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.
Peter
This should be a good time to assert your scepticism. Do you believe UHI has a cooling effect because some eminent scientists says so? Or do you believe the evidence of your real world experiences and say ‘thats nonsense-wonder if I can trust their other material?’
On this point you said to me that warming started from 1900 according to Mann. I have consistently pointed out it started in the 1600’s and Giss et al merely plugged into an existing 300 year trend.
How do you reconcile your belief in the all round excellence of the Berkley paper, which shows rising temperatures since 1800, with that of Mann-who endorsed a slightly cooling world until 1900 when CAGW kicked in?
tonyb
TonyB
There is no contradiction between the BEST findings and Mann’s hockey stick. As you can see from this superposition of their graph with various other hockey stick graphs. BEST is the red trace:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/muller_plus_wilson.png
Note that this is from none other than Steve McIntyre’s site.
Furthermore its important to note that the UHI findings are relative to a 1950-1980 baseline. So its quite possible that the UHI effect measures less now that it did then. It doesn’t mean that it is absolutely negative. Increased Urban vegetation in many cities is a possible reason, but there are others too.
Your heroine Judith Curry is second author on this paper. Surely you aren’t rubbishing her work?
TT
The graph with all the “copy spaghetti hockey sticks” and BEST superimposed is pretty hard to glean much info from.
As BEST have indicated, their work is “work in progress”. Let’s see what subsequent reports show.
The HadCRUT3 record alone tells us more: since 1850 there have been 3 multi-decadal warming cycles with two multi-decadal cycles of slight cooling in between, all with a half-cycle time of about 30 years. These cycles had an amplitude of around ±0.25°C. All of this was superimposed on a gradual warming trend of around 0.6°C per century.
The CET record goes back much further, as Tony writes.
It showed similar swings including a much sharper warming cycle from around 1700 to 1730, all on a gentle warming slope similar to that seen in the past century.
We all know (or do you?) that there was a cold period from around 1790 to 1830 called the Dalton minimum and an earlier even sharper one called the Maunder Minimum from around 1645 to 1715. Since this time our planet’s temperature has been gradually increasing as we are emerging from the period called the “Little Ice Age”, with the many multi-decadal cycles as indicated.
Historical records (see Lamb) as well as physical evidence uncovered under retreating glaciers today tell us that there was a warmer period from around 900 to 1400 AD, called the “Medieval Warm Period”.
Several independent studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methodologies, have confirmed the existence of the MWP.
Mann’s phony tree-ring study missed most of this, but it has been discredited for everyone except IPCC, who still cling to the myth of “unusual 20th century warmth for 1,300 years”.
Do you?
Max
Peter
So we can agree that Manns original hockey stick- which was largely responsible for creating the scare and broadcasting it widely- was wrong, even though it is still widely used?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
Further graphs that appear to contradict the first graph are therefore right. Is that correct?. How many bites does he get at the cherry?
As usual you have taken a graph and tried to use it out of context. Here is the full article in which the graph appeared. Nice to see the curve continues down to the sort of date that I stated signified the start of the 4 centuries long warming trend
http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/22/first-thoughts-on-best/
This is equally interesting
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ruti-global-land-temperatures-1880-2010-part-1-244.php
My next article is called ‘the long slow thaw-a reconstruction of temperatures to 1607’ Sounds just about the right title.especially as it shows the fine detail that statistical techniques miss.
Having said all that the notion of a global temperature is nonsensical let alone that we know it to fractions of a degree- (my usual disclaimer)
Judith Curry is a very interesting scientist, but I have no heroines or heroes-except for you obviously once you start thinking for yourself in such subjects as UHI. Do you believe that it COOLS in built up environments?.
tonyb.
Mann’s graph is actually included in the link I sent you. MBH 1999 Although the colour coding isn’t too clear. Since then there have been several similar temperature reconstructions which all show the same hockey stick type pattern.
I’m surprised that Steve McIntyre , in the link you posted, above was quite so positive about the BEST papers. He’s apparently a person friend of Rich Muller. He’s posted up Mann’s graph and other hockey sticks too. Many he’s finally coming around too!
Yes, the UHI effect is almost certainly positive IMO. However it could be less positive now than it was 30 or 40 years ago which is what the BEST group is saying. Surprising but possible. Its also quite small, so although the BEST group say that their results are statistically different from previous studies, which did show positive relative trends, they are not large enough to affect the good overall agreement with previous studies.
Peter
Please put your glasses on and look at MBH1999, it bears little relationship to Berekely. I know it very well as I have recently reread every paper of Manns in preparation for writing mine. In my opinion his work was pretty good as was Hansens but they are ultimately flawed. The Lamb type version in 1991for the IPCC is much closer to the reality although recent evidence shows he didn’t get everything right.
We are clearly on a low gentle rise with glaciers melting from 1750. The decades from 1900 or so show the effects of uhi on those places that had a therrnometer-ie a great percentage are historic ones which are in cities that have greatly increased in size. Averaging it over the whole planet where there arent any stations in order to fill in the squares is a mathematical artifice.
We have known about the enormous effects of UHI since Roman times and every time the modern tv weather forecaster mentions the temperature it will be three or four degrees warmer. This is uhi in action. I personally believe there is a limit as a city centre can only warm up to a certain point. The warmth then spreads through the construction of suburbs but it doesnt concentrate.
tonyb
TonyB,
You might say that Mann’s graph is out of line with the BEST findings. Saying is one thing, showing why is another. The main difference of course is that Mann was looking at the temperature record of the last millenium whereas Berkeley was looking at the last 200 years. Within the limits of reported accuracy, for this time period, there isn’t any disagreement.
All temperature records show a sharp rise at the end of the 20th century. The CET (Central England Temperature) record is another example of a ‘hockey stick’.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4817095720_661c445d43.jpg
Dr David Whitehouse has an interesting article (on the GWPF website here) contesting Prof Muller’s conclusions re the global temperature standstill of the last decade. He refers to the BBC interview with Prof Muller, of which I’ve now written up the full transcript here.
tempterrain
On Judith’s site a blogger named Colin asked me the following question:
This was my response:
YES/NO plus % of total emissions 2001-2010 and estimated % of total emissions 2011-2100 (based on estimated GDP and population growth):
EU (including UK, but maybe with back-out of newer member states): YES , 15.0%, 3.2%
AUS NZ: YES, 1.2%, 0.9%
Total voting “YES” = 16.2% of today’s emissions, 4.1% of future emissions
Canada: undecided, 2.7%, 1.0%
Japan: undecided (unless China joins in): 4.0%, 1.2%
Total undecided = 6.7% of today’s emissions, 2.2% of future emissions
USA: NO, 21.3%, 6.5%
China: NO, 20.3%, 31.0%
India: NO, 4.2%, 13.2%
Russia: NO, 8.1%, 2.0%
Brazil: NO, 4.0%, 4.0%
Rest of World: NO, 19.2%, 37.0%
Total voting “NO” = 77.1% of today’s emissions, 93.7% of future emissions
So, in summary, the answer to your question is “NO”.
As Professor Richard Muller has pointed out, what counts is the future CO2 emissions from today on. These will be dominated by China, India and other developing economies. He also points out that China plus India, etc. have a right to develop their economies in order to improve the lot of their citizens. They have large reserves of inexpensive coal.
They will not stop economic growth to help solve what they consider to be a “rich white man’s” problem unless alternates are developed that are economically competitive with their local coal. This does not include schemes such as “carbon capture and sequestration”, which are much too costly for these nations to even consider.
Obviously this also does not include agreeing to a global “carbon tax” to artificially make coal less competitive.
This is the dilemma for those few nations that would like to set carbon limits and implement a direct or indirect carbon tax. They represent such a small part of the world’s human CO2 emissions that, no matter how much they cut them back, they will have no impact on theoretically estimated warming by year 2100.
Hope this has answered your question.
Peter, how would you have answered Colin’s question?
Max
Alex #4408
Congratulations on getting the transcript up so fast. I reposted the link at Bishop Hill for Shub, who hadn’t seen your first post there.
The day climate change makes it into the mainstream media in a big way, your transcript box is going to be a most valuable tool. I’ll be available for transcribing next week, if the BEST story gets the coverage it deserves.
Thanks, Geoff! Actually, would have got the transcript done a little sooner, had it not been for pesky work commitments getting in the way. Will keep an eye on the media, Beeb and others, next week to see what emerges next re BEST.
Just as an aside, who saw the inaugural Indian Grand Prix today? I mention this not for the Motor racing but because to my eyes you could barely see from one end of the track to the other. The “smog” a combination of Nitrogen Oxides from combustion and particulate matter rendered the atmosphere opaque. This is what much of Europe was like even as late as the 70’s and perhaps into the 80’s. It reinforces in my mind the stupidity of our current position trying to force countries like India and China to reduce emissions of CO2 when we make no mention of the chronic pollution that exists in these countries that we know is not only a health hazard to the locals but can spread around the world and is why we have huge regulatory cost to eliminate it.
Thank you, Matt Ridley
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/#more-50468
Brute
Excellent article by Matt Ridley.
Every climatologist in this world should have a printed copy hanging on the wall above their computers.
I hope PeterM reads it (with an open mind).
Max
Max and Brute
Its not often that I quote George Monbiot, but his take on Matt Ridley should introduce some sanity to the praise being heaped on him for reasons that completely elude me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/18/matt-ridley-rational-optimist-errors
Matt Ridley was a reckless adventurer who squandered £27 Billion of British taxpayers money and arguaby precipitated the financial crisis. He has shown no intellectual rigour in his previous life and the article he wrote is that of a second rate hack. He is not the person to hitch yourself to and should not be taken as seriously as others seem to be doing over at WUWT and Bishop Hill.
tonyb
[TonyN says: Congratulations on your own intellectual rigour as exhibited at WUWT the other day, but I strongly recommend the 400-odd-pages of intellectual rigour, including 50 pages of notes and references, published under the title of ‘The Rational Optimist’ las year. Matt Rigley is not unique in being a very bight spark who has screwed up royally over money; I seem to remember that Monbiot is married to a Rothschild, so that handicap would seem not to apply to him. Anyway, what does financial competence have to do with climate change?]
Ridley was non-executive chairman. So in other words an overseer and not responsible for its running and as long as the bank was obeying the regulators then it was OK. That the money market dried up was not really his remit. I hope George is not being serious here. And his characterisation of Northern Rocks failure ignores the fact that they were doing exactly what Clinton and Blair wanted them to do. Hell Clinton even passed a law forcing all US banks to lend to those who could not pay.
Northern Rocks Collapse can be firmly put at the front door of Gordon Brown, who engineered it for his own purposes to nationalise all banking. We will never get to the bottom of our banking issues which are political until the public realise this. It is Politicians that are responsible for the mess we are in first and last. This is now becoming the defining issue of our time. The Climate issues that we have fought have just been an appetiser for the main battle but the root cause is the same, and bankers just like some climate scientists, think they are calling the shots but are just pawns in a larger game. But at the core are a small number of bankers deep into the Politics, just as in Climate science.
Peter Geany
Mat Ridley was non executive CHAIRMAN. This is an important and responsible position, not just someone sitting on the board to make up numbers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7052828.stm
I’m not disagreeing at all that Gordon Briwn was resposible for the general climate of the time but Ridley was reckless and improvident.
tonyb
Tonyb There is much to come out about the banking situation that is currently not being reported. As the Chairman Ridley just did what any Honourable chairman would do and accept responsibility. He was accountable, the buck stopped with him. But A non exec Chairman is not in charge of any business, but rather a figurehead. Some get more involved than others. He bears some responsibility for not being aware enough, but he was clearly not appointed for his financial prowess or experience, but like most chairman is there to lead the Board. He strikes me as a strange choice for the Job, but banking has always been seen as safe.
The Model that Northern rock was built on was quite sound, but went awry in the last 18 months or so. Business was hard to come by and competition was stiff amongst lenders. Northern Rock was finding it hard to find customers that met their own leading criteria. But institutions such as Lehman’s were so desperate for mortgages that they were willing to underwrite any loan, in other words they did not require any status checks, as they were making so much money out of turning them into CDO’s and other instruments. So rather than being driven by customer demand we had the market being driven by oversupply. If you were making widgets and made more than the customer demanded you would go bust. With banking we have regulators that monitor these things, but they were asleep at the wheel. I have some sympathy for Ridley over Northern Rock as they were hung out to dry, where as the real Villains soldered on for another year or more and were then bailed out. Except for Lehman’s. And Goldman would have gone the same way but turned themselves into an ordinary Bank with seconds to go before the deadline set in the US and were then eligible for bailout money. This was extraordinary and completely against all the principals of capitalism.
Northern Rock was a viable business ruined by Gordon Brown. It was sacrificed as it was of no consequence. But it set the scene so that when the 2 big Scottish banks who really had engaged in ludicrous practise could then be effectively Nationalised, taking the perfectly good Lloyd’s with them. And all our other small building societies were sacrificed in order to get the big banks to agree to all the measures Brown forced on them.
All this activity is called abuse of Capitalism. At the end of the decade we don’t have democracy and capitalism, we have Socialism and Corporatism running the western word and this is why its going wrong. At present every time the market tries to make a correction, Politicians interfere. Its impossible to start a small business today because compliance costs are so high, so more and more small business sell out to corporates, who know they don’t have to worry about the market and is why they can award themselves 49% execs pay increases You don’t have to to be anything other than last in class to realise that its not based on improved productivity or profits at the present time.
I better stop my rant and get back to reading the ‘The Rational Optimist’
TonyN,
You ask “Anyway, what does financial competence have to do with climate change?”
Are they linked? In a way they are – but in inverse proportions. Generally speaking those who are most concerned that the ‘world-as-we-know-it’ is all coming to a crashing end due to recent financial problems in world markets, have the least concern that climate change might bring about much greater problems in decades to come.
The world still has tremendous productive capacity. The factories are still there to make more than enough widgets for us all to use, agriculture produces enough food for everyone, more governments can be classed as democratic than ever before – so what’s the immediate problem? Surely its not beyond our collective wit to come up with a solution to what are very minor problems.
Peter Geany,
“Northern Rocks Collapse can be firmly put at the front door of Gordon Brown, who engineered it for his own purposes to nationalise all banking.”
The Labor Parties in Australia and the UK, may have talked about nationalising the banks, the means of production and exchange etc, at one time, but not in recent years. Even in post war Britain when the UK Labour party were nationalising anything and everything, the banks were somehow left untouched.
The simple fact is that Banks were nationalised everywhere, (except perhaps Australia!) in 2008 not for any ideological reasons but simply to keep them going. True, they could have been left to collapse. Then, you’d have lost your savings and pension like everyone else who relied on the financial sector. There are those, both on the extreme right and left of the political spectrum, who are of the opinion that is exactly what should have been allowed to happen. There may be something in that argument, but the decision was made, even by George Bush, that the consequences would have been even worse than nationalisation. I think they were probably right.
PeterM #4420 You are mostly right in what you say. However Northern Rock was an insignificant Bank, really only a specialist Mortgage lender, so any failure of it was only going to impact its customers and not the economy. But Gordon Brown could not have been unaware of what was coming down the road in August 2007. If he was then he should be in Jail now. It was his incompetence that allowed first a leak, deliberate I would say, that Northern rock had asked the Bank of England for a loan, as the money markets had dried up. Then he professed that the Government was not going to “Bail out the Banks” which was not what was being asked for, which further compounded the problem. This precipitated a run on the bank that was totally unnecessary sparking many other issues the end game which was we now have 5 banks in the UK not 20 as in 2007, and the government had to Bail the Banks out.
Northern Rock could have been kept operating normally, until such time as clear heads had mapped a way forward. That its business model was not going to work until other issue had been resolved was not the direct fault of Northern Rock. That their underwriters (Lehman’s and others) were cavalier and Northern rock felt they should do nothing is another matter. But this tiny part of the worlds (Western) Banking system contains all the elements of how ordinary banks got taken down by political and regulatory incompetence.
This is unacceptable. This is our government forcing what they accuse the banks of doing and then regulate to try and undo. It is nothing shot of bonkers thinking. But I’m sure it will be argued about till the cows come home before it finally dawns on everyone what has happened.
I don’t profess to know economics and banking to any real level of competence, but when my own organisation was the first to pull out of a small sub-prime fund in the US stating that it could no longer value it, it was the start we had all been waiting for. Nothing since has been a surprise. I sat down with an Aussie mate of mine that week and over a beer at the Blue Post pub near the Ritz and we discussed how long before the total collapse came, and how many false starts there world be along the way. I’m off there tonight to carry on the conversation and take stock. Come along if you want.
By the way we wonder if those driving past in their Rollers and Bentleys even notice what is going on, as one thing is obvious they never have to change their behaviour in these tough times.
Just to say there’s a transcript here of Rob Nikolewski’s recent interview with Dr Richard Muller at the Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate, video is on YouTube here and here. There’s quite a bit of background noise, and I haven’t managed to get everything, but hopefully most of it is there. (H/T Tom Nelson.)
Oh well Pete……..another failed socialist program. Another few hundred billion dollars (Euros) of taxpayer’s money down the toilet.
I guess I’ll throw another log into the Brute Woodstove®……..…I feel a chill from the east. How much is the Greek socialist’s bailout?
Who’s next?
Italy? Portugal? Spain?
“The market for carbon capture and storage is dead”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/04/ceo-the-market-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-is-dead/#more-50579
Beacon Power bankrupt; had U.S. backing like Solyndra
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-beaconpower-bankruptcy-idUSTRE79T39320111031
Neat Graph!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif