers/pubs/non_Honrath/stroeve07_2007GL029703.pdf
After the cock-up of “Himalayagate” maybe the IPCC do need to tighten up a bit and I hope you’ll pounce on this latest blunder with equal fervour!
Bob_FJ
Interesting stuff.
It appears that “natural variability” (the nemesis of the IPCC and “dangerous AGW” aficionados) raises its ugly head again.
But, wait a minute!
IPCC computer modelers (the disseminators of all scientific knowledge on climate) have told us in no uncertain terms that “natural forcing” (another way of saying “natural variability”) has been negligible since 1750 and essentially all climate change since then (all bad, of course) has been caused by those pesky humans and their evil greenhouse gases.
This is no small deal, Bob. We’re talking about melting Himalayan glaciers, vanishing polar sea ice, dying polar bears and penguins, starving Africans, disappearing rainforests in the Amazon, rising sea levels, disappearing island nations, droughts and/or simultaneous floods in Queensland, hurricanes in the US Gulf Coast, Arctic storms in Washington, DC (where Brute lives) and other severe weather events too fierce to mention. – all essentially caused by human emissions of CO2, that ghastly greenhouse gas!
In fact, IPCC has stated this so strongly that even the learned physicist from Brisbane (who has a bit of a problem with statistical analysis) is convinced that it’s true!
How could nature do such a cruel thing?
Just goes to show that “Nature” is a “Mother”…
Max