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
Let’s see if I can correct your draft (3999) of what I “think” (deletions in strike-through, additions in italics). We can see if TonyB agrees or has other thoughts to add.
Then I’ll ask you to succinctly list what YOU think, OK?
CO2
, whichis a natural trace gas in our atmosphere, which is essential for all life on our planet, therefore it isa plant food andnot a pollutant; observed increasesaren’thave been at least partially caused by human activitybut even if they were, which they aren’t – it’s probably all come from volcanoes, then they haven’tand it is very likely that they may have been responsible for a part ofcausedthe temperature rises which have been observed in 60-year warming/cooling cycles since the temperature record started in 1850in recent decades, because there haven’t been any, (didn’t you know the hockey stick had been broken?),with natural forcing factors and a possible upward distortion of the record caused by the Urban heat island effect responsible for the rest.andAfter an observed increase in Arctic ice from the 1940s to the 1970s, the Arctic has beengaininglosing ice since 1979;andpolar bears have increased in number since the 1950s and their population is now stable, as it apparently has nothing much to do with summer Arctic sea ice extent but rather the ban on hunting them from aircraft.which aren’t a separate species anyway, and it might all be due to the Urban heat island effect, andThe temperature record in the 19th century and early 20th century is suspect, at least partly due to the highly inaccurate sea surface temperature measurements prior to the late 20th century.as are Antarctic ice core records, but even if they weren’t, it could still be thatThere are undoubtedly many otherexplanations forfactors that have contributed to the warming (as noted above),but not that there has been any since 1998, like the Earth coming out of the last ice age or the sun is getting hotter, or an increase in Cosmic rays, andAs we all know, climate has always changed in the past and always will in the future., and anyway theScientists generally agree that a part of the late 20th century warming cycle has been caused by CO2, but are unable to explain the statistically indistinguishable early 20th century warming cycle. The most recent lack of warming of both the atmosphere and the ocean can also not be explained by the scientists, who had predicted accelerated warming over the first decade of the 21st century; one scientist has referred to it as a “travesty”.disagree on the causes of global warming, not that there has been any, at least not since 1934 which was the warmest year on record, but even if there was, warmer weather would be a good thing, and even if the scientists, who once predicted a return to the ice age, Al Gore and all those other liberal elites, who are really just gay vegan commies in disguise, who are just trying to bring about a new world order via the UN cap and trade and carbon taxes, didn’t disagree, science isn’t about consensus, and it isn’t about computer models either, junk in junk out. Just ask Galileo.”So much for the science. Now to the politics. In 2007, after the release of the IPCC AR4 report, it looked like the “dangerous AGW” wave had taken over. Al Gore’s AIT movie was a big hit and he was setting up his carbon trading company in anticipation. Nobel Peace prizes and an Oscar were handed out and all was good. It looked like nothing could stop the DAGW bandwagon, which had become a multi-billion dollar juggernaut.
Since the climategate scandal in late 2009 the tide has turned on the DAGW movement. Climategate was followed by more revelations of faulty science and manipulated results in the IPCC reports. Frantic attempts by insiders to whitewash the culprits only exacerbated the situation. The 21st century “lack of warming” and several harsh winters across the northern hemisphere did not help; frantic DAGW supporters even tried (unsuccessfully) to sell the public the idea that the unusual cold was caused by AGW! Several solar scientists have predicted a multi-decadal cooling cycle similar to the one we had from around 1940 to 1970. As the general public has become more aware of the basic problems with the science supporting the DAGW premise and the high costs of proposed taxes, it has become increasingly skeptical. Several scientists have also spoken out that we should do more scientific research before jumping into costly mitigation actions. The attempt to agree on a global carbon tax or caps at Copenhagen in 2009 was an utter failure. The following climate meeting Cancun in 2010 also achieved nothing. But AGW had become a multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded big business, with all sorts of individuals, corporations, politicians, scientists, environmental lobby groups, the media, money shufflers and hedge fund operators all lined up at the trough for part of the money, influence and power, so it will not die quietly. But it is in its death throes today.
OK. Peter. Now let’s see your thoughts on all this.
Max
Peter Martin has lost what few cogent thoughts he had……..this is a firsthand look into the diseased mind of an environmental extremist……………a borderline psychotic………it just took one more little thing to push him over the edge.
You don’t have access to any firearms ……………do you Peter?
PeterM
Here is the revised text of “what I think”, using your format but correcting errors in your original draft.
CO2 is a natural trace gas in our atmosphere, which is essential for all life on our planet, therefore it is not a pollutant; observed increases have been at least partially caused by human activity and it is very likely that they may have been responsible for a part of the temperature rises which have been observed in 60-year warming/cooling cycles since the temperature record started in 1850, with natural forcing factors and a possible upward distortion of the record caused by the Urban heat island effect responsible for the rest. After an observed increase in Arctic ice from the 1940s to the 1970s, the Arctic has been losing ice since 1979; polar bears have increased in number since the 1950s and their population is now stable, as it apparently has nothing much to do with summer Arctic sea ice extent but rather the ban on hunting them from aircraft. The temperature record in the 19th century and early 20th century is suspect, at least partly due to the highly inaccurate sea surface temperature measurements prior to the late 20th century. There are undoubtedly many other factors that have contributed to the warming (as noted above). As we all know, climate has always changed in the past and always will in the future. Scientists generally agree that a part of the late 20th century warming cycle has been caused by CO2, but are unable to explain the statistically indistinguishable early 20th century warming cycle. The most recent lack of warming of both the atmosphere and the ocean can also not be explained by the scientists, who had predicted accelerated warming over the first decade of the 21st century; one scientist has referred to it as a “travesty”.
So much for the science. Now to the politics. In 2007, after the release of the IPCC AR4 report, it looked like the “dangerous AGW” wave had taken over. Al Gore’s AIT movie was a big hit and he was setting up his carbon trading company in anticipation. Nobel Peace prizes and an Oscar were handed out and all was good. It looked like nothing could stop the DAGW bandwagon, which had become a multi-billion dollar juggernaut.
Since the climategate scandal in late 2009 the tide has turned on the DAGW movement. Climategate was followed by more revelations of faulty science and manipulated results in the IPCC reports. Frantic attempts by insiders to whitewash the culprits only exacerbated the situation. The 21st century “lack of warming” and several harsh winters across the northern hemisphere did not help; frantic DAGW supporters even tried (unsuccessfully) to sell the public the idea that the unusual cold was caused by AGW! Several solar scientists have predicted a multi-decadal cooling cycle similar to the one we had from around 1940 to 1970. As the general public has become more aware of the basic problems with the science supporting the DAGW premise and the high costs of proposed taxes, it has become increasingly skeptical. Several scientists have also spoken out that we should do more scientific research before jumping into costly mitigation actions. The attempt to agree on a global carbon tax or caps at Copenhagen in 2009 was an utter failure. The following climate meeting Cancun in 2010 also achieved nothing. But AGW had become a multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded big business, with all sorts of individuals, corporations, politicians, scientists, environmental lobby groups, the media, money shufflers and hedge fund operators all lined up at the trough for part of the money, influence and power, so it will not die quietly. But it is in its death throes today.
Let’s see your thoughts in the same format.
Max
Northeast Faces Heavy Snow as March Comes to a Close
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/47683/northeast-faces-heavy-snow-as.asp
Max
I completely agree with your rewriting of Peters latest ramblings but would add;
….for a (small) part of the temperature rises which have been observed in 60-year warming/cooling cycles since the (highly suspect ‘global’) temperature record started in 1850, with natural forcing factors and a possible upward distortion of the record caused by the Urban heat island effect responsible for the rest. The upwards trend in temperatures is observed to have commenced fromn the low point of the LIA in 1607 so modern records are a continuation of a centuries old trend and not the start of it.
Some locations have been cooling for a statistically meaningful period of at least 30 years, thereby accentuating the relevance of possible UHI contamination from increasingly urban based temperature values.
END
Tonyb
TonyB
Very good additions to the revision of Peter’s “credo”, bringing in the historical perspective as well as the fact that many locations have observed statistically significant cooling.
Let’s see if Peter will give us his “credo” now, or if he will just keep waffling (or try to second-guess ours).
I’m looking for a waffle about “flat earthers”, “creationists” or “right-wing Bible thumpers”.
Max
Max 4006
I suspect Peter will introduce politics, or try to link to an extreme right wing blog we have never heard of that relates to one of the three topics you mention-however you should have included tobacco.
What he won’t do is have any sort of attempt at answering our questions with actual science. Still, I suppose Sea surface temperatures are more akin to comedy music hall than science and I suspect he knows this, hence his very long obfuscation.
tonyb
TonyB
Yeah. I also forgot “HIV/AIDS” as a side-track topic.
Max
You left out “greedy industrialists/capitalists” and the nefarious “military industrial complex”…….I say he’ll probably just demonize “the rich”…………or just simply Americans.
I’ve noticed that people such as Peter tend to blame others for their failures and inadequacies………
PeterM and TonyB
Here is a post from a blogger named “pokerguy” at Judith Curry’s blogsite, which is well worth reading. I think this blogger’s gradual change from “believer” in the premise of catastrophic AGW to skeptic is representative for many others (including myself).
Peter, I encourage you to read this in order to understand a bit better what has really motivated many people to become DAGW skeptics, rather than simply comforting yourself by writing it all off to right-wing political bias, religious extremism, anti-science prejudice, etc.
Max
PS Curry later commented that she had testified that climategate (i.e. the leaked emails themselves) had hurt the credibility of climate science even if it had not directly exposed any manipulation of data.
BTW I do not completely agree with Curry’s assessment of the impact of the Climategate emails.
They did expose the “hide the decline” trick used to cherry-pick the tree-ring data that would be hidden and replaced by thermometer data because the tree ring data showed a decline which was falsified by the thermometers (thereby raising serious doubts about the validity of the whole study). This was clearly scientific fraud, which Curry should have acknowledged.
The follow-up exposures of IPCC malfeasance (while not directly related to the emails) clearly showed how IPCC exaggerated and manipulated data to sell its DAGW message.
And, of course, there have been many studies showing that IPCC exaggerated the impact of AGW in its AR4 report, in particular in the SPM (summary for policymakers).
Max
Hi Max
Did you see this very recent peer reviewed study?
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf
The author relies heavily on Segalstad but it is a good logical piece of writing.
tonyb
TonyB
Thanks for link to Carlin study. It gives a good summary of why human CO2 is unlikely to lead to significant global warming and mitigation actions would be expensive without producing any results.
Whether his “CO2 residence time” (Segalstad) is valid or not, it is clear that the IPCC assumptions a) that human CO2 is the only thing upsetting a natural CO2 cycle that is otherwise in balance and b) that CO2 has an essentially infinite residence time in our climate system are not founded on any empirical data, but rather on model scenarios.
He makes a big point of the “missing CO2” (the increase in atmospheric CO2 has only accounted for around half of the human emissions), for which here has been no valid scientific explanation, but simply speculations.
Carlin formerly worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but resigned in 2009 under heavy pressure after having questioned the draft EPA Technical Support document for the “Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” with a written argument.
http://www.carlineconomics.com/files/pdf/end_comments_7b1.pdf
His main point then was that EPA should not simply accept “a priori” everything in the IPCC reports as fact, but do what I would call a “due diligence” check on these data before acting on them.
EPA has obviously not listened to Carlin and has now managed to get “greenhouse gases” (including CO2) classified as “pollutants” based on the IPCC reports (strangely, water vapor, the most effective and powerful GHG, has been excluded from this classification).
Max
TonyB
You can read more on the Carlin muzzling by EPA here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?pagewanted=all%E2%80%9D
Cheers.
Max
TonyB
Just a sideline on CO2 residence time.
Segalstad has shown many estimates using different analytical techniques, which range from 5 to 15 years.
AGW supporters argue that this is just the “short term” residence time, until the CO2 has been temporarily removed from the atmosphere (presumably) by the ocean (which is still part of the “climate system”), but that the “long term” residence time of CO2 “in the climate system” is between 50 and 200 years. After this much longer time the CO2 is forever out of the climate system, according to this hypothesis.
Another estimate expresses this as “half life” and puts the “half life” of CO2 in the system at 100 to 120 years.
Now we know that, on average, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 represents only around half of the calculated total amount of CO2 emitted by humans.
Humans emit enough CO2 to increase atmospheric concentration by 4.5 ppmv per year, but the concentration is only increasing by 2.2 ppmv per year on average.
The “missing CO2” is a mystery. Some scientists have speculated that it is going into the ocean, but this is a guess. Botanists have pointed out that higher CO2 levels have caused a faster rate of plant growth. Marine biologists have speculated that the same could be true for increased photosynthesis by phytoplankton at slightly higher marine concentrations. Others admit that it is not clear what is happening to it.
But let’s just do a quick calculation.
If the “half life” of CO2 in the atmosphere is really 120 years, that would mean that annually an amount of 0.58% of the atmospheric concentration would be leaving the climate system forever (see Wiki for half life calculation).
This amount could be either absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere or weathering, absorbed by phytoplankton and entering the marine food chain or absorbed by the ocean and chemically converted to carbonates, eventually sinking to the bottom of the ocean, or diffused out into space. In any case, it is no longer in the climate system.
With a current concentration of 390 ppmv, this 0.58% represents 2.3 ppmv, or very close to the amount that is “missing”.
So is the “missing” CO2 really disappearing out of the climate system entirely?
It looks like this might be the case.
The problem with human contribution to the Earth’s carbon cycle and the “missing” CO2 is that we are talking about very small differences between very large numbers. And we have very little good analytical data (with the possible exception of atmospheric concentrations since 1958).
So the mystery of the “missing” CO2 remains a mystery.
Max
TonyB
I forgot to add this phrase (in the 3rd paragraph after “between 50 and 200 years”):
Max
Maybe the “missing” CO2 is hiding with the “missing” heat.
Brute #4018
Perhaps the ‘missing’ Co2 doesn’t generate heat after all and that’s why the heat can’t be found?
This elusive heat certainly seems to have gone walk about the last dozen years or so. In fact in the real world of actual thermometer sets (as opposed to theoretical global ones)temperatures have been plunging
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
Brute and TonyB
“missing CO2”
“missing heat”
“missing Peter Martin?”
Max
Climate models go cold
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?
The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.
Brute
The “Financial Post” summary by David Evans is excellent.
I hope PeterM reads it (with an open mind).
Max
What happened to the climate refugees?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/#
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.
The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.
Fifty million climate refugees by 2010
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/fifty-million-climate-refugees-by-2010
It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:
Bahamas:
Nassau, The Bahamas – The 2010 national statistics recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The Bahamas. The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons during the last 10 years.
St Lucia:
The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010 based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010 Population and Housing Census.
Seychelles:
Population 2002, 81755
Population 2010, 88311
Solomon Islands:
The latest Solomon Islands population has surpassed half a million – that’s according to the latest census results.
It’s been a decade since the last census report, and in that time the population has leaped 100-thousand.
Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.
Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.
More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives – said to be places most at risk – with interest.
However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.
Snow arrives two months early in Australia: ‘The official start to the ski season is still two months away’ —
‘Significant amount of snow for this time of year’
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/snow-arrives-two-months-early-20110412-1dbng.html
Walmart: ‘A Gore Store No More’
‘After suffering 7 straight quarters of losses, it is ‘going back to basics’ — ending its era of going ‘green’
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wal-mart-goes-back-to-basics-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-left/?singlepage=true