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.
Robin
The Tisdale graphs you cited tell us that not very much has changed in either the Arctic or Antarctic temperatures, except the sea surface temperature has increased slightly in the Arctic. There have been many hypotheses to explain this, such as changing wind patterns and water currents, and NSIDC likes to link it to AGW.
The fact that it happened before in the 1930s and 1940s is not PC to mention.
The recent recovery of Arctic sea ice (back to the baseline value) may not mean anything in itself, but if we had seen the opposite trend, it would be news of a major man-made disaster for Bob_FJ’s cuddly polar bears (BTW the reclining bear looks like he had just lunched on a fat and juicy visiting climatologist).
Look for either (a) silence or (b) one of the cop-outs I mentioned in 170.
Peter will tell us that this one data point does not change the fact that the statistical trend line shows an alarming net decrease, which (if it continued) would result in (oh horrors!) an ice-free end-summer by 2030, 2050, 2100, 2150 (pick your year).
After all, Arctic sea ice has been touted as the “canary in the coal mine”.
Max
Robin (and Max et al)
In case the idea of ploughing through a 1250+ comment thread might seem a little daunting, may I whet your appetites with VS’s forthright dismissal of Eli Rabett
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comment-1257
and his equally scathing opinion of Tamino’s competence
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comment-1407
Enjoy.
Regards, Jasper
Jasper Gee
The Bart Verheggen “global average temperature” thread you cited is very interesting, and VS has certainly been able to hold his own there. I have “lurked” there, but have not felt competent to contribute.
When Eli Rabett tried “butting in” with a bit of sarcasm, VS shot him down pretty fast.
As I understood the discussion, VS has questioned the robust statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, based on the actual physical observations of empirical data.
VS has made the point that, while correlation does not provide compelling evidence for causation, the lack of a robust statistical correlation based on empirical data from physical observations provides invalidation of causation.
Several posters argued with this, raising many (mostly theoretical) points, but no one could satisfactorily convince VS that this correlation is statistically robust.
Notable to me was the fact that (with a few exceptions) bloggers stayed on topic and avoided ad homs.
Max
Does this mean that data provided by NSIDC is somehow nefariously funded by British Petroleum or Exxon Mobil? That global warming skeptics have infiltrated the NSIDC and the place is now run entirely by Conservatives?
Using Peter Martin’s rationale regarding empirical evidence, the cause of temperature increase/polar ice melt; may we now attribute the record high ice extent to CO2 simply because we have no other explanation?
The “unprecedented” growth spurt of the Arctic Ice has to forebode a “dangerous” tipping point in Earth God Gaia’s health…………and accordingly, must be a result of my new flat screen television set.
I’m waiting for the Leftist media sources to proclaim the headline reading: “Global Warming Causes Arctic Ice Increase!”
As an aside Pete, I’ve managed to repair the Brute Estate’s farm tractor today without any help from the government…..thought you’d like to know that there are still a few people in the world that can manage things on their own…………..
“The recent recovery of Arctic sea ice (back to the baseline value)”
Unfortunately it hasn’t. I thought you’d previously understood the importance of looking at graphs? Maybe not!
This is the lates long term graph I can find on the NSIDC website.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png
It looks like one data point in the next graph for March may be on the high side but why not just wait and see what the graph looks like?
Wow Pete, The Swedes and the Danes agree with NSIDC. Looks like you’re the odd man out….
PeterM and Brute
Yeah. The end-March Arctic sea ice extent shows a recovery but does not tell us much.
More important is the sea ice extent at the end of summer (end September), when it is at its lowest extent, due to the annual summer melt-off.
September 2007 was the low point, which triggered NSIDC and others to present dire forecasts of an imminent ice-free summer (with implied drastic survival impact on the hapless polar bears, who were apparently considered to be so inept that they could not adapt to such a situation, despite the fact that there have been warmer summers in the polar bears’ history, which they survived very nicely, thank you).
By September 2009 (two short years later) the ice had recovered 39% of the total long-term loss from September 1979 to September 2007.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4273143060_c5fc7e3bcd_b.jpg
The trend since satellite measurements started in 1979 shows us that if it were to continue receding at the linear rate observed since 1979, the Arctic would be ice-free by the end of summer 2110 (101 years after 2009).
As we all know, there were periods in the 1930s and 1940s when Arctic temperatures were a bit warmer than today. There were no satellite measurements of sea ice back then, but Russian measurements tell us the sea ice extent was lower then than today.
So this all tells us that it is unlikely that the Arctic sea ice will continue to recede at the same rate we have seen since satellite measurements started, but rather recede and expand in multi-decadal cycles as it has done in the past.
But who knows? Not me. Neither of you. Not Marc Serreze of NSIDC and certainly not IPCC.
Max
I agree with Max that (as I said before) current Arctic sea ice recovery does not tell us much – wait till September for short term conclusions. But studies by Polyakov et al (2000-2003) show that such ice was at lower levels in the 1930/40s than today and paleoclimatic records show that near tropical temperatures have existed in northern latitudes in the past. So data “since records began” 30 years ago (i.e satellite records) are pretty meaningless. Nonetheless, the March “recovery” is amusing. See, for example, this article (Arctic ice recovers from the great melt) in today’s Sunday Times. Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – who quite recently warned the world of the Arctic ice’s “death spiral” – now says that “In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event.” But alarmists needn’t worry as we’re assured by the Met Office’s Vicky Pope that “The reality is that greenhouse gases are making the world warmer, but it is a mistake to see short-term changes in weather, currents or Arctic ice cover as evidence of this.” You see, once again, we really must learn to distinguish weather from climate – i.e. it’s only climate when it gets warmer. She now expects that the Arctic “will still become ice-free in summer by around 2060.” Some relief, I suppose, from the 2013 previously predicted – and convenient for Vicky as she’s unlikely to be around in 50 years time. The really welcome news is the reprieve for the polar bears.
What’s the betting that, if Arctic ice increases while Antarctic ice increases (not improbable), alarmist attention will switch firmly to the South?
Max/Robin,
Speaking strictly in terms of thermodynamics, increased Arctic Ice Extent would indicate less heat (the absence of heat) in the system……..conversely, decreases in Arctic Ice Extent would indicate increased heat in the system.
All things being equal, (although it never is within a chaotic system such as Earth’s atmosphere), I really don’t see any difference between winter maximums and summer minimums. Heat is heat………lack of heat results in colder temperature/more ice, blizzards, record snowfall……
Without getting mired in discussions of undersea volcanoes, wind/ocean current patterns, albedo, etc……..the global warming theory (generally) states that the Arctic ice should decrease year after year with each winter maximum being lower and each summer minimum being deeper………that isn’t happening.
Postulating about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin is not science………the bottom line is that the ice has grown this year, and every year since 2007, (summer and winter) which contradicts the theory.
I won’t bring it up again because I think it’s about as indicative as a summer thunderstorm being attributed to global warming………however, it does refute, (as do many other incidental facts), the general theory.
Happy Easter.
Peter,
Please provide a link to any climate model that prophesizes an increase in Arctic Sea Ice due to global warming…………I’ve never seen one.
I won’t even bring up the statements by global warming lunatics claiming an “ice free Arctic” (Al “D student” Gore) in 2010/2012/2015,2020……
The global warming nuts are fumbling around trying to explain the Arctic Ice number………
Quote of the week #33: What, no death spiral?
I was reminded by Richard North via email today of this grouchy wordplay from NSIDC when Joe Romm wrote up a piece last year on this subject:
Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThatClimate Progress, June 5th, 2009
Okay, let’s compare that to what Dr. Serreze said this week in an interview with The Sunday Times:
“In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event,” Serreze said.
Source: The Sunday Times – Arctic ice recovers from the great melt
A timeline for the “breathtakingly ignorant” follows.
2007: record Arctic ice minimum in 2007 – big news, unprecedented, shocking, Navy postgraduate school scientist says Arctic summers to be ice-free ‘by 2013?
2008: ditto, this year’s ice recovery is just a blip, it’s really caught in a “death spiral”
2009: ditto, this recovery for a second year means nothing – Arctic continues death spiral, you people are breathtakingly ignorant
2010: Arctic sea ice approaches normal for this time of year, first time since 2001 – “…reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated…we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/quote-of-the-week-33-what-no-death-spiral/
Brute:
It seems this Arctic ice story won’t die. Now Richard North has posted a detailed commentary on Mark Serreze’s progression from cautious scientist to loud alarmist. An interesting read.
But, as I keep saying, sceptics are I think unwise to get too excited by all this. It now seems the current ice level will not quite reach the “average” – just as, interestingly, the Antarctic seems to be heading back up. And, in any case, it’s the maximum melt in September’s Arctic level that’s most likely to be seen as important.
The real issue, however, is this: do these sea ice levels tell us much about the global temperature and especially about human influence? I am dubious.
This, from the Greenpeace website, is an absurd misjudgement of recent “climate change” developments. Its closing paragraphs:
Gulp, that’s pretty scary: we’d better mend our ways.
The best part is the comments section (interestingly now closed).
Robin and Brute
Of course you are both right. The Arctic sea ice story is basically a boondoggle. The fact that it has been declared the “canary in the coal mine” for AGW is an even greater hoax.
The basis for all this is a satellite-based record that started in 1979. This shows a net decadal shrinking of 2% end-March (after winter expansion) and 8% end-September (after summer retraction), or around 3% on annul average. The end-September shrinking has been used to erroneously predict an “ice free summer” by 2015, 2030, 2050 (pick any year). In actual fact, 8% per decade shrinkage would require 12 decades (or 120 years) to reach an “ice-free” summer (yawn!).
This false projection has been used to predict dire consequences for the polar bear population of this world, with WWF even trumpeting alarming predictions of extinction of the species.
Prior shrinking and expanding of Arctic sea ice are ignored. Russian studies tell us that the summer ice extent was as low as it is today back in the 1930s and 1940s, and that it then recovered to record values by 1979, when the current record started.
Studies from Greenland confirm this.
So we are really measuring and reporting a brief shrinking “blip” in a long-term record, which goes through multi-decadal shrinking/expanding cycles. And, to make matters even worse, the “blip” we are measuring started at a high point.
Antarctic sea ice is expanding, without much publicity from NSIDC. If global AGW were really the root cause for shrinking Arctic sea ice, the ice in the Antarctic would also be shrinking. This points to local conditions (ocean currents, wind patterns, etc.) as the more likely root cause.
NSIDC spokesman Mark Serreze is a PhD in geography by education and an AGW-activist (on the tax-payer’s payroll) by profession. One should take anything he says or writes with a large grain of salt.
Linking the current shrinking trend in the Arctic to AGW is foolish.
Declaring Arctic sea ice the “canary in the coal mine” for AGW is downright absurd.
Max
TonyN:
I suppose my comment 187 (about Greenpeace’s [ironic name!] daft error of judgement based on total misunderstanding) should have been posted under “The warmists just don’t know what hit them” – where it undoubtedly belongs.
I thought it might be of more interest here. Apologies – if needed.
Hey Robin,
I haven’t run the numbers and as previously stated, it isn’t really a big deal…………but looking at the last two seasons, the minimum (September) has increased which defies the global warming theory……add that to higher maximums (late winter/early spring) and it refutes the “ARCTIC IS MELTING!” cry by the Alarmists.
Either way, it looks like less than 10% year to year (high and low).
We’ll see what this September brings……………
I’m certain if this season’s levels meet or exceed 2007 the Warmists will attribute it to group think Socialism and that by the power of “green” thinking, they have somehow willed the ice to grow…………possibly through Wiccanist intervention or some other Neopagan religion despite the negative thoughts of the CO2 spewing naysayers (which would be you and me)………
On a different topic, my brother just bought a brand new Ford, full size, extra king cab 4 wheel drive truck………That, along with the massive Brutemobile and my father’s new Ford Extra Heavy Duty Expedition we now refer to ourselves as “The Carbon Footprint Family”………we’ve had tee shirts, bumper stickers, jackets and hats made………
Robin
The Greenpeace clown that wrote the blurb you cited calls himself “Gene from Greenpeace India”.
This guy obviously has a screw loose; read his “call for revolution (against democratic society)” here:
Call out the Brownshirts to bash in a few heads!
Hardly sounds like a call for “peace”.
Max
Brute
The standard cop-out for the “warmists” when observed measurements do not support the AGW mantra (or cannot be secretly “bent” to fit) is “measurement error”.
Josh Willis of NASA tried this ploy when the new Argo robots showed the upper ocean is cooling, in contrast to what had been believed earlier based on the very spotty data from the unreliable expendable buoys used previously.
Why was the ocean cooling so important?
The entire AGW-scare is based on the hypothesis (dreamt up by James E. Hansen) that most of the man-made warming is actually “hiding in the pipeline”, i.e. in the upper ocean, from where it will some day emerge miraculously, thereby warming our planet even more.
This premise does not pass the “reality test” to start with. The top 100 meters of the ocean have 34 times the total heat capacity of the entire atmosphere (and the top 500 meters, which is where this energy is supposedly “hiding” have 170 times).
This means that if half of the supposed atmospheric warming expected from a doubling of CO2 (1.6C) were “hiding” in the ocean, it would warm the top 100 meters by an imperceptible 1.6/34 = 0.047C (top 500 meters, less than 0.01C). Hansen does not have a mechanism by which this imperceptible upper ocean warming is expected to come back and significantly warm our atmosphere (because such a mechanism does not exist).
Even worse for Hansen’s postulation are the facts on the ground:
Since 2000 our atmosphere has been cooling; even Hansen’s “odd man out” GISS record shows slight cooling, while the other records (satellite and surface) show a substantial cooling rate (-0.1C per decade), where climate models had predicted warming of 0.2C per decade.
Since they started in 2003, Argo measurements show that the upper ocean is cooling as well.
The net amount of latent heat in observed melting ice plus theoretical net water evaporation is too small to be of any consequence overall.
And, all the while, atmospheric CO2 has increased at a record rate.
So there is obviously no heat hiding somewhere on our planet, i.e. any “greenhouse” heat from the added CO2 is either being radiated back out into space, disappearing into the deep ocean or being overshadowed by cooling caused by natural forcing factors.
In either case, Hansen’s postulation, and with it the directly related assumption of strongly positive net feedbacks and a 2xCO2 GH impact of more than 1C, has been invalidated by the physical observations.
This is why Willis et al. were jumping through hoops to declare the observed facts as false.
You can be sure that Mark Serreze of NSIDC will do exactly the same if the data show that Arctic sea ice is really recovering on a sustained long-term basis.
The “sad but true” real story is: The “scientists” you and I are paying with our taxpayer funding who are being paid to provide us reliable climate data are instead giving us their own preconceived AGW message, which often bears no resemblance to the real facts.
Max
RETRY removing all links
Jasper Gee, Reur 177, and the comments by VS
Thanks for that info… Very interesting! I made a little comment identifying Tamino’s Email address and real name, no problems. Then I tried to make the comment below the line and it disappears immediately upon submit. Repeated try gets message something like: You’ve already said that.
Max, I see you are posting OK…… have you had any problems?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VS
In your comment above concerning Tamino’s competence it seems that you are not impressed by his wisdoms.
Are you familiar with Tamino’s exchanges with statistician Ian Joliffe, that were initiated by false claims that Joliffe supported Tamino’s views on the Mann hockey stick? Do you agree with Joliffe, or would you like some more details?
I’m no statistician, but over at Real Climate, I’ve been debating, one of Tamino’s articles that was severally cited to me; entitled “Volcanic Lull“. In my view, as an engineer, it is very deeply flawed in at least four different major aspects. I posted a comment on Tamino’s blog seeking clarification on the first one, but it was deleted without explanation. Then, about 6 days ago, I Emailed him on another issue, (Grant Foster tamino_9 at hotmail.com ), but no response so far, but then it is Easter, and I‘ll wait a bit longer before consolidating the concerns.
BTW, my system tells me that the Grant Foster = tamino Email address was genuine.
Here is my most recent comment # 667 (on unforced variations 3 thread) of significance at RC, for anyone that might be interested, but the whole thing has become fragmented and is now spread over two different threads. Interestingly, RC seems to have stopped deleting comments, and I’ve had no disagreements with the real concerns that I’ve raised on Tamino’s article.
Brute
You say you haven’t “run the numbers” on the thermodynamic energy balance related to the observed Arctic sea ice recovery over the past two years.
The average monthly extent for the last 12 months (April 2009-March 2010) was 11.27 million square km (msk), and for the same period two years ago it was 10.82 msk, for an increase over two years of 0.45 msk or 4.2%.
This compares with an average loss since 1979 of around 3% per decade, so in two years, roughly 15 years of loss have been recovered.
This compares with an average summer/winter difference of 10.2 msk (or 23 times this amount).
Scientists (whodat?) tell us that the ice is on average 1.2 meters thick, and ice has a latent heat of fusion of 333.55 kJ per kg and a density of 0.917 so we have a net overall loss of energy from two years ago to today of 450,000 * 1.2 * 0.917 * 333.55 / 100 = 166,000 billion kJ.
Each year there is a net gain/loss of energy of 3,740,000 billion kJ
And the linear average loss rate of 3% per decade = 340,000 msk, equivalent to 115,000 billion kJ per decade.
Do these numbers mean anything?
Not really. They just show us that the whole to-do about Arctic sea ice is silly.
Max
We’ve heard many arguments to suggest that the intrepid band of climate sceptics on this site know better than the world’s scientists on the AGW question.
We’ve heard, many times, all sorts of ‘reasons’ why humans, or rather the emissions produced by humans, are not warming the Earth’s climate.
Would I be right in suggesting that there is an underlying assumption, amongst you all, that human kind cannot, no matter what, alter the climate?
Max,
Using the Warmist’s talking points/hypothesis, the heat energy generated by the Sun and absorbed by the Earth is unvarying (or in any case, unvarying in as much as it doesn’t impact rising global temperature). They’ve dismissed clouds as a greenhouse gas………………which leads us to the evil culprit………Carbon Dioxide…..(plant food/soda pop gas).
If the Earth was gaining heat as a result of being trapped by Carbon Dioxide, the system would increasingly become warmer (with me so far Pete?) causing Arctic temperatures to become warmer (summer and winter) causing a decrease in Arctic Ice Extent……………
Here’s the problem……the Arctic Ice Extent is increasing (summer and winter) while the evil CO2 gas content of the atmosphere is increasing.
The way I see it, the correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures is as solid as the correlation between rising temperatures and cell phone subscriptions over the last 30 years.
Any “excess” heat is being radiated back into the cold dark recesses of outer space…………we can cross the “CO2 causes Arctic Ice Melt” off the list of results of human greed/consumption.
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
PeterM
You ask:
Rather than responding to specific questions I have asked you, you are now trying to set me (and others here) up with a trick question, so let me give you as straight an answer as possible on my personal conclusions, with which others may or may not agree.
GH theory tells us that CO2 is a GH gas.
This theory also tells us that all GH gases have caused a natural GH warming of our planet of 33C, mostly as a result of water in the atmosphere, and that GH warming from CO2 represents around 7C of this total. Based on this and the logarithmic nature of the GH relation, these scientists tell us that a doubling of CO2 would result in theoretical GH warming of 1C.
Humans emit CO2. This is more prevalent in the wealthier industrially developed regions (N. America, Europe, Australia, etc.) than in the underdeveloped impoverished regions (N.Korea, sub-Saharan Africa, etc.), so it is clear that CO2 emissions are related to wealth or standard of living. As the world develops industrially, the CO2 emissions are expected to increase (viz. China, India, Brazil, etc.), so it is likely that human CO2 emissions will probably continue to increase at the same 4+% annual growth rate as they have since WWII.
A portion of the CO2 emitted annually by humans (around 50%) appears to cause an increase in the atmospheric CO2 content. Whether or not this is the cause is unclear, but atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1958, so we can assume that the increase is anthropogenic.
“Pre-industrial” CO2 level is estimated (based on somewhat sketchy ice core data) to have been around 280 ppmv, and today it stands at 390 ppmv. It is estimated that it will reach a level of 560 ppmv (or 2x the “pre-industrial” level) by year 2100.
This should cause a theoretical GH warming of 1C, of which we have seen 45% today, leaving theoretical GH warming from CO2 of 0.55C from today to year 2100.
The first nine years of the 21st century have shown cooling at a rate of 0.1C per decade, despite record increases in CO2. At the same time, the upper ocean has also cooled since more reliable Argo measurements started in 2003. This raises serious doubts as to whether the theoretical GH warming from CO2 is real or not. It also tells us that other, more powerful, natural factors are at play, which may also have been the cause for any warming we have seen to date.
And, most of all, it tells us that we cannot “control” our climate. If we cannot even cause warming with maximum CO2 emissions, how do we expect to be able to influence our planet’s climate by curtailing CO2 emissions?
Finally, there have been no actionable proposals for specific changes, which would result in specific decreases in CO2 levels with specific decreases in global warming. All we have seen is nebulous political “reduction targets in % of some year’s level” and a ludicrous politicians’ “target” of “no more than 2C temperature rise”.
So, as a practical matter, I would agree “that human kind cannot, no matter what, alter the climate”.
Max
Max,
Why do you think its a trick question? There is no catch as far as I can see.
You say “as a practical matter” but I would suggest that it goes a bit deeper than that. The CO2 issue seemed to come from nowhere in the 70’s and 80’s so its possible that, in the future, some other human induced climatic problem could arise that is presently unknown.
If you thought scientifically your answer would along the lines of ‘lets wait and see’. But if you had a deeper philosophical conviction that this was just impossible, you wouldn’t need to wait for the science. You’d know straightaway that there could never be anything else to worry about. Wouldn’t you?
Brute,
You write “the Arctic Ice Extent is increasing (summer and winter)” Wrong!
A quick lesson on how to read a graph:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/static_maps/min_seaice_extent1979_2009nsidc.png
If the trend line points upwards it is increasing, if its downwards then it is decreasing.
The Greenpeace “we know who you are and we know where you live” story may be going viral. Google shows 156,000 hits – including this from the massively popular (in the UK) Guido Fawkes who says: