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
Peter and I are not really “arguing”.
He is just in denial regarding the observed fact that it has not warmed over the past 10 years. Trenberth acknowledges it, Met Office does, as well. But Peter still has his head in the sand.
So he tries all sorts of “side tricks” to hide this fact.
(But it does not work.)
Max
PS Arctic climate history is interesting – will look at your link more closely.
Climate Model Fail : “North American snow extent will probably decrease in response to greenhouse gas emissions”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/climate-model-fail-north-american-snow-extent-will-probably-decrease-in-response-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
The Climate Model Snow Predictions Fiasco: 9 IPCC Climate Models Predicted Less Snow For Northern Hemisphere – Total Opposite of Reality
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/04/the-climate-model-snow-predictions-fiasco-9-ipcc-climate-models-predicted-less-snow-for-northern-hem.html
North American snow models miss the mark – observed trend opposite of the predictions
While some other bloggers and journalists insist that recent winter snows are proof of global warming effects, they miss the fact that models have been predicting less snow in the norther hemisphere. See this 2005 peer reviewed paper:
Frei, A. and G. Gong, 2005. Decadal to Century Scale Trends in North American Snow Extent in Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models. Geophysical Research Letters, 32:L18502, doi: 10.1029/2005GL023394.
It says exactly the opposite of what some are saying now.
TonyB,
Max is right, in a way, for once, in that we aren’t arguing. As usual, he’s wrong, on the main issue, and I’m not sure why he has a problem seeing that!
There were a very few who insisted on celebrating the new Millenium on 1/1/01. Everyone else did it a year earlier. The overwhelming majority of people accepted well known arguments along the lines I’ve just outlined.
So he should just get over it and accept the verdict of the people on the issue instead of whinging about it all being a mistake.
PeterM
A tip:
Google: when did the millennium start? and see what comes up.
You’re never too old to learn something new, Peter.
Besides, it does not change the fact that over the past 10 years (the past decade) it has not warmed, but cooled slightly – and that is the main point here.
Max
Brute
Yeah. 5 years ago we read that snow would forever be a “thing of the past” in the UK (due to AGW, of course). Your link shows that the same prediction was being made for the USA. The Swiss were lamenting the imminent end of alpine skiing due to the “warming”.
IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM report warned us that it was virtually certain that “warmer and fewer cold days and nights” would occur in the 21st century based on model projections, with a likely “human contribution” to the trend.
These were the same models that predicted it would warm by 0.2C per decade over the first two decades of the millennium (if CO2 emissions continued) and by 0.1C per decade even if CO2 concentrations were “kept constant at 2000 levels”. This also did not happen, as I pointed out to Peter (who is still having trouble grasping it).
So it looks like the “model projections” were wrong once again. Another classical case of GIGO.
Max
Max,
OK I took your advice and Google came up with:
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/newmill.htm
Q: When Did the New Millennium Begin?
A: Only a few astronomers, pedants and Christian clergy tried to convince us that 1st January 2001 was the big day, but most of us were unconvinced, and rightly so.
Max,
Coming back to the trait of some Queenslanders being famously slow in comprehension, I’ve since wondered if the reason why the popular northern beer brew was labelled XXXX in the first place, is that brand names elsewhere around the world are far too complicated for many Queenslanders to assimilate. Boy!!! Take for instance the Victorian brew ‘Crown Lager’ or ‘Victoria Bitter’; that’s surely far too complicated for them, and I dare not mention some Tasmanian or various southern boutique brewery monikers. It’s a travesty reeealy!
Max and Peter
You are both entitled to present information covering any period you like, I was merely pointing out that there is an ‘official’ time period that needs to be observed if the resultant information is to be seen as graphically correct. It seems that it was Peter who was presenting the information in his own inimitable manner.
Look forward to his response to my earlier question as to why he castigates the CO2 figures collected over many years by proper scientists, yet endorses SSTs collected in an ad hoc manner by fishermen?
tonyb
PeterM
Q: When did the most recent calendar year end?
A: December 31, 2010
Q: When did this year begin?
A: January 1, 2010
Q: When did the most recent calendar decade (i.e. 10-year period) end?
A: Also December 31, 2010
Q: When did it begin?
A: January 1, 2001
Pretty straightforward, so far, right?
Q: What was the HadCRUT linear global temperature trend over this most recent decade?
A: Slight cooling.
End of discussion.
If you haven’t gotten it yet, then you are hopeless.
Max
TonyB
You hit the nail on the head when you advised Peter and me:
I presented the information (HadCRUT temperature record) for the most recent 10-year period (or decade), namely the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2010.
Peter presented the same information for an earlier period, January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2009 (this is, however NOT the “most recent decade“, as pointed out above.
But we have beaten this dog to death.
The HadCRUT record shows that it has cooled slightly over the most recent decade.
Trenberth has referred to this “unexplained” “lack of warming” as a “travesty”.
The Met Office has attributed this to natural factors, which have overwhelmed record increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, which (according to model simulations cited by IPCC) should have caused warming of 0.2C/decade instead of the observed slight cooling.
These are the facts, which Peter has difficulty accepting – as they raise serious questions regarding the validity of his dangerous AGW “dogma”.
Max
Max
TonyB
I do not believe Peter will answer your specific direct questions (3383) with specific direct answers.
It is not his way of operating.
But maybe he will surprise us both this time.
Max
Heresy and the creation of monsters
Here is a good summary (by Dr. Judith Curry) of how, over an eight year period from 2003 through 2010, she slowly transformed from someone who substituted the IPCC view for her own personal judgment to someone who now believes that IPCC understates the many uncertainties that still exist and has lost the moral high ground in the climate debate.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/
Today I would not call her a “skeptic” of the premise that AGW could represent a potential threat (such as Lindzen, Pielke Sr., etc.), but she is also no longer a supporter of what she has called the IPCC “dogma” on climate change.
It appears that many people (including those outside the direct climate science community) have gone through a similar transformation, so it is interesting to see how it happened for a climate “insider”.
Max
Max,
Contrary to what some may suggest I am doing my best to answer your question in the best way I can. So do the figures for temperature anomalies for the years (2001-2010) show that warming has stopped or even slowed down?
I’ve circled the years in question in yellow. So, what do you really think?
The graph is really a mixture of signal and noise. The signal is the real global temperature, which is what we are of course interested in, and on top of that is superimposed pseudo-random noise.
If you want to fool yourself its not that hard. You just pick a cluster of results, not just any cluster, you have to choose carefully, like you’ve just done and convince yourself, and try to convince others, that they show the opposite of what’s really happening.
The only sensible way to analyse the figures, to separate the signal from the noise, is to apply long term averaging. This works on the principle that if you generate a large number of random numbers in the range -N to +N then they will average themselves out to zero, if the number is large enough, or an acceptably small value is a smaller number is chosen.
PeterM
Sorry. Your waffle concerning long-term trends of 10-year rolling averages (3388) does not change the observed facts.
The HadCRUT record shows that the atmosphere has cooled slightly at the surface over the past decade.
Satellite measurements (UAH and RSS) have shown that there has also been cooling in the troposphere over this period.
ARGO measurements of ocean temperature have shown that this has also cooled since they were installed in 2003.
In other words, Peter, our planet has cooled.
This is the “signal”, Peter.
At the same time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased at a record rate over the same period, according to the Mauna Loa measurements.
This is also the “signal”.
These “signals” tell us that atmospheric CO2 is not really the principal driver of our planet’s climate, as IPCC assumed.
I’m sure you are able to agree with this conclusion, as any sane individual can, right?
If not, why not? (Please try to be specific.)
Max
Max,
In other words, too, over the last three years the planet has warmed at a rate of 0.1degC per year!
If it carries on at this rate it will be 9 degC warmer by the end of the century.
These are also the “observed facts”.
But I can’t, in all honesty, say that is the real signal any more than your claimed “cooling” is the real signal either. In both cases we are just playing around with the natural randomisation in the graph. We both know that -its just that you don’t want to admit it. Either that or I’m grossly overestimating your intelligence!
The real ‘signal’, the real result, of course, with reasonable accuracy, is the red line in the graph shown.
Peter
If you spent a quarter of the time answering questions that you do trying to evade them my short list would have been answered long ago :)
Your opinion on SST’s please and your reasons for believing in them so implicitly compared to the Co2 records, even though the latter are far more ‘scientifically’ valid.
tonyb
PeterM
OK. So you now concede that the HadCRUT global surface temperature record shows that it has cooled slightly over the most recent decade.
Great! We’re making progress here.
Then you add your opinion:
This is BS, Peter. It is a rationalization attempting to explain why the facts on the ground (or at the surface) have not supported the theory.
Theory (according to models cited by IPCC):
a) with normal CO2 emissions = warming of 0.2C per decade
b) with CO2 concentration frozen at 2000 level = warming of 0.1C per decade
Actual observation = cooling of slightly less than 0.1C per decade
So IPCC’s warming projection was “signal”, while the observed cooling was “natural randomisation”?
[Just trying to get your definitions straight here, Peter.]
Let me repeat what I have written many times: I do not believe any more than you do that a 10-year period is sufficiently long to constitute a “climate trend”. I even have serious doubts that a 30-year period is long enough to qualify as such.
A 100-year trend (or better yet the full 161 years of the HadCRUT record) would be much more representative, assuming the data themselves are accurate and have no built-in bias.
These data show three statistically indistinguishable multi-decadal cycles of warming (around 30 years per cycle), with multi-decadal cycles of slight cooling in between.
The first two warming cycles occurred before there were major human CO2 emissions, while the third occurred during significant increase in atmospheric CO2, as measured at Mauna Loa.
The whole temperature record resembles a sine curve with an amplitude of ±0.2°C and a total warming + cooling cycle time of around 60 years, all on a slightly tilted axis showing around 0.04°C warming per decade.
This is what I would call the “signal”. The late 20th century cycle starting around 1976 (IPCC’s “poster period”) is probably more of a “blip” in the overall curve than a “signal”, no more meaningful than the slight cooling of the previous 30 years or the even earlier early 20th century warming cycle of also around 30 years.
But we are getting into semantics here, Peter.
Important is that you have now finally conceded that it has cooled slightly over the past decade, which you appeared to be denying previously.
Trenberth called this “unexplained” “lack of warming” a “travesty”.
Met Office attributed it to natural factors, which overwhelmed the record increase in CO2, raising serious doubts concerning the earlier IPCC estimates of relatively insignificant natural forcing factors.
I’d have to agree with Dr. Curry that there are great uncertainties concerning the magnitude of natural climate forcing factors and that, until these can be more closely identified, there is even greater uncertainty regarding the impact of anthropogenic climate forcing and, as a result, of any projections of resulting future climate changes such as those made by IPCC.
Max
Max,
If you look at the temperature record there are lots of clusters which appear to show a cooling. They are just not statistically significant in any way at all. What is statistically significant is the 10 year rolling average.
You know I’m right. You know there is no rational basis for saying that the general warming trend has ended and the only thing is to cry “bullshit”! Well that just doesn’t cut it, scientifically, at all! Now does it?
PeterM
Since the last cooling cycle ended in 1975, there are no “clusters which appear to show a cooling” that have lasted 10 years, as this one has.
A 10-year rolling average is no more statistically significant than the linear trend used by IPCC. It has some real statistical disadvantages, which I will not go into here as I believe Bob_FJ has already covered them.
No one is claiming, Peter, that “the general warming trend has ended” on a long-term basis. We will have to wait and see whether or not the most recent 10-year trend of slight cooling continues, flattens out or reverses itself back to the prior warming trend.
But the fact remains that IPCC projected warming of 0.2C per decade for the first two decades (with continued CO2 emissions) and warming of 0.1C per decade if atmospheric CO2 levels stayed at 2000 values, when in actual fact we saw an “unexplained” slight cooling trend over the first decade, which Trenberth called a “travesty” and Met Office attributed to natural factors.
And that is NOT BS, Peter.
Max
Max,
I think you’ve misunderstood Trenberth’s “travesty” comment too. Its not so much that from time to time there are periods of apparent cooling in a time of general warming, that’s to be expected due to the pseudo random nature of the process. This sort of apparent contradictory result happens generally with lots of other processes too.
For instance, if you examine a period where the price of a commodity has risen sharply, you can pick out clusters of price points which might appear to show price falls. If you plot out the hourly price you’ll see lots of them. If you plot out the daily price there will be far fewer. The weekly and monthly prices will show fewer anomalous results still.
So, you are wrong in saying a “rolling average is no more statistically significant than a linear trend”.
For a start, the real change may not be linear and using a rolling average makes no assumptions about this. I’ll try to explain this further with some more graphical illustrations when I get time.
PS I forgot to say that Trenberth was actually talking about the problem of not being able to accurately measure the heat transfer balance of the Earth. As Judith Curry writes “Measuring the Earth’s radiation balance (and changes thereof) is very difficult.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/07/wheres-the-missing-heat/
Its nothing to do with natural variability.
ALL,
I think I’ve mentioned before that I buy only the Thursday Melbourne Age, for the included “Green Guide”, which gives useful broadcasting and IT etc info.
I noticed the following article, in the broadsheet, which concerning cyclone Yasi, included from an impeccable high authority in the Oz CSIRO:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-adding-to-severity-20110202-1adyr.html
All in all, it was an unusually balanced article, pointing out that cyclone Yasi was not unprecedented in times before any significant anthro’ CO2. (which BTW followed the “Confederation Drought” which appears to have been rather more severe than the recent droughts)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last month, a monsoonal trough came down from NT (Northern Territory) and resulted in major flooding in the west and mid north of Victoria, which is still a problem. The forecast is for another trough from cyclone Yasi that will probably inundate the north east and further boost the Melbourne storages which are already looking good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I notice that that embarrassing fruitcake from Queensland has still not twigged for the XXXX’th time from being informed that PMA (prior moving average) smoothing is the WRONG method for time-series analysis. (whilst nevertheless PMA does have some different applications in commerce for prior periodic performance etc) His very silly graph in 3388 is clearly in a phase conflict with the base data….. Some kind of spatial perception problem it seems!
Here is an example of correct CMA (central moving average) application for time-series data from an impeccable source, which is on an 11-year span, with a normally applied central whole year, the closest sensible approach to his preferred 10-year PMA
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rain.aus.0112.30156.png
Notice where the smoothed line starts and ends!
The big news here in the United States is that rolling blackouts and natural gas shortages are being reported all over the country with the Southwest being particularly hardest hit. Record cold temperatures throughout the United States has caused a spike in usage causing the gas shortages.
So, I’m curious………where and when was it that the IPCC and the priests of global warming prophesized record cold that would trigger increased demand for natural gas in order for people to keep warm?
Why is it that the windmills and solar panels can’t generate energy?
Here are the headlines today…..
ENERGY CRUNCH:
NM declares state of emergency over natural gas shortage…
TX residents asked to limit use…
Outage in AZ…
San Diego shortage…
Usage at record high in UT…
CA utility told to cut pipeline pressures…
Obama’s Blocking Of New Plants Triggers Nationwide Blackouts?
Max,
Peter’s political leanings and Marxist world view will not allow him to admit that the global warming theory has been disproven by observed facts/data.
To do so would be heresy……he’d be excommunicated from the church of Gaia which would also remove the reason for imposing energy taxes and regulation in order to expand government bureaucracies and control over the means of production.
You’re wasting your time.
The Global Warmists are back to the reasoning that global warming causes global cooling………
Nation Smacked With Deep Freeze After Massive Blizzard
Feb 3, 2011
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/03/nation-smacked-with-deep-freeze-after-blizzard/