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
You state (regarding Lamb’s “tilting circumpolar vortex” postulation (it’s not a “theory, Peter):
This is pure BS, Peter. I have given an exhaustive explanation (see 1334, 1338, 1346).
Lamb’s postulation is based on old data showing “asymmetry” between the time periods of the MWP in Asia and Europe (which Lamb mentions on a single page), and which have been falsified based on newer, more extensive information on the MWP in Asia.
The new data show no asymmetry, i.e. the MWP occurred in Asia at essentially the same time as it occurred in Lamb’s geographical area of study: Europe, Greenland, North America, Atlantic.
A cited study of temperatures across China, based on tree and crop records, snowfall dates and other historical data states specifically:
and
So Lamb’s sketchy information on Asia (which indicated that the period 1000-1300 in China was a cold period) has been invalidated by more recent studies and this period “cannot be considered a cold period, as previously believed.”
If this explanation is “not satisfactory” to you, then I can’t help you.
Despite an excellent pioneering study on climate changes throughout history, including the MWP (based primarily on data for North America, Europe, the Atlantic and Greenland), Lamb was wrong in this one point (which he only mentions fleetingly in any case).
And so was Mann, whose work, unlike Lamb’s, was in addition “bad or sloppy science”, which has been comprehensively discredited (both scientifically and statistically) and well as invalidated by many scientific studies from all over the world, all showing a MWP that was slightly warmer than today.
I personally do not believe that you are too stupid to understand this “explanation”, despite the fact that your posts may sound that way.
I believe that you simply do not want to understand it (because it rocks your ingrained “belief system”, and that you are therefore just being obstinate.
But, believe me Peter, any innocent lurker on this site will see how silly your arguments are.
Max
TonyB
Well, now, whether I “believe” in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea temperature anomaly” construct is a moot point.
First of all, as you and I agree, it tells us nothing about our planet’s climate, which is a collection of geographically and seasonally totally different individual climates.
Having one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other in a bucket of scalding water (70C), does not make for a nice warm foot-bath. So telling me that my “geographically averaged” foot-bath temperature is 35C is meaningless.
In addition (and even worse) the basic data have been changed so many times by station relocations, (including moving to airports), shutdown of rural stations, poor station siting, urban growth, land use changes etc. that they are meaningless: these tend to introduce a warming bias.
There are many areas of the world where there are no measurements, so data have to be “created” by statistical manipulations of far-away data. How this is done is not transparent, but it appears that the geographical regions showing the greatest warming (the Arctic) are also those having essentially no measurements, leading one to be skeptical of this purported warming.
On top of all this comes the non-transparent handling and massaging of the raw data, i.e. ex post facto corrections (sometimes many years after the fact!), variance adjustments and other strange manipulations. The questionable MetOffice behavior (Phil Jones) on releasing data and the extreme activist stand of James E. Hansen, head of the GISS record, have not inspired confidence in this process.
So it is a “can of worms”.
But it is all that we have.
So we have to use it “with a large grain of salt”.
(Fortunately we have a satellite record since 1979, which can be used as a “reality check” to “keep the surface record honest” – this record shows slower warming than the surface record, even thoug GH theory tells us the opposite should be true, so either the warming is not primarily GH warming or the surface record has a warming bias.)
And when even this sloppy surface record (with all its built-in warming bias) shows that there is no recent warming despite record CO2 levels, we should take notice.
Max
TonyB
You mention SSTs
I have not studied this in detail, but here are some general comments, based on what I have read.
Back in the “bucket” days, these were totally meaningless (yet this covers most of the time period of the record as is).
I also do not believe that we have a meaningful record on sea surface temperatures today. As NOAA tells us:
To me, the “day-night blended” satellite-derived SSTs from NOAA, which are used to arrive at the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” construct, are suspect because of the distortions that can come from solar glare or solar heating of a very thin surface layer during the day.
Upper ocean water temperature measurements were more recently made by expendable “buoys” known as XBTs. These showed a slight warming of the upper ocean in the late 20th century, although it was later conceded that the devices, themselves, introduced a “warming bias”.
Since 2003 a system of ARGO devices measures upper ocean temperatures; these cover a larger geographical area and are considered to be much more accurate that the old XBTs. Since they have been installed they show that the upper ocean has cooled.
So the satellite-derived SSTs are better than the old “bucket data”, but still have problems, while the past figures on upper ocean water temperatures are suspect (with a probable warming bias).
The best data we have are those from ARGO, but the time period here is very short.
Hope I haven’t misunderstood your question. My response is from the top of the head, so I have not given this topic much thought. Maybe Peter has studied this in more detail.
Since 70% of our planet is covered by oceans, it probably makes sense to check this all out more closely.
Is the air just above the ocean surface significantly warmer (or cooler) than the water itself, are there significant distortions to the satellite readings from solar glare or solar warming of the upper “skin” which are carried on to the SST record, do the upper ocean water temperatures give us a better indication than the satellite-derived SSTs (and how do the two correlate)?
These are all questions that I cannot answer.
Max
TonyB
Am re-sending this post with links separate (the spam filter blocked it)
I know that you have studied this more deeply that I have but here are a few relevant links on SST.
This paper describes the diurnal temperature distortion in SSTs:
Link 1
This one discusses the mechanics of the satellite data and compares it to that from the old pre-ARGO “global drifting buoys”
Link 2
Prior to around 1980, SST was determined from ships by canvas buckets. This report starts off with the statement:
Link 3
Several sources of errors are cited.
Another study on the accuracy of sea surface temperatures (using the older methods) tells us:
Link 4
All this tells me, Tony, that the SST record prior to 1980 (from buckets and engine intake) was spotty and lousy and that the more recent SST temperatures from satellites still have some “bugs”, due to diurnal distortions.
It also confirms (what Josh Willis of NASA also conceded) that the upper ocean temperature record until 2003 from XBTs had a “warming bias”.
Since 2003, the latest, most advanced readings are those from the ARGO devices; these show a cooling of the upper ocean since they started.
I’d say that the SST record is fraught with even greater uncertainties (particularly prior to satellite data) than the land surface record (with all its known “warts and blemishes”, which have been discussed ad nauseam).
Max
Link 1
http://www.remss.com/papers/tmi/diurnal_signals_in_satellite_sst_measurements.pdf
Link 2
http://www.usgodae.org/docs/navo/navo_sst.pdf
Link 3
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49707431916/abstract
Link 4
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49707431916/abstract
Max #1351
I think a discussion of Lambs postulations might have been interesting 25 years ago, but subsequent events have now rendered it a somewhat academic museum piece. Your various posts have covered it more than adequately for everyone it seems but Peter, who seems fixated on the subject, having apparently just discovered Lamb.
Hopefully he will now move on to a more current aspect of climate science-that of global temperatures in general and SST’s in particular. That the oceans are warming rapidly is a ‘given’ but quite how they are able to accurately measure the vast ocean surface back to 1850 is something I am sure Peter will be able to tell us.
I wil read and comment on your 1354 onwards shortly
tonyb
TonyB
More on SST record prior to satellites.
A 2008 paper by Thompson et al. entitled “A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature” tells us:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html
“Filtering out the effects of internal climate variability” makes me a bit suspicious of the results, but still it appears that a major (0.3°C) disconnect in the record “is the apparent result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record”.
If it can happen once…
Max
TonyB
More grist for the SST mill:
Here is a paper by Warwick Hughes (admittedly not the IPCC’s “best friend”)
http://www.warwickhughes.com/sst/
This is fairly critical of the SST record.
It quotes “a prominent climate scientist and IPCC author” as follows:
A UHI distortion in the SST? Hmmm… (But IPCC tells us in SPM 2007 very clearly that “urban heat island effects have zero influence over the oceans”.)
He also cites a 1984 paper by Folland, Parker and Kates entitled, “Worldwide marine temperature fluctuations 1856-1981”, Letter to Nature, Vol 310, 23 Aug 1984, page 670-673. (FP&K)
This shows graphically that the uncorrected late 19th century SST was essentially no different from that in the late 20th century. It also points to the “huge corrections” made to the SST record around WWII, with the conclusion:
I don’t know, Tony, but the more I look the more it appears that the pre-satellite SST record is an even bigger can of worms than the land surface temperature record.
But maybe I’m wrong and Peter can reassure us that the SST record does tell us something meaningful.
Max
Max said
“But maybe I’m wrong and Peter can reassure us that the SST record does tell us something meaningful.”
I’m sure he has a full explanation for what might appear to be a most unscientifically gathered set of data that has somehow been transformed into an apparently highly accurate data base used by the worlds leading climate institutes.
tonyb
Brute
Aw, c’mon.
There’s no need to worry about the bad satellite data that show exaggerated warming (1340).
We don’t need anymore data.
Haven’t you heard: the science is settled!
(Al Gore said so.)
Max
TonyB,
Don’t you think you are being a bit harsh on Lamb with your “I think a discussion of Lambs postulations might have been interesting 25 years ago, but subsequent events have now rendered it [his book Climate Past Present and Future ?] a somewhat academic museum piece.”?
This is the same Hubert Lamb who you seemed to think was the fount of all knowledge just a few days ago! A totally superior “breed” to all those charlatans who today pass themselves off as climate scientists!
Its important to put Hubert Lambs work into its proper context without being unduly swayed either way by what he claimed at the time. He certainly made a valuable contribution, but times have moved on, progress has been made and some of what he wrote has turned out to be in agreement with what is now known. Like the asymmetry of the climatic periods known as the LIA and MWP.
However, his theory to explain the asymmetry , his tilting of the circumpolar vortex is now not thought to be correct. Neither are his views on AGW. However, at the time of his death in 1995 the position was much less clear than it now is 15 years later.
In another 15 or 25 years time the position will be even clearer still. The science of today isn’t perfect, but it is the best we’ve got, and the best guide we’ve got by which to decide policy issues such as if or how to control atmospheric GHG concentrations.
Max,
Seriously, I’m baffled that an institution such as NASA/NOAA would even dare publish data based on “maybe’s”, “could possibly” and “ifs”. The fact that instruments are (knowingly) providing them false information that they then publicize is astonishing.
I’m an Engineer…….anything that comes off my desk has been thoroughly vetted, proven and rechecked several times to make absolutely certain that the information is 100% accurate……unimpeachable.
My instruments are calibrated relentlessly.
NASA’s/NOAA’s creed seems to be the same as most government bureaucrats……..”Close enough for government work!”.
Call me old fashioned…….but my professional reputation is extremely important to me.
NASA’s/NOAA’s data is slipshod, speculative, assuming and laced with personal bias……..same thing at CRU.
Sometimes the numbers don’t come out the way that I’d like them to…….but they are what they are and manipulating the results to “make them fit” is an insult to the integrity of every professional committed to high ethical standards.
Peter said in #1364
‘…his book Climate Past Present and Future ?]
Back to your usual tactics I see Peter in distorting what I said. As you well know I was talking about that particular theory you have become fixated on, not the book in general. New studies came to light which unfortunately Lamb couldnt take into account as he was dead. Death tends to stop you adjusting theories to fit new information.
I note that you seem unable to provide any information to confirm the validity of SST’s so using your own method of debate I wil take it that you must agree that SST’s are even more suspect than global land temperatures.
SST’s and Global land thermometer temperatures will provide much interesting statistical work for the latest commentators on the Hockey Stick. Just hope they don’t fall about laughing when they realise how SST’s are formulated and the proclaimed official accuracy of them.
(unless you know different of course)
Tonyb
Max and Peter
By coincidence I see Willis Essenbach has just started a thread on SST’s with regards to the Southern Ocean study by Judith Curry.Its worth reading for the article and comments.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/dr-curry-warms-the-southern-ocean/
This response by Willis sums up all that is wrong in our belief that we have laboratory acuracy information on which to base decisions.
“Oakden Wolf says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Willis, excellent summary of the paper. Can you comment on this study with regard to the following references?
Gille, 2002: Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s. Science, Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1275 – 1277
Reply by Willis
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to do all of those. I looked at the first one. Same thing. In fact, worse, because these were mid-depth temperature readings from 700 to 1,100 metres, which were undoubtedly much less common than surface temperatures.
Their Figure 1 (b) shows the distribution of shipboard temperature profiles used in the study as a function of decade. A close examination of the figure shows 73 separate temperature profiles taken in the 1950s between sixty and seventy degrees south.
Now, think about that. We’re talking about a decade, and nineteen million square kilometres (seven million square miles) of ocean. That’s a huge area, extending out more than a thousand kilometres on all sides around Antarctica.
In a decade there are 120 months … so that’s less than two thirds of a sample per month in that critical part of the Southern Ocean nearest Antarctica. They claim an accuracy of ± 0.06° C for their 1950 results … true, that’s the claimed accuracy for the whole of the Southern Ocean, but the situation there is not much better. Extending the area down to 40S increases the samples to a whopping two per month … but the area increases by a factor of four, so the sample density hasn’t gone up at all.
Does anyone truly think that we can estimate the temperature of that huge swath of ocean to a ±0.06°C accuracy by taking a couple of temperature readings per month over thirty million square miles of ocean, bunched in the summer months, with each reading being taken in a very different place all around Antarctica?
Really?”
By his silence Peter seems to agree with us that SST’s are highly suspect.
Tonyb
Max,
You seemed to object when I said:
“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?”
Replying:
“Let me clear it up for you, Peter.”
Yes please do. Its usually just the opposite when you say that!
“I can accept past figures by these groups with a small grain of salt”
Now in your #1361 you are comparing the sizes of “cans of worms” with the figures for surface temperature etc from these very same groups ?
So its a “small grain of salt” in a “large can of worms”? I don’t suppose the worms would find that too unpleasant.
TonyB,
“New studies came to light which unfortunately Lamb couldn’t take into account as he was dead!”
Which have invalidated his tilt theory only. Is that what you mean?
But, you’re saying the “new studies”, as regards the rest of the book, are quite different? Lamb has somehow managed to take these into account even though he is just as dead? So, even though the IPCC has issued several comprehensive and lengthy reports since then, Lamb’s 1995 views on AGW are just as valid now as they ever were?
That’s an interesting viewpoint.
Pete,
I apologize. You’ve been right about AGW the whole time…..this article confirms it.
Russian Scholar Warns Of ‘Secret’ U.S. Climate Change Weapon
http://www.rferl.org/content/Russian_Scholar_Warns_Of_Secret_US_Climate_Change_Weapon/2114381.html
Alex Cull: HELP!
I want to use a quote from your transcript of Sir Brian Hoskins’ interview with the Economist in a post that I’m drafting, but the only link I have is broken. I seem to remember that you moved it.
PeterM
For the studies, which have invalidated Lamb’s postulation of “asymmetry” between the time periods of the MWP in Europe and Asia, please refer to my 1334, where these are cited.
These show that there was no “asymmetry” (ergo no “tilting of the circumpolar vortex” to cause this “asymmetry”).
In other words, they show that the MWP occurred at the same time across the Northern Hemisphere.
Other studies I cited earlier demonstrate that the MWP also occurred at the same time in several locations in the southern hemisphere, in other words was a global phenomenon.
Hope this ends this non-productive and repetitive exchange.
Max
Peter#1369
Rearrange this well known phrase or saying
DEAD FLOGGING HORSE A STOP
How about putting your sensible hat on again-it will be that dusty one hidden in a dark cupboard :) – and tell us what you think of the accuracy and validity (or otherwise) of SST’s. These are a current component of the IPCC which are considered to be significant and meaningful.
tonyb
PeterM
Do you have any informative comments on the validity of the SST record, before and after the introduction of satellite measurements around 1980?
That was TonyB’s request to the two of us and I gave mine based on the data I could find.
These show that this record is a total mess prior to the satellite figures (and can probably be ignored as meaningless) and still has “bugs” today due to diurnal distortions.
I’d be interested in your specific comments on this, as well.
Max
PeterM
You opined:
No objection, Peter.
You just got it wrong, as I explained.
Read my reply again (maybe two or three times, if it doesn’t sink in the first time).
Max