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
Since you appear to be struggling with the references I cited with my graph (1025), let me help you out.
The link to the IPCC AR4 SPM 2007 report is cited on the graph itself (lower right-hand side).
If you check page 13 of this report (Table SPM.3) you will see the model-derived temperature projections (in °C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999).
These range from the lowest projection of 1.1C to the highest of 6.4C. The emission scenarios used as the bases for these ranges are shown on page 18 of the cited report. Adjusting the basis slightly to the period from 2009 to 2100, gives an imperceptibly different range of 1.3C to 6.5C.
The “mid-point” of this range (by simple arithmetic) is 3.9C (as indicated on the curve).
Got it?
It’s all there, if you just look.
Max
Bob_FJ and Brute
Several studies have reported errors in the global surface temperature records of GISS and HadCRUT, as you have both noted (1027 and 1045).
You may both have seen this before, but this paper by John Daly provides a comprehensive summary report of the global surface temperature records and their built-in warming bias:
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
Max
Max,
You’re a bit hard on Arrenhius. He made a pretty good attempt using the tools he had at his disposal at the time. You say that “the hypothesis as postulated had been falsified by the observed empirical data.” because the temperature hadn’t increased by 1degC by the year 1940.
The level of CO2 was about 310ppmv by volume in 1940. Arrenhius cannot have known that in advance. The level of warming, according to your favourite graph, was about 0.4 degC. There were other factors at work too such as an increase in smoke particulates which have an offsetting cooling effect.
Your point about Arrenhius being obscure is valid. History has shown that he should have been taken more seriously than he was.
PeterM
I detect a bit of a “nit pick” in your 1053, rather than a response to my 1052, citing a John Daly study, which discussed the history of the AGW saga, and comparing this with that of Darwinism. [BTW it’s John Daly that pointed out the failed prognosis of Arrhenius].
To your other point: we do not really know what the level of atmospheric CO2 was in 1940, since there were no Mauna Loa measurements. We only have the choice between the actual analytical measurements compiled by Beck (TonyB references) and Mauna Loa ice core estimates. These do not agree (Beck’s values are quite a bit higher, i.e. over 400 ppmv compared to around 315 ppmv). The ice core data also do not agree with the later Mauna Loa readings to which they were artfully “spliced” by IPCC. But that is all neither here nor there.
The curve you show bears strong resemblance to the comprehensively discredited Mann et al. “hockey stick” and its subsequent “spaghetti copies”, so I would not post this. It does not help the credibility of your argument.
Instead you should post the 160-year HadCRUT record from 1850 (pre-Arrhenius) to today, with its observed multi-decadal oscillations.
A report tells us:
http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm
As Daly points out, this was not borne out by the observed facts.
But we are discussing a “nit pick” here, Peter, rather than the substance of Daly’s historical analysis on the rise of AGW saga.
[This was written well before the events of last fall, which have resulted in the “beginning of the end” of the AGW craze, so obviously cannot include the latest chapter in the AGW saga.]
Max
Correction:
The “ice core measurements” are not “Mauna Loa ice core measurements”, of course. Sorry for typo.
Max
PeterM
Let me respond to your latest “nit-pick” (1053) with one of my own.
The funny “hockey stick” curve you posted shows that “present” temperature is around 0.68C higher than the “1960-1990 baseline”.
The HadCRUT record shows:
+0.43C (today = 2009)
-0.03C (1960-1990 average = baseline)
+0.46C (increase from baseline to today)
Not +0.68C as shown on the funny graph (an exaggeration of 50%!).
Max
Bob_FJ and Brute
Here is an update on the GISS Arctic temperature fabrications:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-polar-interpolation/#more-22648
It just points out more errors in the GISS record, as you have both pointed out.
Max
Max,
Maybe I should have it explained it a bit better for you guys. The interesting thing about the hockey stick graph, which presumably is why you don’t like it, is that it shows World temperatures falling steadily (the handle) until about 1900 when the graph jumps up (the blade).
On a linear regression of the handle, which you’re good at, it looks to me that current World temperatures would be approximately -0.3 degC on the scale of the ‘funny graph’ which is 0.1 degC more than you’re quibbling about.
On other matter have you seen this?
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100728/state-climate-report-unmistakable-signs-warming-decade-decade
Written and has the support of:
* American Meteorological Society
* GISS
* Hadley Centre
* IPCC
* NASA
* NOAA
* State of the Climate
* UK Met Office
* University of East Anglia
* US National Climatic Data Center
* US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
I guess you’ll say the UEA,IPCC and GISS have been infiltrated by dangerous extremists. What about the others? Are they part of the conspiracy too?
PeterM
The Mann et al. “hockey stick” has been comprehensively discredited. Let it rest in peace.
Along with the “hockey stick”, your myth (1058) of “World temperatures falling steadily (the handle) until about 1900 when the graph jumps up (the blade)” has also been laid to rest. It attempts to erase such well-known periods as the Roman Optimum, the Dark Ages minimum, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Don’t bring such garbage as arguments – it discredits your entire line of logic.
Now, rather than providing empirical data to support your premise, you again fall into the trap of listing scientific organizations that supposedly think the same way you do as proof that your way of thinking is correct. (Fallacy = Argument from authority).
To your last point, there is no logical reason to believe that “UEA,IPCC and GISS have been infiltrated by dangerous extremists” or “are part of a conspiracy”, even if the leaked emails did show some rather conspiratorial behavior among a handful of powerful climate scientists supporting the “dangerous AGW” premise.
Would you say that Lindzen, Christy, Spencer and the 200+ scientists I listed who have spoken out that they do not support the “dangerous AGW” premise “are part of a conspiracy”?
Wouldn’t that be a rather silly argument?
Max
Max,
I seem to remember you saying something like the “hockey stick is dead-let it rest in peace” a few months ago.
So I thought I’d ask Google by typing in the following question
“Has the hockey stick graph been discredited?”
Top of the results list was this New Scientist artical:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html
They’re calling it a ” climate myth” saying
“Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark.”
There seems to be a slight difference of opinion between you and the New Scientist on this point. You seem to have warmed to the idea that you should provide proper scientific references these days. So, I was just wondering if you had a suitable reference to support your claim? Maybe you should write to the NS and let them know they’ve got it wrong? Or, maybe it’s not quite so dead after all!
AHH!!! It should be ‘article’ – I know.
PeterM
You are truly “beating a dead horse” (1060). Let it rest in peace.
You cherry-picked the first article that came up when you Googled: “Has the hockey stick graph been discredited?”
Here is the second one, by John Daly (with 32 scientific references), entitled
“The `Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate Science”
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
The third article, by World Climate Report (with 10 scientific references), is entitled: “Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/
The fourth one that pops up is sampling of studies and scientists debunking Mann’s “new hockey stick.”Updated as of September 25, 2008 from IceCap:
http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/MANNDEBUNKING.doc
The fifth is from the Bishop Hill blog. Need I say more?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
So out of the first five “pop ups” four tell us that the hockey stick was based on a lousy statistical analysis of some bad science.
Then, even more important, there is the embarrassing testimony before the U.S. House Committee of the panel led by Carl Wegman.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf
In addition to supporting the McIntyre and McKitrick study, which pointed out errors in the statistical approach used by Mann et al., the Wegman report concluded:
At a subsequent hearing before the House Committee, Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel and panel member Peter Bloomfield were asked whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s criticisms, they replied as follows:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml
Ouch!
For an even more comprehensive summary (with lots of scientific reference, all of which you can check out!) read Andrew Montford’s, “The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the Corruption of Science”
http://www.stacey-international.co.uk/v1/site/product_rpt.asp?Catid=329&catname=
It is described as follows:
Lots of stuff out there, Peter. You don’t have to cherry-pick one exception to the rule.
Max
PeterM
I think I’d avoid relying on New Scient(olog)ist as an authority for the moment..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/29/is-new-scientist-making-things-up.html
Max,
You disappoint me! I thought I’d got across to you the difference between scientific references and the ‘what some guy thought on this contrarian blog’ type allusions.
Bishop Hill, John Day, Icecap? Can’t you do better than that? Can’t you find any decent scientific reference at all which go even half way to supporting your argument?
If there is no scientific consensus, on AGW, as you claim, it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with something.
PeterM
You are not paying attention.
All the reports I cited HAVE CLEARLY INDICATED REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, AS I INDICATED.
Open your eyes before you shoot off silly posts.
Max
PS As to your “scientific consensus myth”, we have debunked that several times already, so no need to repeat.
PeterM
I notice that you have failed to acknowledge or attempt to rebut the Wegman testimony before US congress (which pointed out that the hockeystick was statistically unsound and, therefore, that its conclusions were flawed) nor the subsequent testimony of Dr. North (chairman of NAS panel) and Dr. Bloomfield (panel member), both corroborating Wegman’s conclusions.
Why so quiet about the most important official discrediting of the hockeystick by independent scientific and statistical experts?
Max
Max,
You say you “HAVE CLEARLY INDICATED REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC PAPERS”.
Didn’t your mother ever tell you it was rude to shout?
Well, its not that clear to me! It never is when you use the word ‘clear’!
Just give me one proper scientific reference which says that Mann’s hockey stick grap is in any way dead or discredited or whatever!
PeterM
If my using caps offended your sensibilities, so be it.
My impression was that you were being a bit “thickheaded” to ignore what I had already told you earlier.
Check the reports I cited. They are full of scientific references.
Check Andrew Montford’s, “The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the Corruption of Science”. It is chock full of scientific references.
Check the official testimony of the Wegman committee, which discredited the statistics used and conclusions reached in the hockey stick, plus the North and Bloomfield verifications of the Wegman testimony.
It’s all there, Peter, for anyone (who is not blind) to see.
Max
PeterM
There are two distinct points here.
First is the discrediting of the statistical methods and approach plus conclusions of Mann’s Hockey Stick (which we have covered ad nauseam here).
Second are the many independent scientific studies using different paleoclimate methods, which show that the MWP was warmer than today in many locations across the world, thereby refuting the Mann hockeystick and claim of “unprecedented 20th century warmth”. I have cited around 20 of these earlier on the NS thread. The most recent scientific study is that of Craig Loehle.
Peter, you truly make yourself look ridiculous by repeating your (almost religious) “belief” in Mann’s Hockeystick and your “denial” of all the evidence out there that it is flawed.
Max
Oh I see your reference is Andrew Montford or something that he said was a reference. OK so you don’t have your own. I knew you didn’t – I was just teasing.
There aren’t any. That’s why. Mann’s work was affirmed in 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences and reported in Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
Its a pity that the article is subscription only. I have looked for a full copy but can’t find one.
Max,
Just to change the subject slightly, and give you a break from trying to defend the indefensible, I thought I might just ask you about this comment you made earlier.
“However, ‘reality’ is not just the combined laws of Physics, Peter. ‘Reality’ is the combined laws of Physics, as physically observed or validated by empirical data”
Reality is very much the laws of Physics whether, or not, they have been observed or validated. For instance, prior to an understanding of electricity in the 18th and 19th centuries the nature of lightning was a mystery. It didn’t stop those who were unfortunate enough to be struck from being killed or seriously injured though!
Your statement just seems to be so obviously wrong. So maybe you won’t try to defend the indefensible, again, and agree with me for once!
It seems to me that you are trying to pretend that, somehow, a level of ignorance is going to protect us from undesirable consequences. To give another example: gravity didn’t start with Newton. Apples have always fallen from trees. People have fallen too and been injured. The Earth will be injured, too, from much increased CO2 levels even if what you say about the science not being properly validated is indeed correct.
PeterM
It may have missed your attention that Dr. North, who agreed with Dr. Wegman’s criticism of and conclusions on Mann’s phony hockeystick (in an official testimony before the US Congress) was from NAS.
Strange, that.
But Peter, regardless of who comes out several years after the fact with an article that is not accessible, which allegedly rationalizes that the hockeystick may have been OK after all, it has already been comprehensively discredited, as I pointed out citing appropriate references.
End of discussion on this point, Peter.
Will move on to your new topic concerning your versus my understanding of “reality”.
Max
PeterM
You are waffling around a bit (1071) on your idea of what “reality” means.
Here’s how Oxford defines reality (bold type be me):
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reality
Important here, Peter, is that the “thing” must “actually exist” or be “actually experienced or seen” to be a “reality”
This is what I have been telling you all along.
A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it can be shown by empirical data that it “actually exists”, i.e. is a “reality”, “as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea”, i.e. a hypothesis.
This seems clear enough to me, Peter, without sidetracking to any analogies, which may or may not be applicable.
Max
Max,
The reality is that the process of climate change will be governed by the combined laws of Physics whether, or not, you agree that they have been verified empirically, or whether or not they have been actually verified empirically.
You’ve raised the bar impossibibly high with your demand that dangerous AGW must be “actually experienced or seen” to be considered a reality. We’ve certainly seen evidence of a general warming but I would agree that the truly dangerous levels which are predicted have not yet been seen or experienced.
The problems are going to be pretty much irreversible and insoluable by the time we do see them. Its really a question of acting now, to prevent them, and according to the best scientific advice.
PeterM
Yes. “Reality” will, indeed, be “governed by the combined laws of Physics”. No argument on that prediction.
The “scientific process” is what it is, Peter; a “hypothesis” remains a hypothesis until it can be scientifically validated and all attempts to falsify it can be scientifically refuted based on actual empirical data.
“Reality” is also what it is (as defined earlier).
You speculate:
This is a speculative statement of faith, based on (the upper end of) predictions coming from climate model simulations. It is not based on empirical data based on scientific observations, i.e. “physical reality”, but rather on the “virtual reality” of computer models, which are only as good as the assumptions that have been fed in (GIGO).
But we have discussed this point ad nauseam, and should probably move on to something else.
Max