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.
Max,
Is that dangerous AGW…..belief? Or dangerous….. AGW belief ?
Brute
I posted a link to the American National Association of Science on the other link. Would you say they had a dangerous AGW belief too?
It looks very much like they do and have been infiltrated by dangerous subversives determined to undermine the American constitution and way of life. I think their headquarters are in Washington. Isn’t that where you live? You should get your gun and make a citizen’s arrest on those godless, Evolution believin’ SOBs :-)
PeterM
You wrote (1000):
Tell it to IPCC. They reported a figure of 0.6C for the 20th century (1901-2000) in TAR (the HadCRUT record actually showed a linear warming of 0.65C).
As I said, you can prove anything with statistics. Your 0.8C claim is a good example.
Here is another: IPCC “shifted” the 20th century by 5 years in AR4 (to 1906-2005) and then arrived at 0.74C warming (and then tried to imply that the apparent increase was a result of accelerated warming at the end of the record, rather than the elimination of a cooling trend at the beginning of the record).
But let’s bury this discussion. It’s not going anywhere.
Using the IPCC methodology for determining temperature trends, the HadCRUT linear rate of warming was 0.041C per decade from 1850 to 2009 (160 years), with a linear warming of 0.65C over the 160-year period.
As discussed earlier, the warming occurred in three distinct warming cycles of around 30 years each, with a slight cooling cycle of the same approximate length in between, with no apparent statistical correlation with atmospheric CO2.
The linear warming over the 3 cycles was:
0.38C Late 19th century (almost no increase in CO2)
0.53C Early 20th century (slight increase in CO2)
0.40C Late 20th century (rapid increase in CO2)
Those are the recorded facts, Peter, like them or not.
Max
PeterM
In a bit of “déjà vu all over again” you ask (1001):
Please refer to my earlier response to this (rather silly) question (129 on the “alligator” thread).
Max
Max, interesting re Lake Zurich (#988), as this ties in with the cold winter of 1962/1963 – the year 1880 is also all too familiar, a cold year and (as per TonyB’s posts) the start of the GISS records.
Peter M, my point is that once you start looking at weather and natural disasters during any historical era, you will find no shortage of the sort of extreme events said to be brought on/exacerbated by global warming. The historical record is punctuated by phenomena such as active hurricane seasons, wildfire episodes, droughts, floods and epidemics, that keep on occurring whatever the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Occasionally, when multiple factors come together, there is the sort of “perfect storm” type of event that were it to have happened, let’s say, in 2005 or 2006, would no doubt have been ascribed, at least in part, to global warming. The powerful hurricane that wrecked Galveston, the Spanish Flu pandemic, and the greatest heat wave on record in the US, were such events, occurring respectively in 1900, 1918, and 1936. Were any of these to have happened five years ago, rather than when they did happen, I’m certain there would have been much talk about tipping points, wake-up calls and an urgent diagnosis of planetary fever.
We could, with vast effort and expense, set the CO2 clock back to any era that takes our fancy, within the last few millennia, but I think there’s enough historical evidence to suggest that whatever mark on the dial we set it to, we will get climatic “business as usual”.
I think your point (#991) about additional CO2 helping to stave off a new glacial period is a good one, though; after all, despite appearances we’re still in the Quaternary Ice Age.
Alex Cull (and PeterM)
Regarding the “next ice age” and the role of CO2 (991 and 1004), here is an interesting article by a Swedish climate scientist.
http://www.iceagenow.com/We_could_have_an_ice_age_any_time_says_Swedish_climate_expert.htm
Two excerpts:
Will the current “warm spell” last, or is it starting to end?
Will we have another 30-year cycle of slight cooling and then return to the long-term warming trend?
Or will we have a prolonged period of significant cooling?
Will elevated atmospheric CO2 help buffer the next cooling trend?
Who knows?
Max
Record Cold at Antarctica Station
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Cold_At_Antarctic_Station.htm
More on extending the current interglacial period with increased CO2.
http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm
But don’t set your hopes too high. The first 100 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 (from 290 ppmv in 1850 to 390 ppmv today) has resulted in around 0.65C temperature increase, if we make the unlikely assumption that CO2 was the only forcing factor.
But, since the relation is logarithmic, the next 100 ppmv (to 490 ppmv) will only get us around 0.5C.
Even if we consume all the optimistically estimated remaining fossil fuel reserves on our planet, we’ll only get to barely 1000 ppmv, which would only give us around 2C.
Max
I’m not against staving off the next ice age with CO2 but how much C02 is enough? I seem to remember reading that only a slight increase in the 280ppmv pre-industrial level is needed. I can’t remember the reference now, but, they are a waste on anyone with an anti-science attitude anyway.
Of course the figures quoted by Max aren’t based on any science anyway. These are the latest scientific estimates with the range of uncertainties included.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/StabilizationTable1.pdf
They work out at approximately 60ppmv extra C02 will warm the Earth by 1 degC, 150ppmv by 2degC and 260ppmv by 3 degC. The Earth is currently 110ppmv over the pre-industrial level so a warming of around 1.5 degC can be expected even if no increase is observed.
So why is it only 0.8 degC? That’s because some cooling has been caused by smoke particulate pollution. And, because the Earth is not in a state of thermal equilibrium. In other words, its still warming up.
Now, its not just me that is saying that. Its not just the IPCC. Its the National Academy of Sciences in the USA.
Max especially,
I thought this might entertain you:
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/send-in-clouds.html
A Tale of Two Leaders
British PM David Cameron flew business class on a commercial flight to a recent meeting with US President Barack Obama, even taking the train between Washington and New York.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/07/mr-cameron-your-boarding-pass-please/
An US report states that, when White House officials expressed concern, Cameron replied that he did not have an “Air Force One” (apparently alluding to ex-PM Tony Blair’s plan to purchase a “Blair Force One”, which was cancelled for cost reasons).
As a contrast US President Obama traveled to the UK for a G20 summit last year on “Air Force One” with a staff of more than 500, including helicopters, private armored limousines, his own food, chef and kitchen staff.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/obama-london-visit-uk-g20
The American Founding Fathers wrote about the excesses of the British Crown under George III (and Henry VIII carried it even further during an earlier period).
But (to this Swiss) it looks like the tables have turned.
Max
PS To get this “on topic” I will add a PS with the “carbon footprint” estimates for the two trips.
Bob_FJ
Thanks for ABC story on water vapor / clouds (1009). It confirms what you and I have both seen in several studies of actual physical observations (versus model simulations): water (as vapor, liquid droplets and ice crystals) does not provide a “net positive feedback” as the models predict, but rather an “overall neutral to net negative feedback”. Trenberth has referred to this as a “natural thermostat”, coming from “clouds” and “reflecting energy into space”.
But I liked the motto best of all:
We need more of these guys.
Max
PeterM
To my 1007 you wrote:
Sorry, Peter. You are wrong once again.
They were based on empirical data from actual physical observations of “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” as compiled (adjusted, manipulated, corrected after the fact, etc.) by Hadley (from 1850 to today).
I’ll agree with you that, due to all the many problems listed by TonyB (the above “manipulations”, UHI effect, land use changes, station shutdowns and relocations, poor station siting, etc.), they may be based on “questionable science”, but they are the only figures of global temperature that we have, so we have to live with tyhem (as IPCC does).
The CO2 figures after 1958 come from Mauna Loa; these have less manipulations and adjustments or inherent problems than the temperature record, so are probably more accurate. Those prior to 1958 are based on ice core estimations, so are undoubtedly much less accurate. If we discount the 19th and early 20th century figures compiled by Beck, these are the only figures we have, so we have to live with them (as IPCC does).
The rest is pure arithmetic.
Max
PeterM
You apparently disagree (1008) with IPCC who tell us that the radiative forcing from CO2 alone (1750 to 2005) was 1.66 W/m^2 and that the RF from all anthropogenic sources was essentially the same, at 1.6 W/m^2.
If we accept this IPCC statement, we can thus take atmospheric CO2 as the principal anthropogenic forcing factor for a rough estimate.
If we then accept the (extremely doubtful) IPCC postulation that natural forcing factors were essentially insignificant, we arrive at the conclusion that the 0.65C warming physically observed from 1850 to today was caused by the 100 ppmv CO2 increase estimated over that same period.
Let’s leave out Hansen’s hypothetical model-based “hidden in the pipeline” postulations (where the “missing heat” is supposedly “lurking” in the upper ocean), since this has been falsified by the recent physical observations of upper ocean cooling.
So we are left with 0.65C observed warming resulting from 100 ppmv added CO2.
Quite simple, actually, Peter.
Max
Estimated carbon footprints of US President Obama and British PM Cameron plus staff, etc on recent trans-Atlantic trips.
Cameron 8 tons
Obama 1400 tons
Anyone got a better number?
Max
Max,
If there is anything “quite simple” its your village idiot approach to science!
Its a not a question of what or who I may, or may not, agree or disagree with. The link I gave you was to the National Academy of Sciences. It’s they who say that the thermal energy balance of the atmosphere is in state of disequilibrium. Not me. Its they who are warning about the ‘severe impacts’ of allowing CO2 levels to increase unchecked. Not me or James Hansen or Michael Mann or any of the your other hate figures. I guess you now have to add to your hate list :
Susan Solomon*, (chair)Senior Scientist
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Boulder, Colo.
David S. Battisti,Tamaki Endowed Chair
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle
Scott C. Doney, Senior Scientist
Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.
and the other 12 names associated with the report. Of course I hear you say “ah this is just argument from Authority”! Yes, it is the authority of informed scientific opinion. You can reject it, if you like, but that puts you in the same camp as the creationists, who are choosing religion instead of science. Except for AGW denialists, it is more a case of putting politics before science.
Max, the iceagenow site is an interesting one and I’ve just had a look at links there to some quite striking reports of Southern Hemisphere cold conditions this month.
What are the odds, I wonder, on another exceptionally cold and snowy Northern Hemisphere winter this year, in many places? Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi, for one, is warning of an immanent drop in global temperatures, and seems rather confident.
PeterM
Forget “village idiot” insults or “hate lists”. These just weaken your argument.
I do not have any “hate lists”.
Pro-“dangerous AGW” studies (by Hansen, etc.) or the NAS table on model-derived climate sensitivity you have cited are no more coming from the “authority of informed scientific opinion” than other studies (by Lindzen, Spencer, etc.), which do not support the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis or the postulated high climate sensitivity.
So your argument is weak, Peter.
I have shown you that the empirical data on global temperature and CO2 do not support the high climate sensitivity derived from theoretical deliberations and model studies. You have brought no conflicting empirical data to invalidate my statement, just the same stuff derived from models and theory.
Max
Max
Alex Cull
Joe Bastardi’s blog has made the prediction of a longer cooling spell, as have several solar scientists (some from Russia) and some experts on ocean circulation oscillations (ENSO, PDO, etc.) cited earlier. There are some studies suggesting that there may be a link between the sun and these oscillations.
Then there is the 160-year temperature record, which shows three distinct 30-year warming half-cycles with 30-year slight cooling half-cycles in between, with an amplitude of ±0.2C, in sort of a rough sine curve on a tilted axis showing +0.04C per decade warming. Following the latest late 20th century warming half cycle, we appear to be starting a cycle of slight cooling, despite all-time high CO2 concentrations.
You ask (1016):
According to those sources cited, the odds of an extended cooling trend are high. The sun has been unusually inactive for over two years now.
If we do, indeed, have “another exceptionally cold and snowy Northern Hemisphere winter this year” (following the current cold and snowy SH winter and the past cold and snowy NH winter), this could be a sign of a new longer-term cooling trend (and not just an isolated “blip”).
This would make it very hard for the AGW forces to keep people worried about “global warming”, even if they re-brand it “global climate change” and try somehow to link extreme winters to AGW.
But, as the famous US baseball player (and amateur philosopher) Yogi Berra once said:
Max
Max,
Yes the “The sun has been unusually inactive for over two years now”. In fact, solar cycle 24 has just barely started.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/sunspots.htm
http://www.solarcycle24.com/flux.htm
Yet the first half of 2010 was the warmest on record.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-environment
So what can we expect when cycle 24 does pick up? Cooling – you say. I’m not sure what passes for intelligence in the denialist circles, but you should at least try to use what little you have.
PeterM
You must realize that a “blip” of a few months in “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (such as you have just mentioned in 1019) means nothing.
The HadCRUT record shows us that the years 2007 through 2009 (since SC23 ran out of steam) were a bit cooler (0.385C) than the prior 6 years of the 21st century, 2001 through 2006 (0.441C), and the linear trend since end 2000 is one of slight cooling (of 0.06C per decade).
The ARGO record shows us that the upper ocean has also cooled since 2003.
So our planet has lost energy on an overall net basis recently (Trenberth’s “travesty”).
Whether this observed cooling is a result of a weak start of SC24 or other natural variability factors (as attributed by Met Office), such as PDO, ENSO, or whether it is due to “clouds” acting as a “natural thermostat” to “reflect energy” to outer “space” (as suggested by Trenberth), there is no doubt that it is there, despite measured record levels of atmospheric CO2.
It is also unclear whether this observed cooling is the beginning of a multi-decadal cycle of slight cooling (as we have experienced repeatedly in the past), the start of a stronger longer-term cooling cycle (leading to a significantly colder world, as some solar scientists predict), or whether it will reverse itself to a warming cycle (as you believe will happen).
The jury is still out on that, Peter. We shall see.
Max
Max,
If six months data mean nothing, what about one month? Do you remember that Jan2008 came out to be quite a cold month and we were subjected to this sort of disinformation:
http://lattenomics.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/january-2008-start-of-the-new-ice-age/
40 years of global warming had just disappeared I think we were told!
Yes you’re right. But lets have some consistency. I’d go for at least five year periods – maybe even ten and you know what the picture is if we do that!
It’ll probably be a mild winter considering NOAA’s “modeling” capabilities…….probably have better prediction results asking Madame Gotski to read tea leaves……..
NOAA Models Predict Big Arctic Deep Freeze
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/noaa-models-predict-big-arctic-deep-freeze/
PeterM
You are right.
6 month temperature records mean nothing, as do 1 month records.
I’d say that 5-year or even 30-year periods mean very little, either.
In a cyclical record resembling a rough sine curve, such as we have observed since 1850, with roughly 30-year warming and slight cooling half-cycles, an amplitude of around ±0.2C, on a sloped axis with a long-term warming trend of around +0.04C per decade, we have to look at 100-year periods, at least, to get any meaningful data.
But, unfortunately, politicians do not think in time periods much longer than election terms, and the media will report any spot disaster as instantaneous proof of a long-term trend.
Max
PeterM
To make the roughly 30-year warming/cooling oscillations easier to visualize I plotted them on this graph along with linear trends.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4503452885_79b5c09c4f_o.jpg
One can also plot a “best fit” sine curve to the data.
Max
PeterM
The 160-year HadCRUT record with “best fit” sine curve plus IPCC projections for future.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4542439127_3c4ce6f214_b.jpg
Max
