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.
Peter#1979
Sigh. You have done it again.
The reason I linked to this piece is that you had been talking to Brute about the Science in #1976 so this fitted into that.
I have the advantage that I read the original report, read the newspaper , heard the interviews. The purpose of linking to WUWT is that-as always-the comments add a lot to the debate.
You have the disadvantage (again) of only reading the first few paragraphs of the document and seizing on that as a reflection of the rest of a good and considered piece of work.
It is a world away from the CAGW screed produced by Bob Ward and was as a result of 43 members of the society asking that a more considered and scientific view be taken. It is reasonable to assume that many others agreed with them but didnt want to put their name to the request.
I don’t think you have read the original document where words like ‘poorly understood’ and ‘very poorly understood’ are sprinkled. See 46-56
Your comments were particularly inappropriate and silly as I had just re-read Chapter5 and 10 of the full IPCC report in order to better understand their position on a variety of aspects.
tonyb
PeterM
Just put your glasses on and look at the graph again.
Look at the actual (reconstructed) values, not the fantasy “polynomial trend line” which starts off by including 120+ years of Little Ice Age in order to demonstrate that sea level has risen more rapidly since the LIA ended than before.
Duh! What a surprise!
If you cherry-pick the starting time of your data series shrewdly, you can prove almost any kind of trend.
The point is that the (reconstructed) SL increase over the 19th century (1.6 mm/year) was almost the same as that over the 20th Century (1.7 mm/year), with the first half of the 20th century (2.0 mm/year) slightly greater than the second half (1.4 mm/year) or the most recent period (1.6 mm/year).
This tells us that there has been no real change in the rate of sea level rise since the end of the LIA.
The satellite stuff spliced on to the end of the record is pure BS (bad science), of course, as sea-level expert, Nils-Axel Morner has pointed out (and TonyB has also mentioned).
Really quite simple, Peter, even though it may go against your personal belief.
But I am not going to waste anymore time discussing this with you.
Check the many references I cited on this matter plus those cited by TonyB. You will learn something new (but only if you really want to).
Max
Bob_FJ
Yeah. But chances are that it would be a “broken hockey stick” (like Michael Mann’s).
Max
Max,
Look I’m sorry that you find yourself in the position of disagreeing with an interpretation of a graph, but, at the risk of stating the obvious, I should say it’s not me you are disagreeing with, but the originators of the graph itself. It is they who say 6cm of sea level rise for the 19th century.
You should take your own advice when you say “I am not going to waste anymore time discussing this with you.”
Right! Then, I suggest you take it up with the graph’s authors. Let me know if you manage to convince them their eyesight too does need some optical correction :-)
TonyB,
It strikes me that you guys are doing the same thing with the RS update that you did with the report on the CRU email hacking. Your first reaction is to say that the update says things which it clearly doesn’t. After a while when everyone with more than half a brain has actually taken a look at the source material directly, and that line isn’t an option any longer, you’ll change, as you did previously, when you later started talking about a ‘whitewash’. Except that, this time, maybe the term ‘nobbled’ will be used instead :-)
Bob_FJ
That is the mastery of lying (without technically really doing so) by cleverly “cherry-picking” start or end points of a data series (my 1981 to Peter).
Of course, IPCC are masters at this, combining it with clever chartmanship in order to convey a contrived message of alarming trends, which do not exist in actual fact.
IPCC’s bogus claim on sea level rise (splicing one record using one method and covering one scope onto another record using a different method and covering a totally different scope to show an acceleration between the two) is a wonderful example of such “bad science” (or outright skullduggery), which we have mentioned before.
Another great example of this type of falsification is the chart in Chapter 3 of AR4 WG1, p.253, showing “Global Mean Temperature” trends over short and longer-term periods.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f_o.jpg
This piece of bogus chartmanship purports to demonstrate an acceleration in our planet’s warming (due to AGW, of course). The shorter the time period and the closer to the present date, the steeper the warming appears to be.
But look at the curve of actual temperatures (let’s forget all the spurious warming signals it contains for now, as pointed out by TobyB and Brute). It is a jaggedy sine curve of multi-decadal (~30-year) warming and cooling cycles on a slightly tilted axis. The rate of change over the cycle 1910-1944 was just as high as that over the most recent cycle of roughly equivalent length, 1976-2005. Yet this comparison is not shown (as it would falsify the postulation of accelerated warming caused by AGW, especially since the first warming occurred before there was much human CO2). Instead a longer period from 1910 to 2005 is shown (with more gradual warming, of course, since it includes the 30-year cooling cycle 1945-1975).
Statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics.
How stupid do these guys think we are?
But arguably the most beautiful example of phony chartmanship was the curve “Variations of the Earth’s Temperature: years 1000 to 2100” shown in all its glory in the TAR SPM report.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3820576014_91c891760f_b.jpg
This chart not only started off with the since discredited “Mann hockey stick”, itself containing a splice to “hide the decline” (which the tree-ring data erroneously showed for the latter 20th century, demonstrating how questionable the tree-ring series really was), but then continued by adding another splice: this time the fantasy curve of various model assumptions for the future, shooting off the top of the page in an alarming warning of imminent disaster. Masterful!
This one turned out to be comprehensively discredited by McIntyre + McKitrick, Wegman and the NAS panel, as Andrew Montford’s book covers in great detail. The conclusion of unprecedented 20th century warmth has also been falsified by over twenty independent studies using different methods from all over the world. But this has not stopped IPCC from clinging to the postulation that
I believe even Peter could see through all these phony claims (but only if he really wanted to).
Max
PeterM
You appear to still be quibbling (1979) about 19th century sea level trends, when you cite one study, which includes a graph showing around 160 cm rise but claims in the text that the rise is only 60 cm.
But let’s look at more than just this one study. The Proudman record I cited (Holgate) gives a very good summary of 20th century tide gauge trends, but does not cover the 19th century.
The University of Colorado has published a series of long-term studies of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/tidegauges.php
These show an averaged rate of SL rise of around 1.7 mm/year over the entire period measured. Most studies, however, do not include much of the 19th century
The one cited study, which covers most of the 19th century is that of Unal & Ghil, 1995.
This study shows a rate of 1.62 ± 0.38 mm/year over the period 1807-1988, based on tide gauge readings from 213 stations.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ClDy…11..255U
This would check fairly closely with an average rise over the 19th century of 1.6 mm/year, with a slight increase over the 20th century of 1.7 mm/year, as confirmed by the Proudman record, keeping in mind that all records show major multi-decadal sings in the rate, from slight lowering to rapid rising.
There was an apparent “kink” in the long-term trend, when slightly lowering sea levels at the end of the LIA shifted to a rising post-LIA trend. This appears to have occurred some time in the early 19th century. Tide gauge data show us that this trend has remained fairly constant since then.
Hope this clears it up for you.
Max
Peter ~1979
You said;
“It strikes me that you guys are doing the same thing with the RS update that you did with the report on the CRU email hacking. Your first reaction is to say that the update says things which it clearly doesn’t. After a while when everyone with more than half a brain has actually taken a look at the source material directly, and that line isn’t an option any longer, you’ll change, as you did previously, when you later started talking about a ‘whitewash’. Except that, this time, maybe the term ‘nobbled’ will be used instead :-)
Peter, seeing as you addressed this to me and you have put quotation marks around ‘whitewash’ I am assuming you are attributing this to me. When did I say it and in what context?
I can only assume you have been reading the Guardian or Real Climate edited version of the RS paper when you say:
“Your first reaction is to say that the update says things which it clearly doesn’t.”
I cited you various paragraphs which you can’t have read if you make a remark like that. Here are some of them again verbatim in case you can spare a few minutes of your time to read what has been written, as opposed to what you WISH had been written.
“Observations are not yet good enough to quantify, with confidence, some aspects of the evolution of either climate forcing or climate change, or for helping to place tight bounds on the climate sensitivity. Observations of surface temperature change before 1850 are also scarce”.
“47 As noted above, projections of climate change are sensitive to the details of the representation of clouds in models. Particles originating from both human activities and natural sources have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. Current scientific understanding of this effect is poor”.
“48 Additional mechanisms that influence climate sensitivity have been identified, including the response of the carbon cycle to climate change, for example the loss of organic carbon currently stored in soils. The net effect of changes in the carbon cycle in all current models is to increase warming, by an amount that varies considerably from model to model because of uncertainties in how to represent the relevant processes.The future strength of the uptake of CO2 by the land and oceans (which together are currently responsible for taking up about half of the emissions from human activity –see paragraph 26) is very poorly understood, particularly because of gaps in our of the response of biological processes to changes in both CO2 concentrations and climate.”
“49 There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century (see paragraph 45) for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe.”
“50 The ability of the current generation of models to simulate some aspects of regional climate change is limited, judging from the spread of results from different models;”
“Remaining uncertainties are the subject of ongoing research worldwide. Some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced, because of, for example, the lack of observations of past changes relevant to some aspects of both climate forcing and climate change.”
“56 There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
Now Peter, you can bluster all you want but you will need to explain to those of us here with ‘half a brain’ which parts of that document we have so badly misunderstood. Is it the bit that says;
“current scientific understanding of this is poor:’
or
“is very poorly understood” or
“insufficient understanding”
Or perhaps point 56 in its entirety when at last the Royal Society is living up to its motto’ nobody’s word is final’ in recognising that the science is by no means settled and in some cases very poorly understood.
tonyb
Max,
The paper didn’t include “a graph showing around 160 cm rise but claims in the text that the rise is only 60 cm.”
It said in the text that it was 6 cm. That’s about 2.36 inches of sea level rise in the 19th century. If you read the graph properly that is indeed what you should read.
Look, you said you weren’t going to discuss it any more! That’s the first sensible thing you’ve said. Take your own advice. You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
PeterM
To your 1983:
60mm appears to be the 19th century rise using the author’s postulated polynomial trend line
160mm is the rise shown on the chart using the actual reconstructed SL values (simply look at the chart, Peter, to convince yourself)
I’ll stick with the actual values, which have also been confirmed by the U of Colo study I cited (162mm).
On top of this we have additional confirming data from Proudman showing a slight deceleration over the 20th century, thereby kicking the “polynomial trend line” with steady acceleration (as postulated by the authors of the paper you cited) in the head.
R.I.P. There is no acceleration.
Max
TonyB
Good analysis of the RS update (1982).
Looks like the (political) leadership there is sensing a shift of the wind (as politicians are expert in doing).
The new leitmotif appears to be “uncertainty” or “insufficient understanding”.
Max
PS Peter still hasn’t gotten it – he thinks it’s all about “science”, when, in fact it’s really all about the “politics of science”. Is he really that naive, or is he much cleverer than it appears?
Max
I am a bit worriied that all this excessive worrying by Peter about things that may happen 200 years in the future- if a whole series of unlikely events coincide- is not good for his health. He seems a world class worrier.
I think its about time we set his mind at ease that such things as glacier melt aren’t actually the major impending problem he believes, and in this spirit of international fraternalism perhaps you would give your opinion on this new hypothesis? :)
All the glacier melt from CAGW is providing, at most, a theoretical 0.6mm increase per year in sea levels. Ground water extraction around 0.8 according to a recent article.
However, the amount of water contained in the atmosphere- if it all fell at once- is equivalent in a year to 25 mm of increase over the whole surface of the planet, so around 40mm when directed into the ultimate repository-the oceans.
Accepting that some water is always going to be locked up in transit in rivers or impounded in reservoirs, the annual rainfall and its affect on sea levels would seem to be potentially a much more acute problem than sea level rise from (sporadically) melting glaciers.
As the earth gets naturally warmer the atmosphere holds more moisture (and Co2) For this to have no impact at all on sea levels (and overall Co2 levels) it must remain in broad equilbrium, that is to say the amount of precipitation equals the rate of evaporation.
However, more natural warmth tends to lead to cloudier skies and more rain, so therefore likely leading to a net increase in precipitation and a reduction in evaporation.
It wouldn’t take too many years of high rainfall and low evaporation to make a considerable difference to ocean levels, and one considerably greater than glacier melt or groundwater extraction.
Now man can do nothing about clouds or rainfall or sunshine or evaporation, so if we shouldn’t worry about this potentially large effect perhaps it could help to put the tiny amount of glacier melt into better perspective?
What do you think. Will Peter be pleased at one less thing to worry about or will he find something new? :)
Tonyb
Peter
Just so you can be in no doubt at all about the changing tone from the Royal Society(my # 1982) here are the three most recent documents from them on climate change.
Even wearing your darkest blinkers you will be able to note the welcome transition from an advocacy group to something resembling the worlds oldest scientific body.
September 2010 version under
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
The previous RS statement (from 2007/8) is here:
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/
and an even earlier one (2005) is here
http://royalsociety.org/Facts-and-fictions-about-climate-change/
Tonyb
Tonyb (1986)
I think you might have given him two more things to worry about – increased rainfall and lower evaporation! He’s clearly a ‘glass half-empty’ sort of chap…
Here’s a bit of fun from the10:10 cut your carbon footprint people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
I really don’t know what to say. Anyone got a sensible comment that doesn’t contravene Godwin’s Law?
1) I suppose it was asking too much for any sensible answers to my question about longer term environmental questions. But I’ll just ask the question again anyway.
I would suppose that you all would be concerned about what might happen to you personally during your lifetimes, so the question, again, is: does that concern end there? If you are looking for a sensible argument for taking no action on CO2 emissions, that’s it! It isn’t going to make any difference to us, either way, so let’s just not bother.
However, if you don’t quite go along with that , how long afterwards does it matter? 10 years, 20 years, 90 years ( end of the century) , 200 + years?
And why does it matter? I guess you lot are quite elderly and could be gone in a relatively short time. So why is all climate concern directed towards the end of the century? You’ll be just as dead in 20 years as in 200 years time.
2) So you reckon there is a change of “tone” at the RS? Its gone from a top C to a B flat would you say? But what exactly has changed? Are they saying that CO2 is now no longer a GH gas and there is no need to get emissions under control?
PeterM
Your “concern” about what will happen 200 years fom now (1990) is misplaced.
Just remember that around 1860 hygene-ists and statisticians of the time were concerned that the increasing number of horse carriages would result in Manchester being covered in six feet of horse manure by the year 1920.
That was only 60 years ahead in a time when new discoveries and other changes moved much more slowly than today.
There is no doubt whatsoever that our descendants are NOT going to die out as a result of a few added ppm of atmospheric CO2 anymore than Manchester got inundated by horse manure.
Stop worrying about silly stuff in the far distant future, Peter.
Instead spend your efforts trying to improve the world of today, if you are so inclined.
Max
Peter
As it happens, I do think climate change is a bit of a worry, but that’s because I don’t believe anything we do (or did) in the way of burning fossil fuel has much effect. Even the RS admits that CO2 levels are affected by climate, and is careful not to quantify its contribution to the GE.
I’d like to see less deforestation and general pollution, also less food waste and more sustainable farming and fishing, all of which are a lot more achievable than a wholesale global reduction in CO2 output, which may not even be necessary.
We’re also far more likely to suffer widespread disruption from a Carrington Event, or disablement of industrial processes by computer malware (e.g. Stuxnet), or by an asteroid strike.
I don’t want my family tree cut off prematurely, either, but my grandchildren are more likely to survive by being prepared than by trading carbon credits.
PeterM
Here’s a link to an article that cites a similar “horse manure” scare in London and New York.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/#
This report starts out with:
Wise words, Peter (especially the last sentence).
Max
TonyB
After demonstrating that glacier melt will not mean the end of human civilization you ask (1986)
JamesP has given you his answer (1988)
I’d say that he is spot on.
I would add that Peter is not looking for solutions to real problems, but rather for imagined hobgoblins to worry about in order to support his personal “Weltanschauung” on redistribution of wealth and global governance.
I would predict that when the “dangerous AGW” hobgoblin is dead and buried, he will embrace a new one, as you suggest.
Max
“the far distant future” ? On a geologicial timescale that would be at least thousands of years. 200 years is not much at all.
But I do agree that anything much longer than about 4-5 years is ultra-long-term to most politicians, but that attitude does need to change. Not just about climate matters but on a whole range of other issues too.
PeterM
You asked (1990) for “sensible” answers to your question regarding the projected disastrous changes in our climate resulting from human CO2 emissions and the resulting impact on our descendants:
I’ll take the bait and respond.
IMHO the key point to consider is whether or not there is a rational reason to “take action on CO2 emissions”?
Is there a rational scientific basis backed by empirical evidence based on actual physical observations to support the fear that human CO2 emissions will negatively affect our descendants?
I’d say that this is not the case, and you have been unable to show such evidence, despite repeated requests.
On the other hand, I have brought you at least two examples of empirical evidence based on physical observations, which tend to falsify the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions represent a serious threat, which you have been unable (or unwilling) to try to refute.
So, without sound empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions represent a serious threat, the whole discussion of “taking action on CO2 emissions” (i.e. code words for imposing a crippling direct or indirect carbon tax) is meaningless.
One could more reasonably talk about “taking action to minimize the impact of a Carrington event” (an event that has occurred in the past and has a strong statistical probability of recurring, which could cause major disruption of the industrially developed world) or “taking action to reduce world hunger” (a problem that is known to exist).
My “sensible” answer is to continue to look for empirical evidence to support the postulation that human CO2 emissions could represent a serious threat but, until such evidence can clearly be identified, “take no action on CO2 emissions”.
If sea levels start to rise more rapidly than they have over the past century and this presents potential local problems, address these individually (dikes, levees, even local evacuations in the worst case).
Local and individual efforts to reduce waste and pollution plus improve energy efficiency should be continued and encouraged, with the side effect that some of these could be descibed as “taking action on CO2 emissions”.
But forget about globally “taking action on CO2 emissions” (i.e. forcing a reduction or imposing draconian carbon taxes) until it can be clearly demonstrated that these pose a potential major risk, which is not the case today.
Hope this answer was “sensible” enough to suit you.
Max
Some extinctions exaggerated
SURVEY of the world’s mammals reveals that more than a third of species once feared extinct have since been spotted in the wild,…
…Conservation experts have already warned that the world is in the grip of the ”sixth great extinction”, as imported species and diseases, hunting, and the destruction of natural habitats deal a fatal blow to plants and animals…
http://www.theage.com.au/world/some-extinctions-exaggerated-20100929-15xd9.html
I’d like to see a list of suspects for the sixth great extinction, or even for that reckoned to date.
Peter #1990
You labour under the apparent delusion that all the rest of us on this blog are evil, uncaring, have half a brain and give no thought at all for the future beyond next week, otherwise-in your mind- we would all be campaigning with you to combat CAGW.
You must realise Peter that we simply do not agree with the analysis and believe that there are far more important and urgent things to be concerned about for the forseeable horizon and then into the land of pure speculation that lies centuries beyond it.
A short list of my own concerns would include;
1) The devastation that would throw us back to the dark ages in the event of a Carrington event or a cyber attack.
2) Concerns that revolve round the need for a continued supply of sensibly priced power (the bedrock of civilsation) preferably under our own control and ideally mostly renewable
3) A good infrastructure comes next to facilitate the economy and the trasport of people wanting to visit friends and family.
Rail and electrc cars would feature heavily in this but that depends on 2)
4) Good healthcare, pensions and benefits that reward hard work and not profligacy or indolence, always accepting the weak, vulnerable and old need to be protected.
5) Care and respect for the environment
6) I would like to se the third world develop, eradicate disease and to see them self sufficient in water and food
7) Leading on from the last point I would like to see the world population brought under control, but this has to be by persuasion and self interest, not decree.
I could no doubt go on to point 100) if I thought about it, and then man made climate change would start to figure, but the type caused by the nature of the cities we build which undoubtedly cause UHI. This will matter locally in some urban areas but some winter warming would be beneficial in others, so its not necesarily wholly bad.
As for your version of co2 armageddon and the positive feedbacks that come with it, I’m afraid I believe them to be illusory or at best (worst?) very minor in their scale compared to our other concerns.
Rejecting your doom laden beliefs doesn’t mean we dont care about other things though and have no thought for the future. I think Hubert Lamb had it all in proportion when he wrote
“The idea of climate change has at last taken on with the public after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant. But it is easy to notice the common assumption that mans science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environnment must be due to us. It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance. Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.”
With reference to your #1990, I suggest you look at the RS document again Peter and the evolution shown from version 1 to the latest. They haven’t become sceptics, but it is more than just the minor change of key you suggest. At last they are doing the job of the Royal Society and asking and questioning;
Here is point 56 again;
“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
Having been involved with this evolution over the last 20 years, it is clear that we know nothing like as much as we think we do about climate and try unsucessfully to reduce it to formula and computer models.
Tonyb
Has anyone seen this appalling thing at the Guardian yet? (Apart from Max and myself.)
Some choice quotes from Franny Armstrong:
This is another one for the ASA and/or Ofcom, I think. Although if it did “go viral”, it would help boost AGW-scepticism no end.
PeterM
Go ahead and worry (1995) about something that may possibly (or may not) happen in the “geological timescale”, but count me out.
Remember the 19th century horse manure panic (1993).
This one is no different (only the manure is of the male bovine variety).
Max