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.

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

  1. PeterM

    You opined:

    It might be worth remembering the original question posed in the title of the blog, going back to NS days: “Has Global Warming Stopped?”
    It looks like the answer is now a pretty definite ” No, it hasn’t”.

    Peter, you are not looking at the data measuring “global warming” out there (with all the warts and blemishes).

    Since the end of 2000 both the surface and satellite records of atmospheric temperatures show that it has cooled. (References have been cited on this thread).

    Since ARGO devices replace the unreliable expendable XBT measurements, the record shows that the upper ocean has cooled, as well. (References have also been cited on this thread).

    The amount of latent heat in melting ice or added net evaporation is too small to make any difference.

    So, yes, the answer to the question “Has Global Warming Stopped?” is clearly (for now, at least): YES.

    In an interview, Kevin Trenberth stated that the “missing heat” could be radiated into “outer space”, with “clouds” acting as a “natural thermostat”.

    Whatever the mechanism, the warming has clearly stopped.

    Just to clear this point up for you, Peter.

    Max

  2. Max,

    I’m not sure what are your mental thought processes, but they are so opaque I doubt if you are quite the right person to clear up anything for anyone!

    Last year was the second warmest on record. 2005 (NASA) or 1998 (Hadley) was the warmest. Each decade has been warmer than the previous decade for the last 40 or 50 years. There is just no way any intelligent person, unless they are in a complete state of denial, can possibly think that it has stopped.

    PS Don’t forget our bet!

  3. Max

    The paper on sea level changes was written in 2004 and from data only up to 2003.

    You’re very quick to shout “out of date” yourself. I’m surprised, you can’t produce a more up-to-date reference.

  4. I’ve just been amusing myself by Googling, restricted to Oz media, on examples of the term; “Serial Pest”, and here are four examples which I hope will get through the spam filter:

    Serial pest claimed rape by whale

    Pest at The SMH [Sydney Morning Herald) exaggerates serial pest’s death

    Nuisances in court: judges get tough on serial pests

    Serial pest ordered away from London marathon

    Apparently the expression is also used in the UK.

    [Snip]

    [Bob: Please remember that I decide who comments on this blog, and I don’t want this to go any further: TonyN]

  5. PeterM

    To the sea level data I posted on 925 you stated:

    The paper on sea level changes was written in 2004 and from data only up to 2003.

    Let’s try a bit of simple logic here.

    The sea level data on the curve I posted were based on several cited reports, ranging from 2004 to 2007.

    The Sharroo & Miller report I also cited was entitled: “MULTI-SATELLITE ALTIMETRIC SEA LEVEL
    CHANGE 1992-2003: WHAT DO WE KNOW AND
    WHAT NOT?”

    This is the time period cited in IPCC AR4 SPM 2007, where they “switched” from tide gauge to satellite altimetry measurements (with a tiny footnote), to compare rate of increase from 1993-2003 with that from 1961-1993, to wit:

    Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 1963. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year.

    Obviously, a report written in 2004 about the period 1992-2003 is just as germane as a report written later about that period. Right?

    The point I made is simply that the IPCC claim of accelerated sea level rise 1993-2003 over the earlier period was not only based on “bad science” (switching from one method to a totally different one covering two totally different scopes of measurement over two different time periods and then comparing the two to claim an “acceleration”), “bad statistics” (comparing the rate of increase over a short time interval with that of a longer time interval in a series that shows long-term multi-decadal oscillations resembling a sine curve), but it was also based on switching to a new method that was highly inaccurate (in the eyes of the very scientists performing the measurement).

    Do you now understand why a 2004 report (covering the time period 1992-2003) can point out errors in the IPCC report, which covers exactly the same time period?

    There was no acceleration in sea level rise, Peter. It was just another IPCC “myth” (e pluribus unum).

    Seems pretty clear and simple to me, Peter.

    Max

  6. PeterM

    Instead of babbling about “mental thought processes” (927), check out the data.

    The surface and satellite atmospheric temperature record (HadCRUT, UAH) show that both the surface and troposphere have shown a linear rate of cooling after 2000.

    MetOffice has acknowledged this and has attributed this cooling (despite all-time record CO2 levels) to “natural variability”.

    The upper ocean has also cooled since 2003, when ARGO measurements replaced the data from the less accurate expendable XBT buoys.

    Kevin Trenberth has referred to this observed cooling as a “travesty” and has stated in an interview that it may be a result of the net lost energy going to “outer space” with “clouds” acting as a “natural thermostat”.

    I am not claiming that the past several years are part of a new long-term cooling trend (as many solar scientists apparently have concluded), but if both the MetOffice and Trenberth acknowledge that it is cooling (for now), why is it so difficult for you to see this?

    Max

  7. Bob_FJ

    Admittedly, we are a little behind here in Switzerland on some things, but up until now, we have had no identified “serial pests” here (only “cereal pests”, the little cereal moths that lay their eggs in flour or corn meal).

    Then again, these tiny critters do not get raped by whales…

    But to get back on topic, will the threat of “tipping points” leading to “runaway global warming” increase the serial pest (or cereal pest) hazard on our planet? Is there observed correlation? Is there postulated causation? Is a (tax-payer funded) study needed to learn more?

    Max

  8. TonyN & Max,
    Sorry, but this thread has become BORING, and there are plenty of other places to go!

  9. PeterM

    You expressed interest in Ian Plimer’s book (917/920), which you wrote (in an earlier post) that you had not read.

    It was written before the Copenhagen fiasco, Climate-gate and the later revelations of “massaged”, “exaggerated” and “false” scientific data in the IPCC reports, but the passage below (p.436) is quite relevant, nevertheless:

    There is now a realisation that it is not easy to cut emissions and maintain a stable society, that wind and solar electricity generation are unreliable, far too expensive and add little base load power, that bio-fuel production is greatly damaging to the environment and creates food shortages, and that growing economies like China and India will emit large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere despite decisions by other countries. The potential loss of industrial competitiveness is such that many countries are now stating that they’ll not sign a post-Kyoto agreement unless China, India and the USA also sign.

    Disillusionment is setting in because the dogma stated that as CO2 rises, so does temperature. There has been a rise in CO2 yet cooling is taking place. Dangerous global warming has not occurred and politicians are starting to realise that carbon taxes and emission trading catastrophes are on a far shorter electoral time-frame than projected warming. The big losers are climate scientists whose advice is no longer being followed. They have overplayed their hand and decision-makers no longer trust their advice.

    Whether or not you agree with Plimer’s overall premise (that AGW is no threat) or some of the nitty-gritty details in his book, you will have to admit that the above sentences have turned out to be correct.

    Max

  10. Pete,

    I strongly suggest you read this article to begin your recovery from indoctrination…………

    Deprogramming Yourself After Global Warming Scam

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/16/deprogramming-yourself-after-global-warming-scam/

    The IPCC models failed to predict; a final failure of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis.

    Ice core data shows nothing unusual has been happening with the climate.

    Numerous sources from scientists around the world confirm the warmist scare-mongers intentionally lied.

    Climategate emails are just icing on the cake. They hid the decline and exaggerated more recent warming – even to the point of claiming warming when it’s been cooling.

    Oceans haven’t cooperated with the warming theory either, etc. etc. etc.

    There is no actual scientific evidence that supports the global warming scare-mongers. It all comes down to faked evidence produced by a small percentage of scientists who were politically well connected enough to – in concert with political activities like the IPCC – maintain a con-job.

    The public was constantly fed propaganda that came from RealClimage.org. A few journalists friendly to the cause (or at least in bed with the politicians) promoted that site immediately and got other journalists around the world looking at it as the source of their articles. Then (Michael Mann) continuously pumped out propaganda arguments for journalists and an army of little left-wingnut propagandists to argue about it on the Internet etc.

    How do you create such an immense hoax and propaganda machine, you ask? That’s easy, and I’ve written about that very thing. It’s not at all difficult when you have 10s of billions in public money to spend. With that kind of budget, you can create any sort of conspiracy that you want.

    BTW: Political control of science is very dangerous. It was done in the Soviet Union and China (just two examples) and it led to mass starvation in both places. It’s not doing the west any good either.

  11. PeterM

    If you like “doomsday scenarios”, you’ll love this one.
    http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-doomsday-how-bp-gulf-disaster-may-have-triggered-a-world-killing-event

    Makes AGW look like a stroll in the park!

    Max

  12. Max, that’s a pretty good doomsday scenario – I think Roland Emmerich could make a great movie based on this!

    The Helium article draws on the “clathrate gun” idea and the theories of Gregory Ryskin, although I’m a little uncertain as to whether Ryskin’s ideas involve a global catastrophe caused by a single methane bubble that could be burst by a deep-water drilling operation. That might be a little licence on the part of the Helium author, I’m wondering (?)

  13. Max,

    You claim in bold script.

    1) The surface and satellite atmospheric temperature record (HadCRUT, UAH) show that both the surface and troposphere have shown a linear rate of cooling after 2000.

    Reference, Graph???

    2) The upper ocean has also cooled since 2003, when ARGO measurements replaced the data from the less accurate expendable XBT buoys.

    Reference??

    You could also supply references to your other claim about Ken Trenberth so we can see the context of his statement. This was one one of the hacked emails right? If you look at the context of that he’s making the case for better measurements and seems somewhat frustrated that they are not possible at the time. But its good that you are happy to go along with what Ken Trenbarth is saying!

    Just because Ian Plimer can’t supply references doesn’t mean that you should allow yourself to get into this bad habit!

  14. Environmental news these days are not so good, oil spills, oil leakages, etc.*“

  15. Bob_FJ,

    [ snip ]

  16. Brute,

    You’re back to the “its all a conspiracy” argument. If so, then people like James Hansen must be’in on it’ in a big way.

    In his various talks and radio interviews James Hansen explains how he had made a decision to keep out of the public eye after his testimony to Congress in 1989. He seems quite a shy sort of bloke and he thought others were better than he at public speaking. However, when his grandchildren were born some 10-12 years later he worried that, in their lifetimes, they were going to see the consequences of unmitigated AGW and might hold him, to some extent, responsible.

    He was worried they might say something like” Yes granfather knew what was going to happen but he didn’t do enough to explain things to the public and politicians”.

    So he changed his approach, and he’s done what he can to get that message across. Now, you’ve got to be a lot more cynical than I, to be able to look that bloke in the eye, say he’s lying and what’s more accuse him of using his toddler aged grandchildren to support the hoax!

    He may be right and he may be wrong, but I’m sure that even you can’t doubt that he means what he says.

  17. PeterM

    You asked for links to graphs/studies showing the recent cooling in the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) and upper ocean.

    I have cited these before, but will repeat, since it appears you have forgotten.

    Graph showing annual temperatures since 2001 (links to data shown)
    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4807624337_1d37f9a23a_b.jpg

    Links to Loehle study on ocean temp 2003 to 2008
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/cw17434027026726/
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OceanCoolingE&E.pdf

    Abstract
    Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend.
    A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

    As you have undoubtedly seen, Kevin Trenberth stated in a leaked email:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

    As indicated in my earlier post to you, Trenberth expressed in an interview that the “missing energy” may be going back into “outer space”, with “clouds” acting as a “natural thermostat”.

    See “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat”:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    Facts:
    – both the atmosphere and upper ocean have been cooling over the past few years
    – this does not constitute a “long-term record”
    – noboby knows whether or not it will continue cooling for a while, or resume warming (as it has, off and on in multi-decadal cycles with a half-cycle life of about 30 years, since the record started in 1850)

    Max

  18. PeterM

    Hansen’s “grandchildren story” is a bit too contrived to be credible.

    He has been an ardent and outspoken AGW activist for some time.

    I do not doubt that he truly “believes” his “tipping point” and “coal death train” message by now (after having repeated it so many times), but you have to be a bit naive to believe that the “grandchildren” have anything to do with it.

    Max

  19. Savannah Scott

    Regarding your 939 on “environmental news”

    We have all seen BP’s TV ads showing solar panels, wind turbines, etc. next to a gas flame and an oil well.

    In addition to the millions spent on creating its green “beyond petroleum” image, BP has lobbied for carbon caps and spent an estimated $50 million on PR campaigns, including this 2009 “pitch” on “sustainability” and “global warming” related to its Antarctic expedition, with the lead-in line:

    Difficult times require extraordinary leadership for corporate social responsibility (CSR)

    http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/china/bpchina_english/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/press_share_0427_EN.pdf

    Excerpts:

    BP Position on Climate Change :
    1. Accepts findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    2. Requires global collaboration of all parts of society
    3. Governments will need to make tough decision, balancing with growth and energy security issues
    4. Policies will be required to drive emission reduction and low carbon technology investment
    5. Energy efficiency will reduce use of energy and emission of CO2
    6. Innovation required for advanced technologies

    BP’s actions over climate change:
    1. Efficient Operations
    2. Efficient Products
    3. Low Carbon Energy
    4. Advocacy
    5. Innovation

    Does this all sound a bit hollow today?

    Max

  20. PeterM

    Forgot (944) to post link to “Trenberth travesty email”
    http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048

    Max

  21. Should be 942 instead of 944

  22. Max (936)

    “They will be the first exposed to poisonous, cancer causing chemical gases”

    Oh no! Not only will you get poisoned and then blown up, you will also get cancer! This is a sort of medical variant of Godwin’s law, with cancer substituting for Nazis. What it tells us (if it wasn’t already obvious) is that the article is overhyped – it may contain a grain of truth, but is so fixated on the doomsday message that it loses any credibility it might have had. Not unlike so many AGW scares.

    An unintended message, however, may be that if these things have happened in the past, the world has feedback mechanisms strong and resilient enough to recover from such events, which rather gives the lie to the idea of ‘tipping points’. I find that quite comforting.

  23. Max,

    The Loehle “study” is from Energy and Environment which has only been set up to publish contrarian papers. Its not a proper scientific journal. In any case picking out short periods like 2003-2009 or even 2001-2009 doesn’t show anything.

    If you plot world temperatures , either on land or on sea, or a mixture of both, for the last 40 or 50 years you can see that the pattern has been periods of around 7-10 years of slight cooling or level temperatures, followed by another similar length period when temperatures have jumped. So, naturally its not difficult to cherry pick years when temperatures have been flat which is what both your graphs, at best, show.

    The sun has been extremely quiet this solar minimum and the next few years should, if previous patterns are repeated, show another jump in temperatures as the sun becomes more active again.

    We’ve had this discussion before and we’ve both backed our judgement with a bet! It looks like you might lose as early as this year but if not I’d say it will be next year.

    Of course, I could be wrong and, if anyone else would like to take me on and take advantage of my possible miscalculation, I’m up for it!

  24. Max,

    Hansen’s grandchildren are actually part of the title of his book , so there is no doubt that they do have something to do with it.

    Maybe you can show differently but what he is saying is that he decided to withdraw from the public spotlight after his Congress testimony in 1989 to concentrate on his scientific work , but changed his mind after the birth of his grandchildren.

    I can’t see any reason to disbelieve him. He’s seriously putting his life at risk in a country awash with firearms, and regularly has to be given a police guard at his speaking appearances.

    I doubt that this comment on your so-called scientific website “wattsupwiththat” would escape TonyN’s snip.

    “If I believed in Divine Retribution, I would think Dr. Hansen’s plane would go down in a remote, frosty part of the world and his supporters on the trip would be forced to eat him to stay alive. Same with the other Blood Sucking Vampires and assorted Vultures that prey on us.”

    James Hansen isn’t alone in receiving death threats and hate mail by the way.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate

    Why would he put himself in such danger, when he could be enjoying a peaceful retirement, unless he genuinely believed in what he was saying? The idea that this is just a part of his duties to the worldwide conspiracy just doesn’t make any sense at all.

  25. PeterM

    You are repeating (948) the same type of gibberish I have become accustomed to reading from you when you are proven wrong.

    You don’t personally “like” the scientific journal cited, you move the goalpost from our discussion of RECENT cooling over the past few years to a discussion of “40 to 50 years”, etc.

    The real long-term picture is 160 years (i.e. the time period of the HadCRUT record), and that shows several multi-decadal oscillations of warming and intermittent slight cooling with a half cycle life of around 30 years, an amplitude of ±0.2C and a slight overall warming trend of 0.04C per decade.
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4503452885_79b5c09c4f_o.jpg

    All in all it roughly resembles a sine curve on a tilted axis.

    Atmospheric CO2, on the other hand, does not show such oscillations. Prior to 1958 the data are estimates based on ice core data; these show a slow increase until the end of WWII, when the rate increased. After 1958 we have the Mauna Loa record, which has shown a fairly steady compounded annual growth rate of around 0.4% per year through today.

    The long-term statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is anything but robust; in fact, it more closely resembles a “random walk” rather than a correlation. This makes the statistical case for “causation” extremely weak.

    But, we were discussing the RECENT “lack of warming”, which Trenberth referred to as a “travesty” and attributed to “clouds” possibly acting as a “natural thermostat” to “reflect” radiation back “into space”. Met Office attributed this observed RECENT “lack of warming” to “natural variability” (i.e. “natural forcing factors”).

    You originally claimed it was not occurring, and (now that the evidence has been provided that it is, indeed, occurring) you are now trying to shift the discussion to “40 or 50 year” trends.

    Max

    PS Neither you nor I (nor Trenberth, nor the IPCC) know whether or not the most recent cooling will continue, or whether we will go back to the long-term warming trend line of 0.04C per decade or some other rate of warming over the next 25 to 30 years. Only time will tell.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


five − = 1

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha