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.
PeterM
Read the study you cited more closely. It tells us (among other things):
Looking at the values in Figure 1, I can see that sea level rose by around 150 mm over the entire 19th century. This checks closely with the tide gauge record cited by the University of Colorado (cited in my earlier post), which shows an increase of 1.6 mm/year over this period. But it does not check with the statement from your report:
It should have said
Figure 3 shows the multi-decadal swings in the rate of sea level rise (which are also evident in the Proudman data I posted). These show that over the 19th century the rate of rise increased to around 1.8 mm/year, then dropped to close to zero before rising again to around 2.0 mm/year.
The 20th century data shown in your report do not agree with those observed and reported by Proudman. I would conclude that the Proudman data (compiled by known sea-level experts such as Simon Holgate) are more reliable and relevant than those cited in your report, even with all the caveats listed by TonyB.
Proudman also shows strong multi-decadal swings in the decadal rate of rise (from –1.5 mm/year to +5.2 mm/year), but no accelerating trend over the 20th century (in fact there is a slight decelerating trend as you can see from the graph I posted). Over the entire century, Proudman shows a rise of 17.4 cm (compared to the 19 cm cited in your report).
IOW the data show no increase in the rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century
Nice try anyway, Peter.
Max
Peter
As Max points out you didn’t read the link you cited (again)
Tonyb
Face it Pete, your enviro-messiah is absolutely, irrefutably, out of his ever loving mind. The guy is a certified kook and you, and the IPCC, blindly follow and worship this swindler.
You describe me as a “layman”…………maybe so; however, I questioned the assertions of charlatans like Hansen 20 years ago and I was correct…………he was incorrect.
So, for all his pompous credentials, his conclusions regarding future “climate change conditions” were no better than a carnival sideshow gypsy fortune teller.
Maybe lawmakers should consult me before they decide whether or not they need to confiscate billions of dollars from already cash strapped citizens and they should investigate Hansen for running a confidence scheme that so far has cost the world untold billions.
And gullible people such as yourself believed him…………What’s worse is you still believe him.
Max and Peter
For my forthcoming article on Part 1 of ‘Historic variations in sea levels’ I currently have some 200 references (which unlike Peter I have actually read) :)
It has been suggested that Antarctic fluctuations in ice have a substantially greater effect on sea levels than those of the arctic, and that often one is counter cyclical to the other.
The net result is that we may see sea level rise or fall in the northern hemisphere when we might expect it to be doing the opposite when looking at the temperature records (which tend to be much more complete and extensive for the NH).
If either of you come across any studies as to the effects on sea levels if the ice at either pole is gaining or losing mass I would be pleased to see it. (Historic times only-i.e. back 10000 years or so)
I am especially interested in actual cause and effect e.g the Antarctic gained w amount of mass of (glacial) ice over x period when the temperature changed by y which resulted in z amount of sea level change.
The hypothesis seems reasonable bearing in mind the greater amount of ice at the Antarctic, but as it is much colder than the Arctic any temperature change would have to be substantial in order for any ice to be melted. It is easy to see it increasing during cold times when sea levels would then fall
I am currently at the Roman period in my writing so have nearly 1800 years to go before part 2. This will cover the multitude of nonsenses around the extremely poor coverage of both hemispheres as measured by incomplete tide gauges and satellites with huge margins of error.
tonyb
Max,
When I use quotation marks, and I know you don’t work this way, it does mean the words aren’t my own! I’m quoting! That’s why they are called quotation marks. They aren’t just there for decoration :-)
So once again: “Sea level rose by 6 cm
during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.”
If you’d like another quote:
“Long time constants in oceanic heat content and increased ice sheet melting imply that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.”
You need only read the first paragraph for both.
I’m not sure what is on the record as far as James Hansen comments sea level rises. There’s no evidence that he’s wrong about global temperatures, but he could be wrong, if his reported comments turn out to be correct, about the speed at which sea level rises in response to those temperature changes.
We do know, from paleoclimatic evidence that a change of just one degree will mean sea level will change significantly. The question is how just long does it take? A likely scenario is that we’ll see CO2 levels double this century if no action is taken to curb emissions. We’ll probaly see temperatures rise at a similar rate to those of the past 30 years to make the end of the century about 1.7 deg C warmer than now. Or about 2.5 deg C warmer than pre-industrial times. That will increase by another half a degree or so even if CO2 levels go no higher into the 22nd century.
Looking at the figures, it’s not likely that sea level rise will be a major problem, at least in most regions, until the 22nd century. That’s when you’d see, if you lived that long, James Hansen’s road in NY under water.
This could be too optimistic a scenario if one or more of the major ice sheets, in Geenland or Antarctica, suddenly gives way. That could lead to an abrupt rise in sea level.
Pete,
You’re so blinded by your political ideology that you’ve lost any sense of objectivity.
Hansen said 20 years ago that by 2009, lower Manhattan would be under water due to global warming (using his calculations).
Obviously, he was wrong.
And yet, you defend him…………back peddling using the excuse that you aren’t familiar with his statements.
Just read an article,
How global warming is aiding – and frustrating – archaeologists.
Archaeologists have gained an unexpected benefit from global warming. They have discovered melting ice sheets and glaciers are exposing ancient artefacts that had been covered with thick layers of ice for millennia.
Over the past 150 years we have had a worldwide trend of glacial retreat,” said Michael Zemp, director of the Swiss-based World Glacier Monitoring Service. While many factors were at play, he said “the main driver is global warming.
Inside the Juvfonna ice, experts have carved a cave to expose layers of ice dating back 6,000 years. Some dark patches turned out to be ancient reindeer droppings — giving off a pungent smell when thawed out.
The front edge of Jovfunna has retreated about 18 meters (60 ft) over the past year, exposing a band of artefacts probably from the Iron Age 1,500 years ago, according to radiocarbon dating. Others may be from Viking times 1,000 years ago.
Perhaps someone can comment, especially regarding the ice cave where raindeer droppings were found, does this mean there was less ice when the raindeers did their poo, or did they dig a hole and bury it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68D1L120100914?pageNumber=2
file:///G:/Users/Rob/Desktop/page%202/more-proof-of-natural-glacier-retreat.html
PeterM
Forget it.
The chart in your study shows that sea level rose by around 16 cm in the 18th century, the direct data from sea level measurements show that it rose by the same amount in the 19th century, and then 17 cm over the 20th century.
No real change, Peter.
When searching for sea level data (or any other data) it is always best to go to the source. In this case, the source is the Proudman Institute, which has recorded tide gauge records for well over 100 years. Rehashes by someone else tend to be a bit less meaningful.
At any rate, we know that:
– the tide gauge record shows that sea level rose by an average of 1.6 mm/year over the 19th century
– it also shows that it rose by an average of 2.0 mm/year over the first half of the 20th century
– it also shows that it rose by an average of 1.4 mm/year over the second half of the 20th century
– and, finally, it shows that it has risen by an average of 1.6 mm/year over the most recent decade
Peter, like it or not, this means that there has been no observed acceleration in sea level rise over the past 200 years, regardless of what your study concluded.
I’ll not argue with you about what happened 300 years ago, since this is irrelevant. Check it out with TonyB, who knows more about it than either you or I do.
End of discussion.
Max
PeterM
One more point.
I’ll not argue with you about what some bloke said would happen to sea levels by the 22nd century (1959/1960), since it is pure folly to even talk about such rubbish.
Max
Bobclive
Swiss glaciologists have concluded that the alpine glaciers reached their maximum extent in 10,000 years around 1850, after several periods of retreat and recovery, at times almost disappearing completely.
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/de/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf
So what’s happening today is nothing new or unusual.
Archeologists have found all sorts of physical evidence of past warmer times under retreating glaciers.
These date from the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Roman Optimum and earlier warm periods.
They include remains of old vegetation and (more rarely) signs of old civilization. In one case, the remains of medieval silver mine were found, which had been covered up by advancing snow and ice at the end of the MWP.
As the late Dr. Reid Bryson (a father of modern climate science) put it, referring to this silver mine, which had been exposed with the recently receding alpine glaciers:
http://climatesci.org/2007/02/08/history-getting-back-to-what-it-sort-of-used-to-be-a-guest-weblog-by-reid-a-bryson-phd-dsc-dengr/
There are also written records of the time telling of mines that were covered up by advancing snow and ice. One blames the sinful ways of the miners and mine owners for the tragedy, adding that it was the retribution by the Lord.
http://sagen.at/texte/sagen/oesterreich/salzburg/pongau/gastein/schatzsagen.html
Sound familiar?
Max
Bobclive
On the “Pachauri” thread here the topic of Hannibal’s alpine crossing was discussed.
This happened during the Roman Optimum, a period of warmer temperatures than today, when the glaciers were about 300 meters higher than today.
According to historical records based on eye witness accounts, he crossed with his elephants in late September, crossing alpine passes of 2000 to 2700 meters elevation and only encountering snow at the last descent.
He would obviously not be able to do this today as the Alps are snowed in down to around 1500-1600 meters, according to the weather report.
Max
Hi Manacker, Your first link did not work, the other link is not in English.
Can`t find any links to silver mine and glacier retreat.
Bobclive.
Peter,
As far as sea level rise is concerned, I will go with Dr Nils-Axel Mörner.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Bobclive.
PeterM
Here’s that chart from the sea level study you cited with 19th and 20th century SL rise added in.
The LIA was just ending during the early 19th century, so SL only really started rising again then.
Since then the long-term rate of rise has remained essentially constant at around 1.6 to 1.7 mm/year with large multi-decadal swings.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5037631496_eb4d6caf20_z.jpg
Max
Bob Clive
Sorry. It appears that the link to the interview with Dr. Bryson, where he mentions the medieval alpine silver mine that was abandoned due to advancing ice and snow has been changed. The new link is here:
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
The second link is to a written record, which describes what happened to a gold and silver mine at Gastein, in the Austrian Alps (translation from German), which suffered the same fate.
The link to the glacier study by Christian Schlüchter of the University of Bern is also in German, and I have been unable to find an English translation.
It tells us:
And
At the time of Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps with his elephants (218 BC) the report states:
And:
Hope this helps.
Max
Bob Clive
The table on p.36 of the University of Bern study shows wood and peat remains from the MWP (1200 YBP), the Roman Optimum (2000 YBP) plus several even earlier periods.
Max
BobClive
On sea levels I’ll go along with sea-level expert Morner, as well.
Max
Max,
Re your graph in #1969:
Just as a point of information, the 19th century started in 1800 ( or 1801 if you want to be pedantic) and ended in 1899 or 1900.
I think the authors of the paper must have known that, which is why they came up with a figure of 6cm rather than your figure of 16cm :-)
Alex, Reur 1933, & Max, Reur 1937 (Joyner’s review of Montford’s book)
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/08/mean-spirited-scepticism-montford-hockey-stic/
I’ve read the 48 comments, and am rather taken particularly by the apt brevity of this by Jeffrey York:
It would appear that not only GCSEs and “A” Levels, but also “Professor” has become severely devalued.
I wonder if Joyner read the comments, and whether he enjoyed them in the same way that anagram Pete seems to here. (like for instance being corrected for commenting falsely on info sources that it would seem he has not read). I guess it’s a bit late now, but I would like to have sent an Email to his Dean or Chairman of department whomever, advising that Joyner has brought his university into disrepute
Max, Reur 1954
Furthermore on Hockey-stick Illusions:
Yes, for instance the IPCC, could have included in their revisions of the 1999 hockey-stick in their 2001 report the sharp down “correction” of 1999 and 2000, but ending at 1998 was more scary eh?
Max & BobClive Evidence of glacier retreat:
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the find an old hockey-stick up there one day!?
Brute,
Its not the first time that you’ve said something like:
“You’re so blinded by your political ideology”.
The first thing to say is that if organisations like your National Academy of Sciences were saying that AGW wasn’t happening and wasn’t a threat, I’d have no problem in accepting their advice.
I don’t think anyone would. Generally speaking us social democratic types don’t have much, if any, problem in accepting the Scientific line on all issues – not just AGW. But, as you mention politics, you need to take a look at the conflict that Science induces in Conservative ranks particularly in the USA. For example:
Scientific evidence is that homosexual tendencies are innate and there really isn’t any point trying to ‘cure’ them. You don’t accept that. You think homosexuality is a sin.
Scientifically there is a good case for going ahead with embryo stem cell research subject to ethical monitoring. Again conservatives are against it.
Scientifically, the difference between the races is tiny. Yet racism is rampant and worse where the Political right is in power. Much of the opposition to Obama in the USA is fuelled by racism. The tea party movement is almost exclusively white. Why? As Sarah Palin puts it “Real America” is the white small towns of the mid -west. Not multi-racial NY or LA.
Scientifically, the evidence is that the Earth is several billion years old. Anyone who thought that it was just a few thousand years old would be dismissed as a crackpot in all sensible circles. Not so in the nether reaches of the Republican Right in the USA. I hear it is even considered to be an electoral advantage.
These sort of attitudes aren’t solely found in the USA of course, but they are worse there than in Europe or A. It’s all fuelled by a sense of anti-learning. Anyone who actually knows anything that’s worth knowing is dismissed as an ‘elitist’ or an ‘intellectual’. American engineering, science and medical courses can only survive by recruiting foreign students or the sons and daughters of recent immigrants. It isn’t just American youth culture that doesn’t rate academic success. It’s just not cool to be smart! That sentiment permeates the whole of American society, but is much more prevalent on the the Republican right.
Peter #1976
The Royal Society seem to have rediscovered the real meaning behind their motto ‘nobodys word is final’ by reviewing their notorious position on climate change which consisted of a step by step rebuttal of the sceptics case that was put together by their PR man and CAGW advocate.
I am pleased to say that they have today backpedalled somewhat on their position and their level of certainty on such things as temperature and sea level rise is much less than previously stated
As the oldest science society in the world perhaps it is just as matter of time before the newer institutes take off their blinkers as well and start a sensible debate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/
tonyb
Bobclive
Just to show I was paying attention and read the links-unlike certain other Australian people I could mention-here is a link from Alex from the Hanibal discussion which is an English version of the material cited by Max in #1970 regarding glaciers
tonyb
Tonyb,
Reading references is one thing – understanding them is another.
If the level of uncertainty of sea level rise and warming is indeed higher than some may have claimed, then it is just as likely to be wrong as an underestimate as it is to be an overestimate. That’s not too hard to understand surely?
I’ve always wondered why climate change deniers like yourself are so concerned what the RS actually say on the matter. You are obviously desperate for their approval!
You raise the issue of the RS update of their advice on the the AGW issue, but you can’t bring yourself to actually link to the document in question.
Instead you link to the Wattsupwiththat story. So instead of reading the RS update directly we have read what Wattsupwiththat say about the RS update.
They are just as bad. They don’t link either but instead link to the “Global Warming Policy Foundation’s” story on their website. So now we have to read what they say too? What’s the matter with you guys? Don’t you know how to find the actual document on Google? This is it!
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
Anyone with any sense wouldn’t give a stuff about Wattsupwiththat, or the so called GWPF say, but they would certainly care about what the RS were saying.
It doesn’t say “Sorry guys you were right and we were wrong. Why didn’t we listen to you before?” As if!
It does, however, say ” There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are
likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.”
But don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself!