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,
Reid Bryson and the Swiss silvermine.
We ask about proxi evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”
Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.
Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”
We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.
“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.
Max, I cant find any actual references to these statements from Reid Bryson can you help.
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Bob.
PeterM
You stated (2170) that there was a “fair amount of disagreement” between the observations of Spencer, Lindzen & Choi and Svensmark.
I asked you to explain this in more detail, but let me give you my take on it (and then I’ll be interested in your take).
Lindzen has hypothesized that clouds act as a “natural thermostat” with his “infrared iris” hypothesis, whereby high altitude (LW energy trapping) cirrus clouds decrease with higher surface temperature.
Observations by Spencer et al. showed that the net cloud feedback with higher surface temperature over the tropics was strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as the climate models cited by IPCC had previously assumed. This was, in part due to an increase in low altitude (SW energy reflecting) clouds accompanied by a decrease in high altitude (LW enegy trapping) clouds, as had been postulated earlier by Lindzen.
Observations by Lindzen and Choi have shown that the net energy balance with surface warming over the tropics results in a net negative feedback (and low climate sensitivity), in general confirming the conclusions reached by Spencer et al. This is a result of changes in the reflection of SW energy and the radiation of LW energy.
Spencer has reviewed the L+C paper, agreeing with the general conclusion of a non-sensitive climate, but disagreeing with some details of the calculation method plus the magnitude of the feedback parameter and resulting 2xCO2 climate sensitivity: Spencer calculates a 2xCO2 CS of 0.6C, compared to a value of as low as 0.4C calculated by L+C (see chart in my 1912) . So the difference is really not that great.
Spencer has gone a step further in challenging the “mainstream” notion that clouds only act as “feedback” to the underlying climate “forcing” (by GHGs). Instead, Spencer postulates that “changes in clouds cause warming” rather than that “warming causes changes in clouds” (as is assumed by the IPCC model simulations). A possible underlying root cause cited by Spencer is the PDO, which shows a close correlation with temperature over a longer-term record (see chart in my 1798).
Now to Svensmark: he and his team have postulated that a mechanism exists whereby changes in solar activity affect Earth’s climate by causing changes in cosmic rays, which can nucleate water droplets to form clouds, which in turn could cause a part of the incoming SW radiation to be reflected back into space and result in surface cooling. This hypothesis has been confirmed in a simple laboratory experiment, but is now being tested at a larger scale in the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva.
So one could argue that Spencer and Svensmark both see clouds as a natural driver of climate but they do not agree on the root cause or mechanism.
There are many open questions. Is the PDO influenced by the sun? If so, how does this occur? Are the PDO swings themselves an effect of some other underlying root mechanism? Are cosmic rays driving the clouds, which, in turn, are causing the PDO swings?
Unfortunately, IPCC has not encouraged much work on natural causes for climate change (which they consider to have been insignificant, albeit with a conceded low level of scientific understanding), preferring instead to concentrate on anthropogenic factors.
I am awaiting your comments on all this, Peter (since you brought up the topic in the first place).
Max
Max,
1) My question was about Harold Lewis? What is he saying?
2) So you are now saying that AGW is all about politics including all of the opposition?
Peter,
Why the temperature data “adjustments”?
bobclive
I could not find the original report about the medieval silver mine, which appeared under the receding alpine glacier, as reported by Reid Bryson in the interview you cited.
I did find (and cite) a German language historical chronicle describing a silver and gold mine in Austria, which got “swallowed” up by advancing snow and ice at the end of the MWP.
Whether this is the same mine or not, I cannot say.
There are several reports of vegetation and (more rarely) signs of earlier civilization, which are uncovered as the glaciers retreat. The report I cited by Christian Schlüchter of the University of Bern describes some of these finds in the Swiss Alps from both the MWP and the Roman Optimum (as well as earlier warm periods, when the glaciers were smaller than today), but there is no mention of an “uncovered silver mine”
Of course, there was “Ötzi”, the famous Bronze Age man found in the receding alpine ice.
The farm discovered in the permafrost of Greenland is another well-known example.
Then there were Viking tools found in receding ice in Norway
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/26/global-warming-ancient-artefacts
One source talks of “ancient tools” dating back 850 years found under melting ice in Canada
http://www.livescience.com/environment/melting-ice-reveals-ancient-tools-100426.html.
This report tells of an even older dart found underneath retreating ice in Yellowstone Park
http://americanarchaeologist.com/archives/896
But no “silver mines”.
Since Reid Bryson has died, there is no way to check with him directly what his source of information was. I have looked for sources, but have been unable to find a specific source to confirm what Bryson has stated.
I’ll keep looking, and will let you know if I find anything.
Max
PeterM
Read what “Lewis is saying” yourself. It apparently starts off with:
I have nothing to add.
Max
Max,
I’m asking what scientific reason Harold Lewis is giving for his resignation from the American Physical Society.
He’s supposed to be a Physics professor, so you’d think he’d have produced at least page full of equations to justify his concerns, but the quote you’ve given is something that Brute could have written!
Max,
Your comment “So the answer to your ‘trick question’ is obviously: yes, opposition to AGW is partially politically motivated but not exclusively so. It is also about ‘science’. Admittedly, the ‘science’ is simply a ‘side show’ to justify the ‘main event’.”
is somewhat curious.
I’ve removed some upper case and unnecessary parenthesis, just to make the sentence a bit clearer, but maybe it’s a bit too clear for your liking now! I always thought that science was indeed a side show to you guys, which is why its a waste of time arguing about it in detail with you, but I’m surprised to see that you’ve admitted that!
Tony N et al,
Following a WUWT article (see below) that criticised an interview on Oz ABC radio, I Emailed a complaint to the ABC, and have received the following reply.
Groan…. I’m now going to have to actually listen to the program…. From your experience with the BBC, could you please offer any advice. I’ll think about my response over the next day or two.
This was in response to my:
Subject: The science show…BIAS
Hi Angela,
Please review this, and refer it to the Chairman of the Board.
As an engineer with an eclectic interest in science, just one of the radio programmes that I follow is your “The Science Show”. However, some titles I simply don’t listen to, because from experience I can’t stand the biased treatment typical of Robyn Williams on his pet subject. Such a case was his last interview with Bob Ward ALONE, (a policy advisor)…. a no go for me. However, I have seen some outrage expressed on the internet, (like; the worst interview ever?) and I recommend that you read the following, which includes over 100 blog comments so far; quick time.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/abc-interview-wrongly-torches-skeptic-position/#more-25929
If you want to have respectable science journalism, I suggest that you find someone of the calibre of Kerry O’Brien with a capacity to ask questions to check the integrity of an interviewee, REGARDLESS of their “colour”
Incidentally, I also subscribe to BBC podcasts, which are also sometimes very biased, but are improving lately. (e.g. Roger Harrabin, whom now asks serious questions since about November last year)
Regards, Bob Fernley-Jones, Melbourne
Peter,
Why the temperature data “adjustments”?
PeterM
I see that you are falling back into the bad habit of changing what I wrote in order to try to prove a (nebulous) point regarding the importance of “politics” versus “science” in the ongoing AGW debate.
Let me repeat what I wrote on this topic, so you can read it again:
Got it, this time, Peter?
Back to the “science”, Peter – you can’t waffle your way out of it, so let’s address it. Don’t be a wimp.
Max
Bob_FJ
Looks like you are getting enmeshed into the bureaucratic gearwork of ABC.
The answer you got to your complaint was classical “bureaucratese BS”.
Have you read any Kafka?
I’d recommend “The Trial” (Der Prozess) or “The Castle” (Das Schloss) as starters.
Non illigetimi carborundum.
Max
PeterM
Let me repeat Brute’s question to you (in case you overlooked it):
Looking forward to your answer.
Max
PS I’ve given Brute my “take” on this. What’s yours?
PeterM
You wrote:
Harold Lewis wrote:
Read the rest of his resignation letter in Brute’s 2155 for the detailed reasons for his resignation from the American Physical Society.
I understand this perfectly clearly, but if you have difficulty comprehending it, I can only recommend that you check with Lewis directly.
Max
Max,
“Why are values slightly different when I download an updated file a year later?” This is a FAQ. See http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq
Yes I’m sure you can understand the sort of BS that is quite common on the internet. But it doesn’t make it correct. If Harold Lewis had a valid objection to the science of AGW then he should express himself properly by writing a paper. If it was correct it probably wouldn’t be that easy to understand though.
Max,
If the science is so much of a “side-show” why do you want to keep coming back to it. You think that scientists are paid by politicians to justify higher carbon and other taxes. According to you, the American Physical Society were induced by the US government in 2007 to write:
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
If Al Gore had not had the 2000 election stolen from him and had gone on to become President of the US, you argument may have looked slightly less ridiculous. But , come on, George Bush had been president for 7 years when that was written. Do you really think that’s what he wanted to see?
You don’t know the answer Peter………..
Brute,
Its all explained in this paper. Costs you $9 though!
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2001/2000JD900564.shtml
Be a pal……save me the 9 bucks and just give me the abbreviated version…..
Brute, PeterM
Just read the last sentence of the abstract blurb “explaining” one small piece of the ex post facto corrections, variance adjustments and miscellaneous manipulations made to the temperature data (the “adjusting for sampling density in grid box land and ocean surface temperature time series”).
The authors claim that this one step does not result in much change to the totals:
So if this one step does not cause a significant upward distortion to the record, what did cause this apparent distortion (in the case of the NZ record)?
I know personally that the “ex post facto corrections” (going back several years in some cases) have had a major effect on the global temperature anomaly trends, i.e. making a trend show more warming than before “correction”.
This was easy to check – I just downloaded and plotted the data before and after it was “corrected” – the HadCRUT example for 1998-2008 is shown in the chart below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3089974324_634ce5dc43_b.jpg
As you can see, an overall cooling trend was miraculously converted to a warming trend by this sleight of hand.
Another one I caught happened back in early 2008, when temperatures plunged. The first HadCRUT numbers showed a major cooling over the 3-month period January-March (as did all the other records). This was subsequently “corrected” after the fact to show much smaller degree of cooling than before (or than shown in the other records):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2720385677_7af5ccfd90_b.jpg
Yet these manipulations are not “transparent”, and Jones has destroyed a lot of the original data rather than turning it over to a FoI request (as we all know from the Climategate disclosures).
So, Peter, you have not answered Brute’s question. Instead you have just waffled around it with a “happy-talk” abstract covering a small, insignificant part of the overall manipulation process.
The questions are:
This is the real issue and you have not addressed it, Peter.
Max
PS (to Brute) Save your 9 bucks. The paper cited by Peter is a red herring.
PeterM
You come again with a silly question, rather than reading what I wrote.
You ask:
Apparently you did not read what I wrote (twice, as a matter of fact, to make sure you would not overlook it). So I’ll write it again (this time in bold so it’s easier for you to see):
Get that this time?
SCIENCE, Peter. (
Do you know what the “scientific method” means? As a physicist, you should. Or should I explain it to you?
Max
PeterM
You seem to be concerned that Harold Lewis dis not express himself “properly”.
I’d say he expressed himself very clearly and “properly”.
As a physicist, he has concluded that the dangerous AGW scare is a hoax, which he describes as
Seems very clear to me, Peter. Is there some part of that which you, also as a physicist, do not understand? (Please try to be specific, if you can.)
Max
Yes Max, the “explanation” provided in Peter’s 2193 is bovine fecal matter…….or, in layman’s terms FRAUD.
Brute #2198
You will probably find this link cheaper than Peters option-always assuming you believe that Hadley’s historic global temperatures (as currently collected and manipulated) have any meaning in the first place.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
The trouble is of course is that the original CRU data was mysteriously ‘lost’ following a FOI request by Peters countryman Warwick Hughes so its difficult to know the staus of the original material you want to check. The current stuff is so adjusted it bears no relationship to what was initially collected.
Peter would know all this of course if he bothered to read any literature relating to Climategate-seems he has turned a blind eye to it all.
If you want to check out the Hilarious Giss figures you will need to go to Hansens 1987 paper which I have ciited here before,(also linked to on my site) go to Chiefio’s site, or merely watch them unfold via the link I gave you to Google Earth a few days ago.
All the GISS figures (adjusted and unadjusted) are shown here, illustrating which parts of the earth are cooling and which are warming. (Which is why no one refers to global warming these days because it isn’t true.)
Tonyb.
Max and Brute,
The simple explanation is that as new information becomes available it is added to what ever was available to start with. If the effect over time was large then I agree it would be a cause for concern but it makes hardly any difference. Sometimes the figures are revised upwards and sometimes downwards.
You show that yourself in the graph of 2195. The difference was 0.04 deg C over a 10 year period.
Buts as you say this is all ” “science” ” and “is simply a “side show” to justify the “main event”.” !