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,
You say “can be deconstructed, even using Mann’s ‘cherry-picked’ raw data, by applying a proper statistical analysis to the data, rather than Mann’s statistically flawed approach.” Deconstructed! Must remember that word in future!
I must say that my first thought was that you’d kicked out Mann because you didn’t like what he was saying but that you were prepared to go with McShane & Wyner because you liked that a little better.
What a cynic I am! I know you’re such an expert on statistical methods that those sort of thoughts won’t have entered your head for one nanosecond. McShane & Wyner must have indeed done a “proper job” whereas Man et al have clearly cocked it up somehow.
Could you spare a few moments of your valuable time to explain, in simple terms, the difference in the two methods and why M&W ‘s method is the correct one?
PeterM
Just read the study as linked by Brute.
This will answer your question.
It’s just another nail in the “unusual 20th century warmth” myth that was first created by Mann’s scientifically (statistically) and officially (in testimony before US congress) discredited “hockey stick”.
Too bad IPCC hopped on this study without first doing any due diligence or quality checks and pasted it in center page prominence in its TAR SPM report (even adding some scary computer-generated forecasts for the next 100 years!).
Now they have to concede that it was a faulty statistical analysis of cherry-picked data (but, of course, this will not be admitted as long as the current IPCC direction is in place – see 1298).
Max
PeterM
Webster on-line defines:
I’d say definition 2 fits best for our discussion here, Peter, as in Lindzen’s paper “Deconstructing Global Warming”.
RealClimate has used a synonym “unravel” as related to climate studies.
But I’ll agree with you – it’s a good expression that conveys a fairly straight message.
Max
PeterM
BTW here is the “scary” picture in IPCC’s TAR based on Mann’s “hockey stick” for the past plus “computer model assumptions” for the future.
A great piece of “chartmanship” (too bad for IPCC that it got shot down as scientific “junk”).
Max
Max,
You’d be better off saying “I’ll leave that as an exercise for the student!” or “Beyond the scope of this book or article”
When you don’t know what you are talking about that’s always a good get out!
Switching gears to your hemisphere…..how is this explained in Warmist Hysterian circles?
I’d like to know as to be prepared for the nonsensical doublespeak from the climate crusaders.
Comment # 1306 was directed at you Pete.
I apologize for the poor gramatical quality of my posts lately…….my standard laptop is on the blink and I’m utilizing a loaner with a keyboard (and screen) the size of a postage stamp.
PeterM
Thanks for tip on what to say “when you don’t know what you are talking about”.
It appears that you have personal experience in this regard.
I’ll try to remember to use these expressions the next time that occurs for me.
As for the M+W study, read it slowly. It goes into a lot of details on statistical analysis, but is presented in such a fashion that the logic is fairly easy to follow.
M+W have accepted Mann’s raw data “as is” (even though this was a second part of the M+M “deconstruction” of Mann et al., namely that data had been “cherry-picked” to get the desired result).
But where M+W find fault with Mann et al. is in the statistical analysis approach (as did another statistical expert, Dr. Carl Wegman, in his analysis of Mann et al.).
If you recall Wegman concluded in his report to the US congressional committee:
and
In later testimony before the committee, Dr. Gerald North (a climate expert) and Dr. Peter Bloomfield (a statistics expert), both of NAS, stated that they concurred with the conclusions of Wegman.
So the conclusions reached by the M+W study are really nothing new per se, but simply a new scientific study essentially confirming the earlier statistical studies by M+M and Wegman.
It’s all there if you read it carefully, Peter.
Max
Oh no Pete, bad news for the global warming fortune tellers………
Looks like the Arctic Ice is recovering……it just keeps growing year after year. I’d say another two weeks will tell the story of the Arctic summer melt season.
Temperatures over the entire Arctic are now below freezing (a bit early this year).
I suppose your response will be that the Arctic and Antarctic Ice would continue to melt if it just weren’t so damned cold (which is caused by manmade CO2).
Pete,
Global Warming would be a rock solid theory except for the pesky facts/observations…….Where are the apocalyptic hurricanes that were promised by the IPCC and Al Gore’s docudrama?
I suppose that you can always pray to Earth God Gaia for more mankilling hurricanes next season to boost your political agenda.
Brute #1309 and 1310
You obviously don’t understand about ice melt and hurricane activity but I am sure Peter will be able to reassure you that this has been the worst season ever for both.
tonyb
Ok Tony.
Since I’m not a college professor or “climate activist”, I’ll take Peter’s word for it and give him unrestricted access to my bank accounts.
I’m certain he’s a trustworthy fellow…….and has no motivation other than saving the entire planet from impending calamity (such as wayward dog waste deposited in my front field).
Pete,
How are things progressing with your perpetual motion machine and your solar automobile?
Max
I think the interesting thing about all this is that although IPCC say the physics are ‘unequivocal’ that mans increasing co2 emissions are dramatically heating the earth, yet so much time has been spent by the same organisation in trying to disprove we have been this way before, as that should be completely immaterial if they are so sure of the science.
That so much time and effort has been put into proving the IPCC version of past climate makes me suspect that the science, and in particular the dramatic positive feedbacks that are claimed, are based on less certain ground than is claimed.
We both live in countries that have long detailed records of climate change, whether it is silver mines high in the alps now beyond the snow line, or past evidence of crops being grown at a higher altitude than is possible today in my country. Such detailed information has been dismissed as ‘anecdotal’ yet great credence has been placed on extracting information from inappropriate proxies that are poor indicators of temperatures (such as tree rings and bristlecone pines)
To make matters worse, these dubious proxies are claimed to be more accurate than a thermometer, in as much they can be parsed to a tiny fraction of a degree. A thermometer is broadly accurate to only half a degree. We are then told that these proxies can go back 2000 years and are global.It is complete nonsense of course.
Hopefully the actual REAL records and observations that such as Hubert Lamb and John Daley collected will now gain renewed respect as they had become unfashionable in recent years and they tell us that temperatures have been somewhat warmer than today and very much colder.
The new study is very good, not because it has been done by proper statisticians without an axe to grind, but because you can read the mounting incredulty in their paper that Govts have been persuaded to damage their economies based on supposition, guess work and inappropriate proxies.
Anyway, you well know my feelings on the idea that we have highly accurate global temperatures derived from thermometers, let alone bits of dead trees.
tonyb
Just a quick note to say there’s a recent interview with Gavin Schmidt on the Economist web site (audio only, here) which is interesting. (I’d like to comment more, but it’s late and I’m off to bed…)
TonyB
Thanks for your 1313.
It amazed me, as well, that a single proxy study using tree rings from bristlecone pines in Montana could be so construed as to negate all the historical and physical evidence from all over the world of a MWP somewhat warmer than today and a LIA significantly cooler than today.
In view of the fact that there had been a very detailed study by Hubert Lamb pointing to a distinct MWP and LIA, it astounded me even further that IPCC would be so foolhardy to embrace this one study so rapidly and so completely without first doing a detailed due diligence quality check.
And it flabbergasted me totally that they used this single very doubtful study to claim “unusual 20th century warmth for 1,300 years”, even though there had been many independent paleoclimate studies from all over the world using different techniques that all pointed to a MWP that was slightly warmer than today.
As far as the many “spaghetti copy hockey sticks” are concerned, I can only mirror your concern that IPCC has accepted these dubious proxies going back well over 1,000 years to an accuracy of fractions of a degree provided they “prove” the desired conclusion of “unusual 20th century warmth”.
I fully agree with you, Tony, that the new M+W study is good not only “because it has been done by proper statisticians without an axe to grind”, but also because it points out how totally silly it would be to base major political and economic decisions on such questionable proxy data.
Very simply: the MWP (a period of general prosperity and growth) was warmer than today without any anthropogenic greenhouse effect from CO2; the LIA (a period of severe winters, crop failures and famines) was colder than today without any reduction in atmospheric CO2; therefore why should we believe that the current warming has been caused primarily by anthropogenic CO2? And why should we destroy our economy in a futile attempt to change our planet’s climate by reducing our CO2 emissions?
I also agree with you that the tide has turned: paleoclimatologists are no longer going to be believed a priori without much closer scrutiny of their methods.
And that is a good thing. If the whole sorry “hockey stick” affair achieved one good thing, that is it.
Max
Brute,
You say that it “looks like the Arctic Ice is recovering……it just keeps growing year after year.”
It looks to me that you are somewhat intellectually challenged.
The general idea with a graph is that an upward line would show an increase and downward line shows a decrease.
The line, which is going downward (right?) shows the extent of the ice every July for the last 33 years.
Brute,
The best way to answer your own question about facts regarding hurricanes, floods, etc would be to take a look at the insurance industry.
The insurance industry is run by the sort of conservative guys who vote Republican, don’t believe that the environment should be looked after, and might even go to your church.
Are they getting worried about their bottom line? You bet they are!
LINK TO ARTICLE ON INSURANCE
Peter M
You wrote to Brute (1317):
No.
The best way to evaluate whether or not there has been an increase (or decrease) in hurricanes is to look at the hurricane record (duh!).
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Since 1851 the average number of hurricanes per decade was 17.7. No decade since 1941-1950 has exceeded this long-term average.
Major hurricanes (category 3-5) averaged 6.0 per decade since 1851 and this number has not been exceeded since the decade from 1951-1960.
So it is quite obvious that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes has not increased due to late 20th century AGW.
Max
Well Pete, let’s see.
Arctic Ice extent August 15th…..
2007 3.5 million square kilometers
2008 4.2 million square kilometers
2009 4.5 million square kilometers
2010 5.0 million square kilometers
I’m just curious Pete how the summer melt extent could be less over this period of time being that CO2 levels are increasing and “global” temperatures are reaching “hellish” levels?
Seems to me the corrolation to CO2 and Arctio Ice melt is somewhat……….LACKING…..
I’ll hold off until the rollercoaster bottoms out next month…..still, doesn’t look good for the Warmist Prophets of Doom. (Or should it be “Profits”)?
Max,
But you and Brute don’t accept figures from places like NASA, NSIDC and NOAA! Aren’t they the ones who are “all in on it”? Aren’t they all part of the hoax?
Judith Curry has had something to say on the topic. You might want to listen to her on that.
Like:
“This trend in sea surface temperature that’s sort of relentlessly rising and the hurricane intensity that’s relentlessly rising (means that) it’s with some confidence we can say that these two things are connected and that there’s probably a substantial contribution from greenhouse warming.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/judith_curry/
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf
Brute,
Look you just a cretin if you go back two or three years to a very deep minimum in the Arctic ice cover and claim that it has recovered because its not been quite so bad since.
How am I any more of a cretin by using a 3 year term as opposed to a 30 year term?
Statistically, there really isn’t much difference between 3 years or 30 years within the +/- 4.5 billion years of Earth’s climate.
The fact of the matter is that the Arctic Ice cap has been receeding for about 13,000 yeares…….isn’t that true?
Have CO2 levels been increasing steadily for 13,000 years?
CO2 levels have increased in the last three years and the ice extent has increased……Using your “theory”, CO2 causes the Arctic (and Antarctic) ice to increase.
Pete,
Hee, Hee……..the point here is that even using Mann’s, Hansen’s and NOAA’s raw data the facts don’t match the theory that they’ve proposed which is exactly what McShane & Wyner did with their study.
They’ve hoisted Mann with his own patard.
I don’t know why I’ve wasted time and money reading/buying thermometers when all I had to do was use trees to measure temperature.
The Guardian Fails Their O-Levels
Yesterday, the Guardian reported :
Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.
Huh?
The temperature rise since WWII reported by CRU is 0.4C (not 0.8C) and it occurred prior to the date of the study. Climate models use thousands of empirically derived back-fit parameters. Given that fact, the only thing remarkable is that their prediction was so far off the mark. Their forecast is the equivalent of me predicting that Chelsea wins 12-0 yesterday. Off by a factor of two, and after the fact.
I recently attended a meeting of weather modelers, who told me that their models are effective for about 72 hours, not 60 years. GCMs use the same underlying models as weather modelers, plus more parameters which may vary over time.
h/t to reader M White
Brute,
That’s why you should read the scientific journals themsleves. Not Wattsup with that or Icecap or whatever. Not even the Guardian. If you give me the link to the actual paper I’ll see if I can work out who has got what wrong.
Neither you nor Max have any idea which of the statistical processes applied to Manns data is the correct one. I don’t know either. I’m just going to wait and see how the discussion unfolds in the next few months when the issue will likely be resolved one way or the other.
If you don’t know what you are talking about -say nothing. You really do have to be an idiot to ignore that advice!