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.
correction to 2100
(a) should read “cooling” atmosphere and ocean despite increasing CO2 rather than “warming”
Max
My 2094
Have you any thoughts on the plausibility of CFc’s as the main driver of warming?
tonyb
Max,
As usual you are wrong on your notions of scientific consensus:
You need to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_chang
…. but to get back to the question you raised on politics and AGW what would be your answer to the question posed by Ed West? (see my 2098)
“But why must a conservative oppose the idea of man-made climate change? I’m Right-wing and I believe in it, and so do many others of my tribe.”
TonyB
The Qin Bin Lu paper you cited is interesting.
The author cites an earlier study by Lu (which I believe you have cited here previously), which showed a correlation between temperature over the Antarctic from 1950s to 2008 and CFCs plus cosmic rays. He then attempts to demonstrate with theoretical calculations of the greenhouse effect of halocarbons that CFCs alone could account for the observed temperature rise of 0.5~0.6 K from 1950 to 2000. The discussion of atmospheric transmittance spectra is above my head and I cannot vouch for the method or accuracy of these calculations.
The argument against CO2 being the main driver of climate appears to be much stronger than that for CFCs being the specific driver.
The author cites the Lu study in stating that the long-term record showed an extremely poor statistical correlation between temperature and CO2 (near zero correlation coefficient R = 0.02), indicating that the global temperature was largely independent of CO2. From these data he concludes that the warming effect of increasing CO2 and other non-CFC greenhouse gases is most likely saturated.
Citing the recent record, the author states:
Then, going back to the Vostok record, the author states
These are both arguments that I have seen before (without specifically implicating CFCs).
The author concludes:
It all sounds plausible, although the basis for the forecast for the “next five to seven decades” is not evident, but let’s see if there are more studies following this hypothesis.
Max
Max,
“The author cites the Lu study in stating that the long-term record showed an extremely poor statistical correlation between temperature and CO2”
Doesn’t look that poor to me!
PeterM
Do yourself a favor (2103).
Forget Wikipedia as a source of info regarding AGW.
This source has been contaminated by the personal opinion of William Connolley, a notorious “warmer” who has blocked out any opinions dissenting from his own on this subject.
As far as West is concerned (2104), I have no opinion one way or the other. Being “right wing” and “believing” in the “dangerous AGW” premise, the imminent “second coming of Christ”, a disastrous invasion by extraterrestrial aliens or any other “doomsday scenario” can go together, just as NOT being “right wing” and NOT believing in the “dangerous AGW” premise can also go together (as witnessed by several of the bloggers on this thread).
Max
PeterM
Look at your graph (2106) a bit closer, Peter.
Statistical studies (by folks that understand this topic better than you or me) have concluded that the correlation between temperature and CO2 is not statistically robust, but rather more of a “random walk”. I have cited these previously.
The several multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles in the temperature record bear little resemblance to the steady increase in atmospheric CO2.
Sorry to disappoint you, Peter.
No robust statistical correlation means that the case for causation is extremely weak.
Max
Sorry but “folks that understand this topic better than you or me” do indeed believe that there is a strong causal link between CO2 and other GHG emissions.
Why else would you have spent the last two years blogging against them?
We can all show what we want with a judicious alteration in the parameters and base lines. According to this the electro magnetic field obviously has a closer relationship to temperature than Co2
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm
Now Peter, how about passing some sensible comments on the cfc study carried out by a renowned scientist.
tonyb
Peter
Speaking of graphs, presumably the reason why you didn’t post an up to date graph (your #2106 to 2007) is that it would show the decline in temperatures that you keep saying isn’t happening.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/glnhsh.png
tonyb
Well no it wouldn’t. 2009 was joint second warmest year. 2010 is running very close to the peak of year 1998. That year was a bit of freak caused by an exceptional strong El Nino.
Other than GHG build up -there is no particular reason for 2010 to be quite so warm. Even the sun is on the quiet side at the moment as Dr Whitehouse will tell you.
The simple reason for it stopping in 2007 was that I drew the graph a couple of years ago.
Tony B, Reur 2111
Another pathetic thing about Anagram Pete’s graph is that its source is not stated, but a click on “properties” gives the link as:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/3079662254_175264ea6f.jpg Created on 10/8/2010
This suggests that he was probably the author, but whomever, the 5 year smoothing uses the wrong methodology for a time series, known as PMA. (prior moving average.… should use CMA…. centred). This means that the red line is out of phase with the unsmoothed data. He has been told about this many times in the past, but to no avail.
Bob_FJ
10/8/2010 is just today’s date in US notation. That’s when I grabbed the link from Flickr.
The five year (red line) averaging is right and ends at the the end of the graph but there is a 4 year gap at the start of the graph.
This is because you can’t do a five year average when you have less than five years of data.
Bob and Peter
Perhaps Peter would like to tell us what the source of the grapoh is and when it was drawn?
Mysource was Phil Jones. I suspect the other graphic artist was Peter Martin. Why the discrepancy betwen the two Peter?
I know that I don’t believe in global temperatures-is this your way of telling us that you think they are so incorrect that you need to make up your own?
Still hoping to get a sensible rely to my 2094-this should be right up your street. If you disagree with it perhaps you could give us your cogent reasons why?
Bob, would also be very interested in your comments on CFC.
tonyb
Peter
Your 2114 wasn’t there when I posted my 2115.
So in #2112 you say you drew the graph two years ago yet in #2114 you say you grabbed the link today? I need pass no further comment on that.
How about still answering the second part concerning the cfc study? (it would help if you read it before shooting from the hip.)
Its an interesting study which Max has commented on above. The author is well renownded so please lay off the ad homs and give us a serious critique.
Tonyb
PeterM
Statistical experts tell us that there is no robust statistical correlation between observed temperature and observed CO2 level. (These are the “experts” I am talking about.)
Climate experts (if there even is such a thing) tell us that there is a theoretical correlation between the two based on GH theory and model simulations. (These are the “experts” you are talking about.)
The multi-decadal temperature cycles in your graph show that the correlation is not robust (as the statistical experts have concluded).
Just to clear up this point, which you have apparently not grasped.
Max
TonyB
If you are expecting Peter to really read the CFC study you cited and then give you a serious comment, you are fooling yourself.
This is not Peter’s “modus operandi”.
Based on his past record, he will waffle, side-track and toss out unrelated graphs plus occasional “ad homs” and irrelevant political comments in an attempt to lend credence to his personal “belief” in “dangerous AGW” without addressing the specific topic being discussed.
His reasons for doing this are blatantly obvious. The “empirical scientific data” are not on his side. As a result, he chooses to ignore these and try to cover this up with silly side tracks.
The study you cited is interesting. The author has obviously concluded that AGW is real. My take on it is that ithe study may well have identified a more potent GHG than CO2, which (in addition) is truly anthropogenic and does not occur naturally (as CO2 does), nor is it an essential atmospheric ingredient for all life (as CO2 obviously is).
I cannot think of any beneficial impact of adding CFCs to our atmosphere, while there may well be beneficial impacts on agriculture, forestry, etc. of adding CO2 (as botanical studies have shown).
But the main “take home” I have from the study is not so much a specific incrimination of CFCs as the dominant anthropogenic GHGs, but rather a fairly compelling analysis exonerating CO2 from this role, based on both the recent as well as the paleoclimate records.
I would like to hear Peter’s conclusion after reviewing the study, but I am afraid this is too much to hope for, since that is not how Peter operates.
Max
PeterM
Let’s see if we can do a bit of a recap. Here is the crux of our past discussion on this thread (and others):
There is no empirical evidence to support AGW.
There are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming, in other words, there is no empirical evidence to support the premise that human CO2 emissions cause significant global warming, nor that AGW is a serious potential threat.
There is a lot of evidence that global warming has occurred since the modern record started in 1850, in three statistically indistinguishable multi-decadal warming cycles, with multi-decadal cycles of cooling in between, and a slight underlying warming trend. These cycles resemble a sine curve, with a total cycle time of around 60 years for a full cycle and an amplitude of around ±0.2C, all on a tilted axis with a warming trend of around 0.04C per decade (around 0.7C total linear temperature increase from 1850 to today).
Atmospheric CO2 has risen at a fairly steady compounded annual growth rate of 0.4% per year since Mauna Loa measurements were started in 1958; prior to this it is estimated based on ice core records that CO2 increased more slowly by a total of around 12.5% from its pre-industrial value by 1958. There is no apparent “sine curve” in the atmospheric CO2 trend, as there is in the observed trend of global temperature.
In addition, the first decade of the 21st century has shown a slight cooling trend despite record increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is not robust. Statistical analyses of the observed data show that it is more of a “random walk” statistically. This raises serious doubts concerning the postulation of causation.
Theory suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 (and other minor GHGs) should slow down outgoing LW radiation by absorbing and re-emitting this radiation, thereby raising temperature, but the amount of warming is disputed and there are no physical observations that implicate human CO2 emissions as a significant cause of warming.
The largest source of uncertainty lies in the postulated feedbacks. IPCC climate models estimate these to double or even quadruple the theoretical GH warming from CO2 (and other minor GHGs). Latest physical observations from satellites tend to show, however, that the total net feedback with surface warming is slightly negative, rather than strongly positive as assumed by IPCC, primarily as a result of strongly negative net feedback from clouds with warming.
These are all serious issues, Peter, which we have discussed here previously, citing several studies. They present a real dilemma for your hypothesis that AGW (primarily from human CO2 emissions) has been a major cause of warming over the past 160+ years and that it represents a serious potential threat for humanity.
Until you address these issue head on, we are spinning our wheels here.
Max
Max
You said
“I cannot think of any beneficial impact of adding CFCs to our atmosphere, while there may well be beneficial impacts on agriculture, forestry, etc. of adding CO2 (as botanical studies have shown).
But the main “take home” I have from the study is not so much a specific incrimination of CFCs as the dominant anthropogenic GHGs, but rather a fairly compelling analysis exonerating CO2 from this role, based on both the recent as well as the paleoclimate records.
I would like to hear Peter’s conclusion after reviewing the study, but I am afraid this is too much to hope for, since that is not how Peter operates.”
I agree fully with your summary. The great advanatge of this is that the finger can STILL be pointed at man whilst we can actually do something about it.
Man undoubtedly affects the climate, for example on a local scale with uhi in cities so he is by no means blameless
I’m hoping Peter might be shamefaced enough after his last trick with the graph to try to redeem himself by doing some serious work instead of indulging in ad homs and side steps.
tonyb
Global hurricane activity at 33-year lows; Pacific activity at historical low…
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
NASA Scientists Predicted a New Ice Age in 1971
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.html?dids=144703752:144703752&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&fmac=&date=Jul+9,+1971&author=By+Victor+CohnWashington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming
NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.
The Post archives do indeed identify the existence of such a piece, with the following preview:
The Times piece continued:
The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” – or by 2021 – fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”
It turns out the Post was referring specifically to an article published at the journal Science that day, which was written by Rasool and S. H. Schneider.
Science archives identified the following abstract of the piece entitled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate,” and indicated the authors were from “Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration” (emphasis added):
How marvelous. Yet, 36 years later, this same organization is predicting a planetary cataclysm at the hands of global warming.
Which one of this agency’s warnings should we heed?
Kiwigate: NZ government abandons datasets that showed warming
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/10/kiwigate-nz-government-abandons.html
Brute
Your link to the observed longer-term tropical cyclone trends kicks another “alarming projection” by IPCC in the head (AR4 SPM, p.8), namely that
GIGO scaremongering at its worst.
Max
Max
Peter has referenced material from Science Daily in the past, and this piece follows on from the apparent willingness of warmists to distort the record when it suits them, or by omitting information in the hope that it will make their case appear stronger
It relates to the discussions we had about sea levels a few weeks ago. It will be used in my ‘Historic Variations in Sea Levels Part 1’ which I am just finishing off.
This item appeared recently in a variety of places including Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126101411.htm
Science Daily feature a mix of selected quotes from the press release of a new study on sea levels, which they combine with their own narrative;
This is the original press release from Haifa University from which large sections of the SD text was lifted.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-tsl012610.php
“The sea level in Israel has been rising and falling over the past 2,500 years, with a one-meter difference between the highest and lowest levels, most of the time below the present-day level.” (This from the Science Daily narrative)
“These revealed that the sea level during the Crusader period — just 800 years ago — was some 50-90 centimeters lower than the present sea level. Findings from the same period at Caesarea and Atlit reinforced this conclusion. When additional sites were examined from periods before and after the Crusader period, it was revealed that there have been significant fluctuations in sea level: During the Hellenistic period, the sea level was about 1.6 meters lower than its present level; during the Roman era the level was almost similar to today’s; the level began to drop again during the ancient Muslim period, and continued dropping to reach the same level as it was during the Crusader period; but within about 500 years it rose again, and reached some 25 centimeters lower than today’s level at the beginning of the 18th century.”(Science Daily narrative) .
So the conclusion would be reached from reading the article that although the sea level was almost as high as today in Roman times it subsequently dropped, rose again to some 25cm lower than today and as we all ‘know’ has surged to new levels in the last century.
This is the original study
http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/Posters/1_1_Sivan.pdf
It appears that inexplicably-due no doubt to a worldwide shortage of letters with which to form words- that a significant portion of this study was omitted which throws a rather different light on the Science Daily story-which in fairness was carried elsewhere with a similar slant.
It is this;
“The Caesarea results indicate that about 2000 years BP sea levels was at its present elevation, (note; not ‘almost similar to todays”) while during the Byzantine period it was at or ABOVE its present level by (about 30cm- plus or minus 15cm) During the Crusader period “(around 1300AD)”sea level may have been lower than today by about 40c, plus or minus 15cm.” (my capitalisation)
So around 500 years or more of higher sea levels than today has been removed from the Science Daily version of History.
We then have this piece of subtle rephrasing of the history narrative;
“but within about 500 years it rose again, and reached some 25 centimeters lower than today’s level at the beginning of the 18th century.”
That may be true, the period running up to the beginning of the 18th Century was one of the severest episodes of the LIA during which sea levels would be expected to drop as water was frozen in glaciers and thermal expansion reduced. But the original study notes that ‘it seems that sea levels rose slowly from the relatively low levels of the crusader period to the present level by the 19th century.”
In other words they haven’t changed since, which is rather different to the inference made by Science Daily.
That the Science Daily version can have a rather different inference than the study and that some key parts have been omitted can be seen in the attribution by SD;
“Story Source:
The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Haifa. (Their link then leads to the University’s home page in Hebrew)
(My highlighting of the words ‘editorial adaptations)
This rewriting of the study and of history underlines how people gradually come to accept a different version of events.
As Napoleon said; History is the version of the past that people have agreed upon.
In this case those people are the IPCC.
tonyb