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,
“The authors’ logic of the Arctic ice trend over the past 9000 years” , as you put it, leads them to say that “Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years.”
Anthony Watts, once again seems desperate to put his own spin on anything and everything he can in his campaign of disinformation. The report actually dies when someone reads the paper which , incidentally, only focuses on a small area of the Arctic.
Neither does it put reduced ice cover down exclusively to higher temperatures – higher salinity is a key factor too.
Its good, however, that Wattsupwiththat seems converted to the idea of peer reviewed papers. They must read them all avidly. It’s good also that they haven’t given a knee jerk type response to this paper’s contents. They’ve mulled over it for the last two years before finally releasing their considered opinion ;-) It’s a pity they still got it wrong. Maybe next time they should spend a bit more time still and actually read the contents even more carefully!
More on Arctic Sea Ice
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701102900.htm
PeterM
Interesting “Science Daily” blurb about sea ice off the Greenland coast, “Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years Near Greenland”.
Too bad the scientists did not go back a few hundred years further (but, then again, they would have had to change the headline to “Sea Ice Near Greenland Much Lower 1000 Years Ago Than Today” (which would not have sounded alarming and would have raised serious doubts regarding the IPCC claim that “the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years”).
It is common knowledge that when the Vikings settled in Greenland in the 10th century, temperature was much warmer and sea ice was considerably lower than today.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Old Viking sea charts show ice-free shorelines that are now permanently iced in.
But the most compelling physical evidence of a warmer climate is the remains of farms found buried in the permafrost of today.
The “Science Daily” report cites tree-ring data from Finland plus “ship logbooks” that “go all the way back to the 16th century” (deep in the middle of the LIA, when the Greenland farms had long been abandoned and the coastline iced in), and harbor data from Iceland, “where the severity of the winters have been recorded since the end of the 18th century”. Yawn!
Every schoolchild knows that the Vikings had to abandon their farms in Greenland because it got colder. Most also know that there are no farms there today, because it is still colder.
Max
PeterM
You are flogging a dead horse bashing Watts with claims of a “campaign of disinformation”, simply because you do not like the conclusions of the McKay et al. study.
Let’s move on to something else, Peter.
Max
PeterM
One last point regarding the McKay et al. study. You raised the point of Arctic seawater salinity (1904). Salinity and sea ice are connected:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93JC01504.shtml
http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v270206.pdf
Ocean water has a salt content around 3.4% while newly frozen Arctic sea ice has somewhere around 1.2%. When sea ice forms most of the contained salt is pushed to the seawater below the ice.
From this I would conclude that (all other things being equal) the surface seawater salinity in the late summer (when most of the ice has melted) is lower than in the late winter (when most of it has refrozen).
The McKay et al. study also shows that salinity in late summer is marginally higher today than over the 9,000-year average, which fits together with the study’s other findings of higher sea ice extent and lower temperature.
But let’s end this discussion and move on to something else.
Max
PS I should have said (1906) “there are hardly any farms in Greenland today”.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html
(There’s always the exception that proves the rule.)
Brute, I do hope that you were not distressed by the comment below, taken from 1901:
Max, I think your comment @ 1902 is also rather pertinent, my bold added:
Sorry about the formatting above; The question was intended for all contributors to this thread
Bob_FJ
Your question about your dogs and “AP” poses a real riddle.
From the picture I would guess that
– the dogs look “different” (coloration, ears), but yet
– they also both look “alike”, i.e. alert and relatively young (therefore still able, as opposed to “old dogs”, to “learn new tricks”)
Is “AP” able to “learn new tricks” or is he forever stuck in his “dangerous AGW” paradigm (like an “old dog”)?
It appears from this thread that this may well be so, in which case he and the dogs would be “different”.
Max
Bob_FJ
Your dogs are “beauts”, but back to our topic here.
I mentioned elsewhere that I had just read Roy Spencer’s “The Great Global Warming Blunder”.
He shows pretty convincingly a) that actual satellite observations demonstrate clearly that our climate is far less sensitive than assumed by all the IPCC models (my post 1800 with chart) and b) that changes in clouds act as a natural climate forcing and that these correlate closely with PDO cycles.
This theme was also covered in his 2008 paper linked below.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
The correlation here seems much more compelling than that suggested by the so-called “mainstream” between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 content, where statistical studies of the physically observed values have shown that there is actually no compelling correlation, but just a “random walk” (raising serious questions concerning the postulation of “causation”)
You may have already seen this paper, but it is well worth reading (as is Spencer’s book).
Max
No Bob, on the contrary, I rather enjoy Pete’s infantile musings.
As previously written, Pete falls into the category of “useful idiot”. His ideological rigid (illogical) world view fosters the group think that propels my bank account to higher and higher levels.
My solar project is gaining momentum thanks to carnival barkers such as Pete. “Leasing” photovoltaic cells to property owners could be the new flash in the pan rage of the next decade…………knowing when to bail out of the project(s) is the key.
The global warming “movement” has lost steam although there remain a few rubes that are willing to latch onto the Al Gore/Peter Martin hysteria that I am more than happy to exploit.
Bob_FJ
Here is the curve from Spencer’s simple model exercise on PDO correlation with cloud cover and global temperature (1900 to 2005). I have added in the values for atmospheric CO2 (red dots).
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/5026641660_eb5b0ff173_b.jpg
Spencer shows the best fit with the PDO/cloud correlation when he adds in the impact of CO2, as well.
Makes sense to me. What do you think?
Max
Bob_FJ
Forgot to mention. You can see from Spencer’s chart that he estimates the CO2 impact on temperature from 1900 to 2005 to be around 0.25C (difference in 2005 between the dashed and solid curve).
This equates with a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.6C (as compared to the IPCC model range of 2.0 to 4.5C).
Max
Max,
Please forgive my indolence but what “thermometer data” is Spencer using?
This has been brought up before………There exists the “official” temperature record(s) which are the data presented by the likes of Hansen that have been doctored to align with his personal/political beliefs and to foster his enviro- religious crusade. NASA and others have admitted that they have manipulated the data.
I submit that no accurate temperature record exists all having been tortured and “adjusted” to correlate with previous Warmist prophecies.
Max,
Reur 1913 & 1916/7.… Spencer and feedbacks
As you know, I’m very interested in this stuff, and I’ll study the paper you cited. I also have Spencer’s book; “Climate Confusion”, but have not read it yet.
Meanwhile, I’m posting a comment on an earlier topic, that I drafted last night, but then got too sleepy to finish.
Tony B, Re “Carrington Event”
I’m wondering if the electronics in most cars and trucks, would necessarily be damaged, given that most have a fair amount of metallic shielding. For instance there have been reports of people surviving lightning strike in cars. (or maybe additional temporary shielding might do the trick?) On that basis, power transformers in the grid etc, might also be protectable?
With the current satellites observing the Sun, I thought there was a potential of giving warning of such an event of at least 6 hours. However, over at WUWT there is an article that infers that it may be more complicated, with the flare burst changing direction and being accelerated by the solar wind. But, even if there is a modest warning, there needs to be acceptance and effective planning to mitigate the issue, for which there currently seems to be little awareness.
Tony B & Tony N
Given the grave risk involved, I think some good word-smithing at least here, pointing out in a new article, that the sky is not harmless, could possibly benefit mankind.
Perhaps it could be cross-posted onto some high traffic sites too? (WUWT)
Brute
Your question (1918) re the “thermometer data” curve in Spencer’s chart is pertinent and your statement is spot on:
Spencer does not specify for this chart, but in an earlier chart he shows the HadCRUT3 surface temperature record (the one manipulated until recently by Phil Jones) rather than the GISS record (manipulated by James E. Hansen).
Either record is of course, suspect, for the reasons you have cited, as well as the many problems cited here by TonyB (poor station coverage particularly in the Arctic and underdeveloped regions, siting problems caused by heated buildings, asphalt, AC exhausts, etc., change of station locations, urban heat island effect, land use changes, lousy sea surface record, etc.)
It is hard to estimate this impact, but the info I have seen would tell me that these factors have caused a spurious warming signal in the averaged land + sea record of at least 0.3C over the 20th century, excluding any deliberate “manipulations”, ex post fact “corrections”, “variance adjustments”, etc. made by the folks Spencer calls “The Keepers of All Climate Knowledge”.
Spencer has not corrected for this upward distortion, and it appears that he has used the data set “as is” using “5-year averages”, which he also refers to in his “The Great Global Warming Blunder” book (“Last 100 years” in Fig. 1).
In his book he points out regarding this record:
Unfortunately, the satellite record (which Spencer monitors at UAH) only starts in 1979, but it is interesting that it shows much slower warming from 1979 to today than the two surface records. Of course, IPCC prefers the surface record.
Spencer does not get into the dispute about the validity of the longer-term record (another battle) but simply postulates, based on his simplified model simulation, the PDO record and his physically observed impact of clouds, that most of the warming seen can be attributed to natural causes, principally the impact of cloud changes driven by the PDO, plus a small amount of GH warming from the increase in CO2.
So he is not “denying” that increased CO2 can cause temperature to rise, just that the impact of CO2 is much smaller than the IPCC models assume and project for the future, and that AGW is, therefore, not a serious threat as “The Keepers of All Climate Knowledge” would have us believe.
Max
Max,
I see your point; however any “effect” that CO2 is having on the planet must be accurately measured. The “given” figures used by Spencer (I would assume) are temperature data sets provided by NASA, Hadley or UAH……the last being only 30 years.
Using any “adjusted” data provided by Hansen or Hadley immediately compromises the postulate………after all, being that the temperature data was admittedly contaminated, I don’t understand how any correlation between temperature and CO2 can be made. The data provided by UAH comprises only 30 years…………I haven’t done the math on that one but I can say with certainty that it’s a minute fraction of the entire temperature record.
I understand that’s all there is to work with……………
An example would be that I pour a gallon of fuel into a car and drive it for 22.6 miles wherein the car stops due to a lack of fuel. I’ve measured (accurately) that the car achieves 22.6 miles per gallon. I then sell the car to you…………..claiming that the car achieves 28 miles per gallon using specious “adjustments” to the car’s performance. The true miles per gallon are inaccurate as stated.
My point being that without accurate temperature data, we don’t know if the planet is warming.
The entire premise begins with data that was compiled using methods that are unscientific.
Brute 1922
I have repeated a post below which I gave in answer to you a week or two ago concerning the name change.
However it also relates to your 1922 in as much drawing lines from 30 years ago is ludicrous if you want to see a trend (2000 years too short) and it depends on what data points you select in order to refute or confirm a particular bias in a study
“If Brute wants an answer as to why they want to change the name from global warming I suggest he revisits the article a colleague and myself wrote here concerning global cooling trends.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Then go to slide 19 20 21 22 of presentation 7.1 which is from the Exeter Climate conference at the Met office just concluded.
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/exeterworkshop2010
Our studies cover different time periods but you can see the similarities. There are substantial long lived and ongoing cooling trends happening all over the weorld. It is masked by Homogenisation, adjustments, and that the natural warming cycle and the unnatural UHI signal are greater in total than the areas that are cooling.
Hence the ‘average’ is a slightly warmer world which crowds out the places cooler than average. Global warming is simply not a correct term for something that isn’t happening globally.
Co2 is obviously affecting the US in different ways to much of the rest of the world as it seems to be cooling rather than warming you, Brute :) ”
tonyb
Brute
Like you, I am highly skeptical that the so-called “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” record (GISS or HadCRUT3) means anything at all.
There are many scientific, statistical and technical reasons for an upward distortion of later years, which TonyB has described in detail (and which I also listed).
There are the repeated “ex post facto” corrections being made to the record even today, which go back 30 or more years (i.e. “re-writing history” to make it come out as desired).
But most of all there is the fact that the “owners” of the process are:
– James E. Hansen (GISS), a known AGW-activist and scaremonger, who blathers on about irreversible “tipping points” in our climate (caused by human CO2) and compares coal trains with the Nazi death trains
– Phil Jones (HadCRUT, until he had to resign recently), another outspoken doomsayer, who has been caught fudging the data, playing games with the peer review process and withholding information from FOI requests
These are no better than “snake oil salesmen”.
It is totally naive to even think for a minute that these guys are going to provide the world what they are paid by taxpayer money to do: i.e. unbiased and objective data regarding our climate.
But Spencer has chosen to describe the “Great Global Warming” hysteria as a “Blunder”, rather than a con-game. He accepts the flawed temperature record “as is” and shows that, even if one accepts this record with all its upward distortions, the case for CO2 being the major driver of observed warming is weak and the case for disastrous future warming due to AGW is even weaker.
This makes his argument all the stronger, in my opinion.
Max
Brute
More, from various climate scientists, on why the global temperature record is worthless.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-so-jones-lost-the-data-it-was-worthless-anyway/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
This one, from John Daly, also gives some ideas how the record could be rehabilitated to make it more meaningful (or less meaningless). But, of course, the “process owners” have no intention of doing that.
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
No matter how you look at it, the record is a can of worms. TonyB shows that it is actually cooling in many locations throughout the world, but that the many data screw-ups and manipulations plus other errors in the global record make it appear to be warming.
And we are supposed to actually believe that this record forms a sound scientific basis for postulations of disastrous warming unless we make disastrous changes to the world economy?
Ouch!
Max
Max,
Still catching up;
Some time back you asked of us whether any interest is being shown around the world in the forthcoming Cancun fest in Mexico. Well, there has been plenty of news about Mexico, but even to this day, I’ve not heard or read a single mention of “Cancun”. Ditto my overnight 24 hr radio news which I have on at night, which helps me fall off to sleep again if I awake. I’ve heard quite a lot from the BBC and German radio, but nary a word on Cancun.
Further my 1910: Serial pest versus my dogs, analogy
Question:
In what way can they be compared to Anagram Pete?
a) In the sense of them being very similar?
b) In the sense of them being very different?
What I had in mind was along the lines of:
a) Sometimes I think my dogs are quite intelligent, but a lot of the time they are far from being so. An extreme example is seen in the photo, taken moments after they tried to kill each other for the third time, for no apparent reason. Yet they are the best of pals, and were licking each other clean of the blood just moments later. (the previous time was almost fatal for one of them through blood loss)
b) They are never boring. (oh, and they don’t like cats)
Max/Tony,
Then why use it?
If I’m measuring electrical consumption of various circuits at a site, I use an accurate meter employing the exact same standard. I measure the loads and then form my strategy dependant on the baselines.
If the measurement standard is constantly changing, how will I know that my efforts are having the desired effect?
That was a rhetorical question………the data gathered by Hansen and Hadley has nothing to do with the experiment. No matter what the data shows, they’ll “adjust” it upward to comply with their theory in an effort to justify their personal/political agendas.
The dataset is nothing more than a prop in their doomsday histrionic freak show used to frighten school children and the weak minded in an effort to sell their social engineering “solutions” which will (in their minds) usher in a new age of environmental Utopia (the Garden of Eden).
I don’t understand why Spencer bothers to base his papers/experiments on inaccurate data to begin with (NASA/Hadley temperature datasets).
I would start with unaltered data, determine if the temperature has increased or decreased, then search for a cause.
Comments on Montford’s book by Richard Joyner, emeritus professor of physical chemistry, Nottingham Trent University
“Whether global warming is man-made or not is a question that needs informed and honest debate. Montford’s book is not an honest contribution, and I very much regret that Prospect chose to promote it.”
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/08/mean-spirited-scepticism-montford-hockey-stic/
I haven’t seen anyone try to convince me that Montford is fair dinkum on Climate change. My suspicion is that he’s one of these Right wing types, like Roy Spencer, who’s allowed his scientific judgement to be compromised by his political beliefs.
At least Delingpole agrees that AGW science is off limits to Conservatives.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100050792/why-conservatives-shouldnt-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/
whereas Daniel Hannan ‘sort of’ agrees but is less sure.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100050950/so-should-conservatives-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/