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 mention the warming in the 90’s and 00’s.
What were the overall average figures for those two decades?
As I was saying a few weeks ago to Peter’s huge scepticism, solar flares are a considerable danger to our society and we have done nothing to protect against them. Seems a govt minister must have been listening in.
‘Solar flare could send us back to the dark ages.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8009635/Solar-flares-could-paralyse-Britains-power-and-communications-Liam-Fox-says.html
Hopefully the UK govt might come to recognise that this is a much more serious and realstic threat than the spectre of highly elusive global warming. How about the rest of the world following suit-there would be no fun being the only beacon of civilisation in an otherwise dark ages world.
Tonyb
TonyB,
What I actually said was that the worst case scenario for solar storm would be damage on a par to that sustained during WW2. As the last 60+ years have shown its possible to recover from that.
The worst case scenario for AGW is the Venus effect. If not quite as bad as that, then several mtrs of sea level rise and not so easy to reverse.
In any case, as any good chess player, or military general, will tell you, if you are facing multiple threats, from different directions, you need to guard against them all. Not just one.
Peter
Thrown back to the dark ages is rather more serious than thrown back to WW2-however dire that might have been.
Electronic damage whether caused by nature or man through some sort of planned attack will totally devastate our civilisation. As we become ever more dependent on computers to run our lives so the potential devastation will increase.
I know which one worries me the most Peter, hopefully the authorities will wake up and do something practical about it. Sorry, but to me its a much more real and imminent threat than AGW.
tonyb
tonyb
TonyB,
For once you are probably correct in saying: “to me it’s a much more real and imminent threat than AGW.”
There is just a possibility that the next solar maximum in 2013 will be associated with a Carrington like event. In which case, it will affect both our lives. Unless we don’t live quite that long!
It’s unlikely that AGW will seriously affect anyone, in their lifetimes, other than the very youngest, and it’s subsequent generations who will be really affected .
It’s usual to reference temperature and sea level rises etc to the end of the current century. It is more likely to be what happens afterwards which will be worse.
So this raises the question of what consideration we should give to the state of the Earth in the 22nd century and beyond?
PeterM
You asked me for temperature trends in 1990s and 2000s.
Over last decade of 20th century (1991-2000) both the surface (HadCRUT) and satellite (UAH) records showed strong warming at more than 0.2C per decade.
Over the first decade of 21st century, 9 years only (2001-2009) both records showed slight cooling (HadCRUT at -0.07C per decade and UAH at -0.08C per decade).
So a strong warming trend was reversed to a slight cooling trend.
Along with several climate scientists, such as Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, I have not personally concluded that such short-term trends (under 100 years) really mean very much, particularly since the long-term record shows regular multi-decadal oscillations similar to a tilted sine-curve, with a total warming/cooling cycle of around 60 years, an amplitude of around ±0.2C and an underlying warming trend or slope of around 0.04C per decade.
As recent statistical analyses have concluded, the long-term record with all these multi-decadal cycles shows no statistical correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased marginally until the 1950s and have increased at a fairly constant compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 0.4% per year since Mauna Loa measurements started in 1958.
Gotta look somewhere else for a cause, Peter.
Max
PS Realize that IPCC has stopped “looking for a cause”. In fact, I think they never even really tried, since they knew from the start that it had to be human CO2.
PeterM
You asked TonyB
I’d say none, since we have no way of knowing what all will happen over the next several centuries.
It is just as silly as if someone during Napoleon’s time gave “consideration” to what our planet would look like today. Better to worry about next year.
All we know for fairly sure is that doomsday will not come (it hasn’t so far) and (if it does) there is nothing we can do about it, anyway, except possibly make ourselves less vulnerable to major disruptions, which might have a reasonable statistical probability of occurring.
TonyB probably has other thoughts on this, but those are mone.
Max
PS Under making “ourselves less vulnerable to major disruptions, which might have a reasonable statistical probability of occurring” I do NOT include enforcing a direct on indirect carbon tax on humanity (which will cripple the world economy and have no positive impact on our planet whatsoever).
PeterM
You repeat the same old tired fantasy
Refer to earlier posts for the reasons why this is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
IPCC’s “worst case” is 0.59 meters sea level rise by 2100 (and this case is exaggerated by a factor of at least 3-4, as pointed out previously).
So forget these silly fantasies. No serious scientific study has conjured up a “Venus effect” for Earth.
It is pure fiction.
By simply parroting it over and over again, it does not become less ridiculous, Peter.
Max
Max,
You don’t seem to want to answer my question about decadal average temperatures.
I was just wondering what it was for the 90’s and the 00’s?
You seem to have all the facts and figures to hand. You just add up all the global average temperatures between 1990 and 1999 (inclusive) and divide by 10. You then do the same for temperatures between 2000 and 2009, and you’ll end up with two numbers for comparison.
Max,
Working on some new deals here……..We’re approaching landowners (primarily farmers) and leasing their property to erect solar farms. We pay them a modest fee for the land use and install the solar cells. We then sell the “green” energy to the utility for double the amount that they sell “dirty power” for. They in turn sell the green power for a premium to nutty eco-chondriacs (mostly government institutions that are compelled by law to do so).
The farmers love the idea as they don’t have to worry about growing food any longer and aren’t dependant on seasons of low or high rainfall as well as all of the costs associated with growing food……..and can have their land produce income all year round as opposed to only during the summer months. The land has already been cleared of trees and obstructions that would block/interfere with collecting solar power so there is really no impediment. Some landowners with large forested areas are willing to clear cut the forest to provide more land to build the energy farms.
We exploit massive subsidies available from the federal, state and local governments in addition to the subsidies that the utilities are required to pay from new mandates imposed by the government Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SREC). These new laws require utilities to (either directly or indirectly) provide a percentage of the power they sell as “alternative” power.
That’s where we come in……The utilities can’t possibly purchase the large tracts of land required, so we’re turning farms into power plants…………isn’t that great!
If these deals go through, Mrs. Brute and I will retire in 5 years………
Brute
Once again you are proving that you are greener than a well kept English Lawn.
The destruction of the forest and the paying of vast sums of tax payers money to top up the coffers of ‘Big solar’ whilst hiking up the price of energy for consumers, are a small price to pay to halt CAGW in its tracks
Who needs food and farmers anyway?
You are an example to us all.
tonyb
Brute
Your green scheme (1812) is brilliant, as TonyB has already noted!
As long as politicians continue the massive (taxpayer funded) subsidies to try to “level the playing field” for inherently inefficient “renewable” sources of electrical power, gullible consumers line up to sign up for a higher power bill in order to save the planet and farmers see that they can make more money leasing their land for solar and wind farms than growing crops, possibly even combining this with more (taxpayer funded) income from farm subsidies for not growing crops, you have a scheme that is bound to generate a lot of ”green” (greenbacks, that is).
Winners (beside yourself, as the all-important entrepreneurial genius and middle man): corporations selling solar or wind power systems who cash in fat taxpayer funded subsidies to promote “green power”, government bureaucrats and politicians who increase the amount of taxpayer funded millions they can shuffle around for buying favor and votes, farmers who can let their land earn a living for them without having to do any work themselves and power companies who can sell “green” electrical power at inflated rates to the gullible “saviors of the planet”.
Losers (beside the gullible folks, who always get ripped off by definition): John Q. Public (the guy who is paying the taxes to fund this whole circus). The politicians will most likely need to implement a “carbon tax” to make sure they can get into JQP’s pocket to provide the necessary cash inflow, but that should present no problem, even if it might require buying a few key congressional votes (with more taxpayer funded cash).
Pure genius!
Max
PeterM
If you want to figure out the absolute temperature values for each year, please do so. They are meaningless in any case, Peter.
It is the trend that counts.
As I pointed out to you:
In the 1990s the trend was warming (i.e. net energy was entering the system).
In the 2000s the trend was cooling (i.e. net energy was leaving the system, despite increased atmospheric CO2).
A “travesty”, as AGW-promoter Trenberth referred to it.
Max
PeterM
Here is something to add to your suggested meaningless cherry-picked temperature comparison (1811).
Instead of comparing consecutive 10-year “blip” averages as you suggested, let’s compare the averages for consecutive 4-year “blips” (Hadley anomaly in C):
Latest 4-year period (2006-2009): 0.395C
Previous 4-yr period (2002-2005): 0.455C
Difference (in just 4 years) = 0.06C
If we extrapolate this to year 2100 (91 years) we get:
0.06 * 91 / 4 = 1.36C colder than the most recent 4-year period!
This equals an average anomaly of –0.97C.
The coldest 4-year period on record was 1856-1859 at –0.47C on average.
So by 2100 we will be a full 0.5C colder than the coldest period on record since 1850!
Brrrrr!
Max
PS This is just as silly as your suggested comparison, it just results in a different meaningless answer.
TonyB
AGW (or anthropogenic “climate change”) is going through a hard time.
The glorious days of Oscars and Nobel Peace Prizes are gone as arrogant and unscrupulous climate scientists have been caught by their own e-mails, errors and exaggerations in science supporting the IPCC reports are being exposed and the general public is beginning to smell a rat, while disgraced AGW bureaucrats are desperately trying to hold onto their jobs and politicians are scrambling to keep the “dangerous AGW”-story alive.
Once passive “dangerous AGW”-skeptics are morphing into more active “dangerous AGW”-challengers as an increasing number of scientists start to speak out.
As both the atmosphere and the oceans are entering a cooling trend, AGW supporters are becoming the “climate deniers” they had once accused their opponents of being.
It’s a topsy turvy world.
But it is enjoyable to watch how the wheels are coming off the “dangerous AGW”-bandwagon as it is headed for the ditch.
Will Cancun be the swan song or do we still have a few more climate boondoggles to go before it’s all over?
Max
Max #1817
I think CAGW can be likened to a supertanker. Not only is it difficult to turn round quickly but it is commanded by people (politicians, lobby groups etc) who have no interest in turning it round, and are happy to ignore the instructions by their shareholders (the general public) to do so.
To complicate things the proposition has become a giant tax raising scheme and that, mixed with ideology, will be very difficult to combat.
We live in a benign climatic age where temperatures have been rising steadily and very gently for over 300 years. It could continue gently rising for another 100 years-it is difficult to know if the current lack of sunspots will correlate to colder weather.
So unless there is a dramatic return to the conditions of the LIA I think the captain of the AGW supertanker will always find a reason to continue on their existing course.
Sadly all those involved -and their supporters-seem to have only a fragmentary grasp of climate history and will only respond when mother nature teaches them a harsh lesson-whenever that may be.
tonyb
Max,
I think the answer to your current line of argument probably # 3 in Scientific American’s “seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense”!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=3
PeterM
Re ur 1819 I don’t need some bloke named John Rennie tell me what the HadCRUT record clearly states, namely that it has cooled since the end of 2000.
Rennie does not dispute this (he would have to be an utter fool to do so), he simply gives his personal opinion that:
Duh!
No one is saying that it is a “break in the pattern” of overall net warming we have seen at an average rate of 0.04C per decade since the record started in 1850, simply the indisputable fact that it has cooled over the first 9 years of the 21st century (which you seem to deny).
That’s all.
Max
PeterM
Just how silly is the “Venus runaway” prediction for Earth due to AGW?
Let’s do a quick “sanity check”.
Venus has an atmospheric mass 93 times that of Earth, or
5,140,000 * 93 = 478,000,000 Gt
This is 96% CO2 = 459,000,000 Gt CO2
CO2 in Earth’s fossil fuel reserves:
Coal: Reserves (optimistic) = 2,000 Gt
At current use of 6.2 billion mt/year = 323 years reserves.
At 91% C = 6,673 Gt CO2
Oil: Reserves (optimistic) = 4,350 billion bbl = 570 Gt
At current use of 75 million bbl/day = 159 years reserves.
75% used for combustion = 428 Gt
1 Gt oil generates 3.1 Gt CO2
Total = 428 * 3.1 = 1,325 Gt CO2
Gas: Reserves (optimistic) = 380 trillion cubic meters
At current use of 2.8 trillion cubic meters/year = 136 years reserves
1 trillion cubic meters generates 2 Gt CO2
Total = 380 * 2 = 760 Gt CO2
Total CO2 from all remaining fossil fuels = 6,673 + 1,325 + 760 = 8,759 Gt CO2
Assume 60% “stays” in atmosphere = 5,255 Gt CO2
Earth’s atmosphere currently contains 390 ppmv = 593 ppm(mass)
Equals 5,140,000 * 593 / 1,000,000 = 3,047 Gt CO2
Total, after all fossil fuels are gone = 5,255 + 3,047 = 8,302 Gt CO2
Equals 8,302* 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 1,615 ppm(mass) = 1063 ppmv
Comparison with Venus:
8,302 Gt CO2 versus 459,000,000 Gt CO2
Venus has 55,277 times as much atmospheric CO2 as Earth would have after all fossil fuels have been consumed!
Ouch!
I’m afraid your “worst AGW case is Venus runaway” postulation does not pass the “sanity check”.
Max
PeterM
In a recent exchange of posts we have lain to rest the “Venus runaway from AGW postulation” and the question of whether or not it has cooled in recent years.
Now let’s look at some “inconvenient facts”.
The surface and satellite temperature records tell us that the atmosphere has cooled slightly after 2000, both at the surface (HadCRUT) and in the troposphere (UAH).
The Argo record tells us that the upper ocean has cooled since the more reliable and comprehensive Argo measurements replaced the old expendable XBT spot measurements in 2003.
Latent heat from net melting ice plus added net evaporation is not enough to change this basic imbalance.
This translates to a net reduction of our planet’s energy over the past few years.
Whether this is the start of a new long-term cooling trend is immaterial. The fact is that it has occurred.
So either the net “missing energy” is being radiated out into outer space or it is being absorbed by the lower ocean, where it will remain forever as an imperceptible net warming without returning to our climate system.
At the same time atmospheric CO2 continues to increase year after year, which means that according to the GH theory it should be warming, rather than cooling.
This is bad news for dangerous AGW aficionados (Trenberth called it a “travesty”), since either case tells us that the dangerous AGW postulation has been falsified by the observed facts.
How do you explain this, Peter? Am I missing something here?
Please try to be specific in your explanation.
Max
TonyB
You may well be right with your “supertanker” analogy (1818).
There is no doubt that the many individuals and groups that were poised to benefit from the dangerous AGW hysteria (TonyN’s “very convenient network”) will not give up easily.
But I predict that this development has reached an irreversible “tipping point” (similar to the one conjured up by James E. Hansen’s computers for our planet’s climate).
DAGW skeptics are becoming DAGW challengers and the topic is being carried to the public, which has become increasingly skeptical of the DAGW premise, as polls are showing.
The politicians are still on board (as a part of TonyN’s “network”), but politicians are notoriously fickle, when the wind changes direction and new issues become more “in”.
The MSM is also still part of the “network”, but even here, we see grudging changes (Harrabin et al.), which will undoubtedly accelerate.
The blogosphere has already taken the lead in spreading the word as some “insiders”, like Judith Curry, have already figured out.
When things start to unravel, it often happens much more quickly than can be anticipated.
The demise of the Soviet Union and the entire former East Bloc despite its massive power structure is an excellent example.
As Roy Spencer concludes in his recent book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder”:
I am optimistic that “grassroots participation” will accelerate the process.
Max
Max,
It is curious just how you’ve come to convince yourselves that the Earth is cooling when it clearly isn’t. For instance the global average temperatures (relative scale) in the decades below were:
70’s -0.07 deg C
80’s +0.08
90’s +0.23
00’s +0.40
You’ve acknowledged that the Earth warmed in the 90’s because it was 0.15deg warmer than the 80’s. But it cooled in the 00’s because it was 0.17deg C warmer than the 90’s?
I guess they don’t call you deniers for nothing!
Just in case you think I’m “cherrypicking” here is the full picture to date.
Cooling? You’ve got to wish I suppose.
PeterM
You are apparently confused:
IPCC uses the HadCRUT surface record for global temperatures.
It also uses the linear rate of change to determine rates of warming.
Using the IPCC approach, we see that there was a linear rate of warming over the last dcecade of the 20th century of slightly over 0.2C per decade.
IPCC refers to this linear rate of warming in its AR4 WG1 report as evidence of late 20th century warming (attributed to AGW, of course).
Since the end of 2000 the same temperature record shows a linear rate of cooling of around 0.07C per decade, using the same method as used by IPCC for the previous decade.
Are you DENYING this?
If so, I’m afraid I’ll have to call you a “DENIER”.
Max
PS As a physicist, you must realize, Peter, that “warming” or “cooling” refers to the rate of change, not to the absolute temperature anomaly, and the linear rate of change has shown warming over the 1990s and cooling over the 2000s, as pointed out above using the IPCC definitions.
PeterM
Yes, you were “cherry-picking” when you wrote about global surface air temperature:
In my response I told you that such short-term records do not mean very much
The long-term record shows warming since 1850 in cycles of warming and slight cooling of about 30 years each. This is all that really matters, Peter.
Not a comparison of the trend in the 90s and 00s, as you brought up.
Max
PS We have beaten this dog to death. The long-term record is what it is, and denying it or “cherry-picking” out two recent decades would just make you look silly, Peter.