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
TonyB and geoffchambers have both since responded to your 41, but let me also comment on your statement:
This is totally absurd, as I am sure you really know.
Lamb made an exhaustive study of past climate, including the graph cited by TonyB showing a distinct MWP of several centuries that covered the civilized world at that time, and which was significantly warmer that the current warm “blip” of the late 20th century.
This covered the geographical regions for which he had data (Greenland, North America, Europe, parts of the Middle East), with some references to other locations in Asia (as mentioned by both geoff and Tony). Independent studies made for China and Japan show that the MWP was also warmer than today in these locations.
Mann (on the other hand) used some “cherry-picked” tree ring data (primarily from North America) in a clumsy attempt to refute Lamb’s conclusion of a MWP.
Contrary to Lamb’s work, the studies by Mann were subsequently found to include errors in the both the data selection and statistical approach.
The statistical analysis of Mann’s study conducted and published by McIntyre and McKitrick, as later confirmed by Wegman plus North and Bloomfield of NAS before a US congressional committee, comprehensively discredited Mann’s study and falsified the postulated conclusion that the last decade of the 20th century was the warmest in 1,300 years (as unfortunately parroted by IPCC, both in the TAR and the AR4, even after Mann’s study had been discredited!).
To say “Lamb in fact is in agreement with Mann” is a blatant falsehood, Peter, made either out of ignorance or conscious denial of the facts.
I’ll assume it’s the first, in your case.
Max
PS Interestingly IPCC included a graph in its Second Assessment Report, which clearly showed a global MWP warmer than today (red curve in Wiki attachment, compared to blue curve = Mann’s “hockey stick”).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg.png
Although not specifically stated by IPCC at the time, this graph was apparently an adaptation of the graph by Lamb cited by TonyB.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072
It is easy to see (from the Wiki attachment) that Lamb and Mann are NOT IN AGREEMENT.
Correction: My 1226 should have been posted on the other thread. Have re-posted there.
Brute,
Firstly I’d say that all drugs both legal and illegal can and do have harmful effects. The questions is how do you minimise these effects?
Prohibition didn’t work in the US in the 20’s and 30’s and it isn’t working now with cocaine, heroin, or any other illegal drug. No-one is advocating that crack cocaine should be widely encouraged but rather that drug abuse should be considered a medical issue, rather than one of ciminality. Countries who place more emphasis on control rather than prohibition have a better record of success.
Neither should every illegal drug be considered to be on a par with heroin. Professor Nutt was making the point that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.
Sounds like a good idea Pete. Let’s have government and society promote the use of drugs that induce hallucinations and psychosis.
Brilliant………
Geoff,
Using this rationale I submit that the “war” on bank robberies, murder and rape has been ineffective and costly……these things are still happening despite our best efforts.
Therefore, (using your line of logic) we should legalize (or “decriminalize”) these “activities”.
Brute, PeterM
I agree entirely with PeterM that drug legalisation should be judged on utilitarian grounds of least harm. There was no doubt about the harmful effects of alcohol which led to Prohibition either. The fact that current disastrous policies stem from a worldwide ban on certain drugs only, instigated by a supposedly democratic decision of the UN, should give us pause for thought when it comes to worldwide bans on CO2 emissions, particularly when based on evidence collated by a UN body.
Peter
Lamb and Manns work bear no relationship to each other either in their quality or conclusions. Mann recognised that his work had been over promoted and would surely also recognise that Lambs work has got far more depth and breadth than his did.
I would refer you to the final paragraph of ‘Climate History’ once again, dating from December 1994, when it was clear that Lamb thought the AGW threat was exaggerated. This was written just a couple of years before the decline/static period began in 1998 so he was fully aware of the modest modern warming trend.
Now you have become interested in proper climate history -as opposed to the computer game version- perhaps you would like to give me your opinion on the validity of global SST data back to 1860, which such organisations as Hadley have managed to sell to the IPCC and others?
(Ps have reverted to this thread as it seems more relevant)
Tonyb
Brute, PeterM, Geoff, re the “war on” mentality, Peter Taylor has something to say about this in Chill, that the military metaphor (much used in those circles where a World War II-style effort to eradicate carbon emissions is called for) is exactly the wrong way to frame the climate issue and is a waste of time, effort and money, leading to heroic (insane) target-setting, armies of costly and barely-effective windmills and the food-into-biofuels madness. His view is that the “war on climate” is a good way to make existing environmental problems far worse, a cure that is deadlier than the disease.
Sigh:
Vic[toria Oz] to get wind farm worth $1 billion
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/vic-to-get-wind-farm-worth-1-billion-20100812-120is.html
But, some good news;
Melbourne’s water storages are significantly higher at 37.5% full on 12, Aug*, compared with only 27.4 % this time last year, and even less in 2008.
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/weekly_water_report.asp?bhcp=1
*(and climbing with expected run-off from the rains in the catchments, and from an excellent snow-ski season later).
Whoops:
Sorry; I just checked the links in my 1234, and noticed my mistake that 2009 was actually worse than 2008 THIS time of year but reversed relatively; later.
Interestingly, the massive Thompson reservoir which is over half of the total volume is only 24.3% full, but it is the one in the heart of the snowfields, and should really benefit from the good snow season
Oh, and La Nina is also looking good so far!
I don’t remember the models or global warming prophets foretelling this………….
ICE cuts staff at Chicago Climate Exchange
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6791WI20100811
TonyB,
You need to provide, quotes, references and links to support your incorrect assertions. Continuous repetition doesn’t make them correct. For instance in 1994, I think Lamb died the following year, the global temperature was only 0.15 degC above the 1951-1980 mean both as a spot value and a running five year total. The picture was much less clear then.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
If you disagree don’t just come up with some unsupported claim. Reference the correct data and build your case properly!
PeterM
You are beating a dead horse in trying to resurrect Mann’s long-discredited and buried hockey stick by invoking some silly misconceptions of what Hubert Lamb wrote many years ago.
I have just given you a summary of this story on the other thread, but agree with TonyB that it probably belongs here instead, so am re-posting below.
It is a silly and untrue sidetrack for you to claim that TonyB (or I) have not cited appropriate references. I have posted mine already, but have offered to re-post them again, if you wish. Just let me know if you wish a re-posting.
Let Mann’s hockey stick rest, Peter. It is dead. It has been made redundant and irrelevant and you just make yourself less credible by trying to resurrect it from its grave.
Max
Max
(Re-posting from other thread)
PeterM
Let me see if I can clear up the confusion in your 50.
What I think has emerged now is that properly conducted scientific research is already readily available in the literature, which refutes Mann’s hockey stick. His study was comprehensively discredited as a flawed statistical analysis of cherry-picked data as discussed earlier, and this invalidation was confirmed before a US congressional committee by Wegman and then confirmed by North and Bloomfield, both of NAS (a normal scientific and legal process, which you have strangely referred to as “vilification”).
But, even more importantly, Mann’s study has been made redundant and irrelevant by more recent studies, which show basically different results.
The links to the many independent studies from all over the world, using different methods, which all show a global MWP that was between 0.3C and 2.5C warmer than today have all already been posted by me on this site. If you would like me to re-post them, I will be more than happy to do so. Please let me know.
In his exhaustive study covering several locations, Craig Loehle used data from peer reviewed scientific papers. All the proxies he used were taken from peer-reviewed (and published) articles. In the abstract, Loehle concludes:
The “most recent tridecade” is the period of late 20th century warming frequently cited by IPCC, i.e..1976-2005.
Elsewhere in the study Loehle states:
This is apparently the source of your “1935” confusion (50).
Loehle goes on to state:
So you see, if you read it thoroughly, Loehle concludes that the warmest “tridecade” of the MWP was slightly warmer than the most recent “warmest tridecade” (and around 0.412C warmer than the tridecade centered on 1935), not slightly “warmer than 1935”, as you erroneously concluded.
If you want me to re-post the link to the Loehle study as well, I’ll be glad to do so. Just let me know.
Hope this has cleared it up for you. To make sure, I will repeat.
1. Mann et al. made a study using selected bristlecone pine data and a flawed statistical approach in a clumsy attempt to rewrite history on the MWP; it showed a “hockey stick”
2. The IPCC gave the “hockey stick” “central billing” in its TAR without doing any critical auditing of its validity and used it to demonstrate “unusual 20th century warming for 1,300 years”.
3. Mann’s “hockey stick” was scientifically (statistically) discredited by McIntyre and McKitrick
4. Wegman and later North plus Bloomfield of NAS have confirmed this before a US congressional committee.
5. Many subsequent studies from all over the world using different methods have shown that Mann’s conclusions were false, and that a global MWP existed, which was slightly warmer than today
6. A recent summary of many peer-reviewed studies by Craig Loehle confirmed a global MWP that was slightly warmer than today
7. In addition to the official falsification of Mann’s “hockey stick”, it has been made redundant (and irrelevant) by the many later studies.
Max
PeterM
You bring up “1994 temperature” versus that of today as “evidence” that Lamb’s conclusions on a warmer MWP are no longer applicable today.
Wrong!
As we both know, Lamb studied Europe, North America, Greenland and some locations in the Middle East, with primary emphasis on Europe (citing the CET) and Greenland (citing the Viking settlements) with a mention of Viking explorations to North America.
(For comparison, Mann studied selected bristlecone pines in North America plus some in Siberia).
Lamb’s study showed that the CET average temperature for July-August was 16.3C as averaged over a 150-year period from 1150 to 1300 (the latter part of the MWP).
The CET average temperature for July-August was 15.8C as averaged over a 150-year period from 1860 to 2009 (check it out yourself, if you do not believe it).
This shows that the CET over a 150-year period in the MWP was 0.5C warmer than over the most recent 150-year period. No big deal in itself.
Don’t bring up silly “1994” statements to try to prove that Lamb’s conclusions are no longer valid.
And, most of all, don’t ignore all the other published independent scientific reports out there from all over the world, using different methods, which show a MWP that was (as Lamb determined for Europe) globally warmer than today.
Believe we have beaten this dog to death, Peter. You keep squirming on the hook and bringing up silly arguments, which are easy to shoot down.
Accept it: the MWP was slighly warmer than today and IPCC has misled us by claiming otherwise.
Max
Max.
I’m not quite sure why you are trying to argue that back is white but, let me walk you through this in simple steps
1)this is the picture according to Loehl
2) However we should add in the 29 yr temperature aveage according to the temperature record. Supplied by Loehl himslf
3) Add in all the other so called hockey sticks:
Loehl himself seems reasonably happy with these pics. He’s not raised any objection or stated they are incorrect. I’m not sure why you have such a problem.
Peter
I was referencing Lambs book so I don’t really know what your #1237 is talking about.
Could you also explain what you think your link shows as there are no headings or references?
tonyb
PeterM
I have quoted Loehle‘s conclusion, based on separate peer-reviewed studies covering 18 locations from all over the world, which clearly states
In addition, I have cited many reports from all over the world, which show that the MWP was global and between 0.3C and 2.5C warmer than the current period.
Both TonyB and I have cited earlier work by Lamb (limited to Europe), which shows that the July-August CET was 16.3C over a 150 year period 1150-1300 (toward the end of the MWP). The CET record shows us that the average July-August temperature averaged over the 150-year period 1860-2009 was 15.8C. In other words, the MWP in CE was 0.5C warmer than today.
Those are the recorded facts, Peter.
“Black is black” and “white is white.”
The scientific evidence out there confirms what we all learned in school: there was a MWP (warmer than today) and a LIA (cooler than today). It’s really not that complicated, Peter.
You are trying (in vain) to re-write history and recorded scientific studies with silly arguments, grafted fantasy charts and a resuscitation of a discredited and long-buried “hockey stick”.
Give up on it, Peter. You just make yourself look silly.
Max
PeterM
Since you are having a hard time grasping the recorded fact that the MWP was global and a bit warmer than today (and since you claim that I have not cited references for my statements), here again are the studies I cited earlier on this thread (links posted separately to avoid spam filter problems):
Global
Loehle (2007) study:
Link 1
(Later correction reduced this from 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values “the warmest trimester in MWP was slightly warmer than most recent trimester” = 0.07°C warmer.)
China
De’Er Zhang
Henan Province
Link 2
Eastern China
Ge, Q., Zheng, J., Fang, X., Man, Z., Zhang, X., Zhang, P. and Wang, W.-C.
Link 3
Pearl River Delta, S. China
Honghan, Z. and Baolin, H.
Link 4
Japan
Adhikari, D.P. and Kumon, F.
Link 5
Yakushima Island, S. Japan
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E.
Link 6
Sargasso Sea
Keigwin, L.
Link 7
Tropical Ocean (Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Caribbean)
Alicia Newton, Robert Thunell, and Lowell Stott
Link 8
New Zealand
Cook, E. R., J. G. Palmer, and R. D. D’Arrigo
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
Link 9
New Zealand
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P
Link 10
Barrow Strait, Canada
Vare, L.L., Masse, G., Gregory, T.R., Smart, C.W. and Belt, S.T
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
Link 11
Northern Gulf of Mexico (Pigmy Basin)
Richey, J.N., Poore, R.Z., Flower, B.P. and Quinn, T.M
Link 12
Coastal Peru
Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C
Link 13
Venezuela coast
Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R.
Link 14
Lake Erie, Ohio, USA
Patterson, W.P
Link 15
Chesapeake Bay, USA
Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A.
Link 16
Greenland Summit
Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J.
Link 17
Sweden (Central Scandinavian Mountains)
Linderholm, H.W. and Gunnarson, B.E.
Link 18
Finnish Lapland
Weckstrom, J., Korhola, A., Erasto, P. and Holmstrom, L.
Link 19
Ural Mountains, Russia
Mazepa, V.S.
Link 20
Altai Mountains, S. Siberia, Russia
Kalugin, I., Daryin, A., Smolyaninova, L., Andreev, A., Diekmann, B. and Khlystov, O.
Link 21
NW Spain
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W.
Link 22
Antarctica (Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica)
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T
Link 23
Bahamas
Link 24
A earlier global summary (Soon + Baliunas)
Link 25
There are other related studies, such as the one on the SW USA by the University of Arizona, but I think you have enough reading material here to convince yourself that
a) the MWP was warmer than today
b) the MWP was global
Happy reading!
Max
Link 1
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Link 2
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
Link 3
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_easternchina.php
Link 4
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pearlriver.php
Link 5
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N13/C3.php
Link 6
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_yakushima.php