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.
Hi Max
We have a mutual interest in sea levels and the dramatic increases we are currently supposed to be seeing. I gave a 20 link response to Tom Fuller over at WUWT concerning this subject and was surprised to see it elevated to a guest post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/07/the-unbroken-record-of-broken-icons/
Also see my addendum at 4.08 on 7th September.
We have so much evidence of fluctuating sea levels that puts today’s modest increases into historic context but some people just don’t want to accept it.
tonyb
So Pete……are the sea level rise “estimates” prophesized by the IPCC exaggerations or outright lies?
Does this mean that the taxes that they intend to impose should be decreased by 50%?
Are the original numbers from a graduate student’s term paper or did these come from a gossip magazine……which one is it?
Brute,
Sea level rise isn’t determined by the amount of ice melting at the poles. It’s measured directly, either by satellite altimetry or by tide gauges. The current thinking is that about 50% is caused by melting ice and the other 50% by thermal expansion of sea water as it warms.
However, if it is established that the amount of ice melting is less than previously thought, it will mean that the percentages will change to something like 30% – 70%. In other words more of the measured sea level will be attributable to thermal expansion.
I don’t really see how it helps your denialist ‘case’, one way or the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Climate Con is Ending! Big umbrella climate lobbying group shuts down after climate bill stalls — ‘Will phase out its operations’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41904.html
Los Angeles school named after Al Gore Rachel ‘DDT’ Carson — but it’s on toxic contaminated soil…….
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/06/school-named-after-al-gore-and-rachel-ddt-carson-built-toxic-soil
“Carson-Gore Academy of Environmental Sciences”
I don’t imagine that either of them would be too pleased to be associated with the other!
PeterM and Brute
To the comment by Peter (1703) on sea level:
There are a few problems with this statement
1. Satellite altimetry gives values for sea level rise (3.1 mm/year over period 1993-2003), which are around twice those as determined by the longer-term tide gauge records (1.6 mm/year over same period). This is presumably the reason why IPCC AR4 switched from one method to another (so they could claim an apparent acceleration in sea level rise toward end of 20th century, which did not exist in real fact).
2. NOAA scientists tell us that the satellite altimetry record 1993-2003 shows a rise of 2.5 mm/year (which IPCC apparently ”rounded up” for effect), but caution us that satellite altimetry readings have very high margins of error (higher than the measured rate itself).
3. Using several records, Carl Wunsch established that the rate of rise from 1993 to 2003 was 1.6 mm/year, but also cautioned that the errors in the satellite altimetry records are too great to allow any conclusions regarding the impact of recent global warming on sea level.
4. When we check IPCC AR4 table on sea level rise we see the following “contributions” to the total rise in mm per year:
a. 1.6 ± 0.5 Thermal expansion
b. 0.77 ± 0.22 Glaciers and (non-polar) ice caps
c. 0.21 ± 0.07 Greenland Ice Sheet
d. 0.21 ± 0.35 Antarctic Ice Sheet
e. 2.8 ± 0.7 Sum of above
5. We also see that the “sum of individual climate contributions” (2.8) is smaller than the so-called “observed total sea level rise” (3.1 mm/year), with a net difference of 0.3 ± 1.0 mm/year
6. Then, if we check closer, we see that both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets actually gained net mass over the period 1993-2003, instead of losing mass as reported by IPCC, so that the net contribution of the two would be a lowering of sea level of around 0.35 mm/year, rather than a rise of 0.41 mm/year.
So we are left with (mm/year over period 1993-2003):
1. 1.6 Thermal expansion
2. 0.42 All melting ice (net corrected value)
3. 2.0 Sub-total
4. 1.1 Difference between corrected “contributions” and “measured” total (let’s assume for simplicity’s sake that this is all due to the above cited error in satellite altimetry)
So 80% of the sea level rise (1993-2003) came from thermal expansion and 20% from melting ice, and the total is somewhere between one-half to two-thirds of the value cited by IPCC.
So much for what happened over the period 1993-2003.
But now comes the real dilemma.
Since 2003 the old expendable XBT devices, which introduced a spurious warming “bias”, have been replaced by more accurate Argo devices. These tell us that the upper ocean has been cooling, rather than warming since 2003.
So there should be a negative “thermal expansion” since 2003.
In summary, the sea level record is a “can of worms” and the conclusion reached by IPCC of an acceleration in rate of rise over the late 20th century is essentially worthless, as it is due to a change of method of measurement, i.e. comparing one set of data covering one scope with one measurement method over one time period with another set of data covering another scope using a completely different method (with an acknowledged high error rate) over another time period.
At its best, this is known as “bad science”; at its worst it is “outright lying to sell a story”. You can both judge for yourselves what it was in this case.
(TonyB can give you more input on the distorted sea level records being quoted today.)
Max
PeterM
Lomborg’s new book has not come out yet, so it is a bit early for AGW-believers (including you) to start gloating yet.
Lomborg has never “denied” AGW (just that “mitigation” against it has lower priority and lower return than many other more worthwhile causes).
Max
PeterM and Brute
For a comprehensive summary on sea level trends and the foolishness of current statements (including those of IPCC) of recent acceleration in rate of rise see WUWT guest post by TonyB (1701).
Max
Brute
Gore and Carson are strange bedfellows (your 1705)
Since Rachael Carson alerted US politicians and bureaucrats to the “dangers” of DDT (for certain bird species), the US has passed legislation banning its use and (via the WHO plus strong-arm tactics) the US Government has put immense pressure on underdeveloped countries to also ban its use in the fight against malaria.
The death rate from malaria in these countries has sky-rocketed since then, with an estimated 103 million added human deaths over the period.
http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html
But the birds are safe.
Gore has made a lot of money for himself, and could have helped cause a major collapse of the developed world’s economy had his plan not been scuttled (by the US Senate plus China and India), but all his hot air has not caused any human deaths so far.
Max
PeterM and Brute
For more on the IPCC falsification of the sea-level data set, see:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm
The “take-home” from all this, plus TonyB’s post here and article on WUWT, is that the IPCC sea level figures for 1993-2003 are totally meaningless, as are the current satellite measurements.
There has been no observed acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, therefore no observed increase caused by AGW (as IPCC would have us believe). In fact, the rate has been slightly lower in the second half of the 20th century than in the first half, when there was very little human CO2 in comparison.
Even more absurd than the past and current figures cited by IPCC are the IPCC projections of up to 0.6 meters rise by year 2100 (not to mention the ludicrous Hansen warnings of “several meters rise in this century”). When Ban Ki Moon warns us that a several meter-high rise could happen in “100 or even 10 years”, this is pure unfounded scare-mongering. Nothing else.
Max
Max,
Its not just the IPCC who are predicting that sea level rises are likely to be a problem this century and beyond.
The US National Academy of Sciences are saying pretty much the same thing:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer/Yokoyama_Yusuke.pdf?docID=53500
Max,
Where does this come from? “Then, if we check closer, we see that both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets actually gained net mass over the period 1993-2003”
Check closer with whom and with what?
Max,
Bjorn Lomborg does link to the Guardian article on the front page of his own website:
http://www.lomborg.com/
There are no complaints of any misrepresention. He’s now saying that there is no need for hair shirts and that , if proper resources are allocated, its a fixable problem.
He’s talking about $100 billion per year – I’d perhaps put it a bit more than that but in principle he’s now got it right.
Tonyb #1701
The article by Thomas Fuller at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/07/the-unbroken-record-of-broken-icons/
containing your analysis of sea levels also contains one of the most perceptive comments on the propaganda aspect of the climate wars which I’ve seen:
TonyN
You once asked me to do a guest post on the press propaganda aspect with respect to the Guardian. I’ve lost your email in a series of computer mishaps , but if you’d like to contact me, I’d be happy to take up your offer.
Peter
You have just reconfirmed my growing impression that you don’t read the links you make reference to, let alone anyone elses.
I would point out that slide 27 exactly makes my point about the tiny number of tide gauges that exist, that are of any length. There are only 7 that are up to 100 years old and only 3 that are up to 200 years old, all of those heavily interpolated and from the same Northern Hemisphere ocean basin which can vary by up to 6cm (Church et al)
These three pointless measurements- all from the same area- have then been used by the IPCC as the basis for a historic ‘global’ measurement, ignoring empirical evidence of rise and fall as they did so, in order to portray a false picture of constantly rising sea levels.
The presentation that you reference- which is highly equivocal- was one of the reasons that the met office then advertised for a glaciers modeller, admitting they had no idea what effect the perceived melt would have on sea levels. I referenced this here last year around this time.
I suggest you read my 20 links plus addendum, go to Chapter 5 of AR4 and read that again-including the caveats at the end- then read the extensive information Max and myself posted on this subject earlier this year, where we described how the satellite record was grafted on to the interpolated and inadequate tide gauges record in order to portray this ‘global’ figure. If you look at the fine print in AR4 you can see this for yourself.
Sea levels generally are currently around 30-50cm lower than they were at the height of the MWP-around 1200AD. (land of course rises and falls) Sea levels subseqntly generally declined during the LIA and started rising again around 1880/1900 at a modest rate which has not accelerated since. Indeed as Max points out, in recent years the rise became virtually static.
tonyb
Geoff 1715
The scientists must know that aspects of the science are flaky. However most scientists are also more interested in their work than the marketing /pr associated with it. Indeed, most scientists are very poor at PR, don’t like being wheeled out to face their critics and like to do this in a controlled fashion. (see TonyN’s link on the Lord Oxburgh whitewash)
Futerra have a large part to play in the merchandising of climate change which dates back to the political drive to fully adopt it. I wrote about it here;
“Climate change has become highly politicised and the British Govt – long time leaders in funding research into the subject – were very heavily implicated in making it a political issue in order to promote their own agenda. An unsual subject for me, but very well referenced with numerous links and quotes from such bodies as the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments
I think it would be very interesting to have a post on the press propaganda aspect- of which the Guardians are the cheer leaders who then so readily censor out the views of those responding to their articles.
Tonyb
TonyB,
“slide 27”? Where’s that?
Slide 27 comes after slide 26 Peter.
(Of your link)
(The one you didn’t seem to read).
Hope you will be commenting on the Oxburgh thread.
tonyb
PeterM
You question (1713) where the data come from which show a net gain in Grennland Ice Sheet mass over the 10-year period 1992-2003 (the time period for which IPCC claims a net mass loss).
The studies, based on continuous 24/7 satellite altimetry records, are as follows:
Johannessen et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356
This report shows that the Greenland Ice Sheet grew over the 11-year period, as a result of greater mass gain due to snowfall in the vast interior (which had previously not been measured) than the loss along the coastal areas.
The study showed a net overall increase in the Greenland ice sheet of around 60 cm over the entire study area over the period 1992-2003, which excluded a marginal area in the order of magnitude of 5 to 10% of the surface that could not be measured by satellite altimetry, due to steep contours. The spatially averaged increase was 5.4 cm per year over the entire study area, when corrected for post-Ice Age uplift of the bedrock beneath the ice sheet. These results corrected previous scientific findings of balance in Greenland’s high-elevation ice, which were based on local spot studies, rather than continuous measurement of the entire ice sheet.
A later report by Zwally et al. converted the findings from averaged overall elevation change to mass balance and extended the study area to cover the entire GIS. This study showed a net mass gain of 11 Gt/a over the 10.5 years.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001
This study covers essentially the same time period as Johannessen (mid-April 1992 to mid-April 2003), but curiously truncates the 6-month colder period from October 2002 to April 2003 from the study. This leads to the conclusion that Zwally’s reported gain in ice mass of 11 Gt/year is understated, since it ignores the gain in snow mass from an entire 6-month cold season. Simply substituting Johannessen’s figures, which do include these six months, for all the areas that could be measured by Johannessen and using Zwally’s numbers for the remaining non-measurable marginal areas results in a calculated increase of GIS ice mass from around 11 to around 23 Gt/year. With or without this adjustment, however, either result is clearly incompatible with the IPCC claim of a loss of 71 Gt/year over the same period.
Hope this info helps.
Max
PeterM
I am not going to enter a long discussion with you on “Lomborg’s latest thoughts” concerning global warming spending.
The Guardian article is pretty self-explanatory, although it starts off giving a false impression by stating that Lomborg has made “an apparent U-turn [on AGW] that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby”
But the article continues with (bold face type by me):
So if you read the article closely you will see that spending on AGW has moved from the bottom of the list to somewhere around the middle but that the current policies to cut carbon emissions through taxes were ranked at the bottom.
Lomborg makes it clear that it’s not “about cutting carbon emissions”, but about technology. (Who could disagree with that?)
Max
PeterM
You wrote (1712):
I checked your reference. The NAS is not referring to any studies other than those cited by IPCC (so this is no independent prediction by NAS, just a “parroting” of the IPCC stuff).
In fact, the Yusuke Yokoyama study cited in the NAS blurb you cited is actually (mis)quoting IPCC as its source on sea level predictions
FALSE.
IPCC AR4 SPM, p. 13 lists a range of 18 to 59 cm for sea level rise by the end of this century (NOT ONE METER, as Yokohama claims).
So the “NAS prediction” is neither independent nor accurate.
Check your sources before you make unfounded claims, Peter. Makes you look silly otherwise.
Max
PeterM
TonyB has posted a lot of very good information on the sea level record, all of which points to the fact that it is a “can of worms” from which no conclusions can be drawn concerning the impact of AGW, as IPCC tries to have us believe.
I’ve posted this chart before, but (with all the caveats mentioned by Tony) it clearly shows (a) that there has been no recent accelerating trend (a deceleration instead), (b) that the average decadal rate of change bounces up and down in multi-decadal cycles and (c) that IPCC has used a “high end” estimate of recent change (as compared to all the records out there) in order to show a purported acceleration where none exists in actual fact.
Max
TonyB,
Yes, yes I know you mean the link that I posted but the slide isn’t numbered as slide 27.
Are accepting the validity of this paper? Or are you seizing on one particular point to try to discredit the whole thing? Yes it would be good if we had a world wide network of tidal gauges with scientifically well kept records going back thousands of years but unfortunately that isn’t the case.
If you look at the slide titled “Last Interglacial” you’ll see that the temperature was 2-3 degs C warmer than in the current interglacial period. Which was fine at the time, of course, life flourished, both in the oceans and on land. So what is problem with allowing another 2-3 deg C of warming due to increased CO2 concentrations? Surely that may be a good thing.
The problem is that, in the last interglacial period, sea levels were 4-6 metres ( 13- 20 ft) higher than they currently are!
Max,
You need to write to the National Academy of Sciences – I’m sure they will be duly stung by your learned rebuke!
Quoting the 18-59 cm range of sea level rise, as many media articles have done, is not telling the full story. 59 cm is unfortunately not the “worst case”. It is the range of mid point estimates produced by various models, and it does not account for the fact that past sea level rise is actually underestimated by the models for reasons that are still unclear.
You guys are big on empirical data. Well its curious that this time you are ignoring the empirical data which can be obtained from a study of previous interglacial periods and going with computer models instead!
Considering these issues, a sea level rise exceeding one metre this century can by no means ruled out. Its also worth pointing out that the world will carry on, probably, a little longer than the end of this century. Over several centuries, without serious mitigation efforts we may expect, on the basis of hard evidence, several meters of sea level rise.
The state of the world in 90 years time will be of no more importance to us than its state at the end of every subsequent century. We’ll all be just as dead at the turn of each one!