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:
Your #92 is waffle. The alarmist hypothesis is that AGW will cause dangerous climate change. Until that hypothesis is verified by the Scientific Method (#89), it remains no more than an unverified (albeit important and interesting) hypothesis. Every branch of science is subject to that demanding discipline. That you are trying to say that dangerous AGW need not be, is revealing of the weakness of your position.
Yes, Peter, it’s a demanding discipline: and your “not invalidated” concept demonstrates your complete failure to understand it. Did Darwin stay at home and say “that’s my hypothesis [that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors], it’s not been invalidated so it must be regarded as valid? No – he travelled the world and gathered and published a vast quantity of empirical evidence supporting his hypothesis. It’s amusing that your concept is akin to that of the creationists.
Yes, Peter, there’s an “abundance of evidence” that temperatures have been changing and that CO2 causes atmospheric warming. But there is no empirical evidence that mankind’s emissions of CO2 are the principal cause climate change and that further such emissions will endanger the planet. And, until there is, the hypothesis remains no more than an unverified hypothesis.
You’re right about astronomy. But the fact that you mention it shows that (as usual) you are not paying attention. Go back and read the third paragraph of my #55 and the second paragraph of my #73: “experimental testing” may well be carried out by observation and calculation.
Robin,
I’m surprised at you for not understanding the difference between “validating” and “not invalidating” especially as you quoted Einstein has having said
““No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right [validating]; a single experiment can prove me wrong [invalidating].”
In other words Einsteins theory is correct until someone else proves him wrong. Its the same with Darwin too. He might have gathered evidence but his theory has never been “validated” as such. It can never be.
It’s the same with GHE theory. Neither can it be verified; but as long as it continues to explain the observed effects better than anything else it will stand as the most likely explanation , not only for 20th century warming, but the most likely warming to come in the 21st century and beyond.
Peter
Thanks for your #100, it was a genuinely useful link (if only to realise how Nasa are deluding themselves and the public).
At some point I will write an article on the hundreds of places throughout the world that have been cooling for at least 30 years, but which have been overlooked because of the statistical artefacts used to compile a ‘global’ temperature. This means that a warming anomaly of say .2 C in some places (often due to UHi) overcomes a cooling anomaly of .15 elsewhere.
The world is ceretainly not experiencing ‘global’ warming. Anyway, thanks again for the great link.
Tonyb
Pete,
Has anyone ever referred to you as a pompous, self-righteous ass?
If not, I’d be amazed.
You come across as one of those “power to the people” Hippie type radicals yet you espouse and promote a doctrine that places power in a select few (that happen to agree with your ideology). How convenient.
Tell you what…………when you and your Eco-nut pals start living a “carbon free” lifestyle holed up in thatched hut on a desolate island, (and stay there), let me know.
When that happens you can count me in as being an official convert to your “sky is falling” doomsday cult.
PeterM
Bring empirical evidence rather than waffles.
I have shown you (91) that the bit of empirical data we do have points to a possible 2xCO2 impact of around 1C. Can you comment on that?
If you disagree, please get specific.
How do you explain the observed fact that the atmosphere has cooled, both at the surface and in the troposphere, since 2000, and that the upper ocean has cooled since Argo measurements started providing more reliable data than the old expendable buoys used previously in 2003, despite record increase in atmospheric CO2?
Kevin Trenberth has stated he thinks the energy may be going “into outer space”, and that clouds may be acting as a “natural thermostat”.
Do you believe that Trenberth is right, or do you have another explanation for the observed cooling?
MetOffice states that the cooling can be attributed to “natural variability” (a.k.a. natural forcing). This is curious, since IPCC tells us that natural forcing played an insignificant role in the warming from 1750 to 2005, and that this warming can be attributed essentially to anthropogenic forcing.
Can you explain how natural forcing has overwhelmed record CO2 increase over the past decade when it was inconsequential for the 25 decades before that?
Following Einstein’s logic, I would conclude that these physical observations invalidate the model-based postulation of strong net positive feedbacks (resulting in a 2xCO2 GH impact of 3.2C, as suggested by IPCC based on model simulations), thereby invalidating the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, represents a serious potential threat.
How would you interpret this?
Do you have an opinion of your own, or are you satisfied to simply hide behind an alleged “majority consensus” as expressed by IPCC?
If I am asking too much of you to get specific relating to the observed data, let me know.
Otherwise please answer my questions.
Thanks in advance.
Max
PeterM (#102):
Is your misunderstanding a deliberate obfuscation or are you unable to grasp a simple concept? A hypothesis is neither “correct” (to use your term) nor is it incorrect. It’s just a hypothesis. But, when it’s been “thoroughly tested against empirical (physically observed, not theoretical) evidence” and has survived that testing, it is then, and only then, validated. And it retains that position until/unless new empirical evidence shows it to be invalid. Thus Newton’s view that space and time were absolute was seen as valid until invalidated by the new evidence of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
Dangerous AGW is still at the “just a hypothesis” stage. It may one day be verified by observed empirical evidence. But that hasn’t happened yet.
PS: likewise, and contrary to your observation, Darwin’s hypothesis has most certainly be verified. But it has not been proved. And it never will be. Try to understand the difference – it’s simple enough.
PeterM
Not to distract you from answering my specific questions (105), you wrote (98) of the article by Prof. Robert Carter, which I cited:
Go back and read the paper; if necessary, put on your reader glasses first.
The first quotation, which is actually quite neutral on the “premise of dangerous human-caused climate change” comes from John Roskam – Director, Institute of public Affairs, Melbourne, Australia.
You should also note that the second quotation, which is a bit more critical of the “bogus science and media hype associated with the (dangerous) human-induced global warming hypothesis”, came from Professor Emeritus William Gray – Colorado State University.
You then state:
The key observation here is that a doubling of CO2 should cause a theoretical warming of around 1C.
Interestingly (see my 91) the physical observations seem to validate this theoretical increase.
This is the key point.
Whether we are 75% there (0.75C) today, or 45% there (0.45C) is relatively immaterial. It means we have between 0.25 and 0.55C left to go to year 2100.
Yawn!
Max
I recommend this speech by Lawrence Solomon (author of the excellent book “The Deniers“) made at the Colorado Mining Association last month. Here’s an interesting passage:
Robin
Thanks for link to talk by Lawrence Solomon. I have read his “The Deniers”, which is also quite revealing.
The truth appears to be that many renowned scientists, from several related fields of science, are increasingly skeptical of the so-called “science” supporting the “dangerous AGW” premise.
The many recent “Climategate” related revelations are helping to refute the “2,500 supporting scientists” claim.
It is interesting that even a devout AGW proponent, such as Kevin Trenberth, who caused Chris Landsea from the National Hurricane Center to resign from IPCC in 2005, is now saying that clouds act as “a natural thermostat” (as Richard Lindzen had hypothesized a few years ago) and that the missing energy is likely being radiated “into outer space”, thereby invalidating the James E. Hansen “hidden in the pipeline” postulation, upon which a good part of the AGW hysteria rests.
At the same time, Phil Jones acknowledges that the MWP may have been warmer than today and that earlier pre-CO2 warming cycles in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are statistically indistinguishable from the touted late 20th century warming cycle.
Bob Dylan said it several years ago, but now it has a new meaning: “the times they are a changin’”.
Max
Robin,
You seem to be using two interpretations of the word “validating.”
If you mean does the theory fit the facts, on the AGW issue, then we can ask:
Are we really sure that CO2 and other GHG’s like methane have a GH effect? Yes its been known since the 19th century.
Have CO2 levels and other GHGs increased in recent decades? Yes they have.
Has the Earth warmed at approximately the same time? Yes it has.
Do we have any other measurements of other factors such as the solar flux? Yes we have.
Can they explain measured warming? No they cannot.
Have we empirical measurements to verify all these answers? Yes we have.
So the hypothesis is validated. QED.
However, if you are taking a meaning closer to the term ‘proof’ then its a not the same. Yes it could be just a coincidence. Yes it could be cosmic rays. Yes it could be a mysterious factor X which no-one has yet discovered. It ‘could’ be, but its not likely.
If you wanted to be really pedantic you could argue that there it hasn’t been experimentally validated that the sun will rise again in the morning! Is this the kind of word game you are playing?
Max,
Lets just get this point cleared up then we can move on to the rest of the discussion.
Is it 44% or is it 75% ?
PeterM
Does it really matter?
Take your pick.
It is less than 1degC until year 2100 in either case.
Max
PeterM
You ask Robin
Sorry, Peter. Your answer here is wrong.
“Other factors” (i.e. “natural variability” a.k.a. natural forcing) are being used by Met Office to explain the cooling since 2000, which occurred despite record increase in atmospheric CO2, so I guess they could very well explain a significant part of the 20th century warming.
In fact, solar scientists attribute around half of the 20th century warming to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years).
And ENSO (another “natural factor”) caused the “record year” 1998 (plus other late 20th century warm years), thereby contributing significantly to the observed late 20th century warming.
Did you somehow miss all this in your myopic concentration on human CO2 as the cause for all warming (as the IPCC guys did)?
C’mon, Peter. Don’t be silly. Try to be a bit more scientific and objective here.
And, while you are at it, try answering my specific questions (105), if you think you can.
Max
PeterM (#110):
Yes, there is empirical evidence that GHGs have a warming effect on the atmosphere. Yes, there is empirical evidence that GHG emissions have increased in recent decades – notably very recently. Yes, there is empirical evidence that the Earth has warmed (by a few tenths of one degree Centigrade) since the beginning of the 19th century – the correlation with the above GHG emissions being very poor. So, do we understand what caused the warming? No, we don’t: we understand it little (if any) better than we understand what caused the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period – and the many other temperature fluctuations of the Earth’s temperature during the Holocene and before that (not least the big temperature changes that occurred as we emerged from the last ice age about 12,000 years ago – itself just one of other ice ages that have occurred on approximately one hundred thousand year cycles for nearly one million years). We do know, to take but one example, that the movements between the layers within the vast oceans are a source of temperature variability and may even account for all climate change since the 19th century (Tsonis et al, 2007). But are they fully understood? No, they’re not. What we do know, however, is that the Earth’s climate is never in equilibrium.
Does any of this support the hypothesis that mankind’s emissions of GHGs, if they continue, will cause dangerous climate change? No, it does not.
Max,
Yes it matters. Just leaving aside, for now, the question of what the CO2 sensitivity might turn out to be, we need to know if the current levels of CO2 mean that we are 44% or 75% of the way there.
Robin,
I could have included in my list of checkpoints if there was a better theory than that the late 20th century warming was caused by GHGs. And there isn’t. You might not like the implications of it but it is cosnsidered to be the most likely explanation.
The general fit between CO2 and temperature increase is not too bad when other factors such as volcanic eruptions, the 11 year solar cycle, ocean conditions, and the effect of particulate emissions are taken into account.
So if we are using the term ‘validation’ to mean that the theory that additional GHGs warm the atmosphere then its validated. Just how much warming that might be is still uncertain. Hopefully Max will turn out to be correct with his 1 deg C figure for CO2 sensitivity but the empirical evidence doesn’t point that way.
PeterM:
Yes, Peter, there are lots of “theories” – and different people have different views about which is “better” or “most likely” or is the “general fit” that is the least bad … and so and so on. And, yes, as I’ve said countless times before (you don’t pay attention do you?), the theory that additional GHGs warm the atmosphere is indeed validated.
But, struggle as you may, you cannot avoid the plain fact of your inability to refer us to published research citing empirical evidence that (a) man’s GHG emissions were the principal cause of recent warming and (b) that further such emissions will cause dangerous climate change. And, until you can refer us to such evidence, the dangerous AGW hypothesis continues to be no more than another interesting hypothesis.
Robin,
I was wondering when you were going to play on the non-scientific meaning of the word theory. “Just a theory” is what the Creationists say about Evolution. There is no need to put quote marks around the word. To have a theory which you describe as validated is what science is all about!
You say the theory that “additional GHGs warm the atmosphere is indeed validated.” then you question the mainstream scientific view that “man’s GHG emissions were [most likely to be -PM] the principal cause of recent warming”.
Sounds like you are contradicting yourself there Robin!
PeterM:
You claim that it’s “the mainstream scientific view” that “man’s GHG emissions were the principal cause of recent warming”. OK – then it should be very simple indeed for you to refer to the published research that cites empirical evidence substantiating that “view”. And, when you’ve done that, the next step is to refer also to the published research that cites empirical evidence that further such emissions will cause dangerous climate change. When you’ve done that you will have made substantial progress towards showing that the dangerous AGW hypothesis is more than just another unverified hypothesis.
Robin,
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases”
There are many similar declarations. They are based on not just one scientific paper but on many as categorised by the IPCC. There are papers on the amount of warming, measured empirically, some groups will have published how CO2 has increased, this again is more empirical evidence, others will have done isotope tests to show that the CO2 is of anthropogenic origin. And yes this is backed up by those who have measured IR absorption by C02 in the laboratory and even those dreaded computer types who have modelled it all!
PeterM:
“Official statements” from important bodies are not science. Science is based on empirical evidence – as I said in an earlier post, such evidence is the bedrock upon which science has been based for hundreds of years. But, yes, there’s lots of such evidence that the world is warming and that man-made CO2 emissions have increased. But, so far, there is no such evidence that such emissions were the principal cause of the recent warming (of a few tenths of a degree C) or that more such emissions will cause dangerous climate change. If you disagree, please refer to it. Thanks.
Peter reur #119
That is a statement from the governing board of the society not necessarily it’s members, so of which most definately disagree.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/dissenting-members-ask-aps-to-put-their-policy-statment-on-ice-due-to-climategate/
However, the whole arguement is a little irrelevant as it’s classic “appeal to authority”. Although if;
.
Is true there must be vast swathes of emprical evidence available for you to post, look forward to reading it.
so of which = some of which
actually my 121 is basically just one long typo by the looks of it, nevermind, you can get the gist anyway :)
Barelysane:
I said at #120 that “Official statements” from important bodies are not science. I expect you agree. You pointed out (no doubt correctly) that such a statement does not necessarily represent the views of the organisation’s members. But I hope would also agree that, even in the unlikely event that the APS had conducted a poll of its members that had determined that a majority agreed that further emissions of GHGs would cause dangerous climate change, that would not be science either. Science is not a matter for majority vote.
Robin
Absolutely not, i take it on trust that everything a scientist says is factually correct and most definately doesn’t require repeat verification or evidence of any kind whatsoever. If only certain politicians and pesky bloggers could be expected to behave with such a stringent code of ethics and accuracy the world would be a much better and cooler place.
Sorry, seems to have had a bit of an identity crisis for a moment.
(btw when i posted my 121 your 120 hadn’t appeared, assuming i have so weird caching issues going on on this pc)