THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Robin, you quoted in part from a new paper in your 2687:
One of the most interesting aspects of the “Divergence problem” is that it has been known for a very long time, and the Dendro’s still get splinters under their fingernails, whilst scratching their heads. Just look at the huge number of references in this new paper, and Craig Loehle‘s final conclusions!
Pete, I repeat in part the quote above, in the hope that you do not miss it:
…This creates a cold bias in the reconstructed record and makes it impossible to make any statements about how warm recent decades are compared to historical periods
This long standing clear evidence, and its implications concerning the calibration of tree-ring data, was just as obvious to some members of the IPCC when they trumpeted Mann’s hockey-stick in 2001, and of course it was well known to a host of Dendro’s long before 2001, and MBH 1998/1999
Here is a marked-up version of the Manna graph that I did early last year.
If you study the tree-ring data, (dark blue), from ~1950, there are several strange things about it:
1) It dives downwards rather sharply
2) It stops short of the study period by about 20 years (A continuing period of unexplained divergence, which is not shown)
3) To correctly apply a 40-year smoothed average as arbitrarily selected by Mann, (AKA running average), the final smoothed data-point, by definition, should be 20-years short of the end of the data series. Thus, some other technique must have been used by Mann, for the final 20 years.
The outcome is pure manipulation, and is repeated by other Dendro’s; See IPCC 2007 below.
4) The alleged 40-year smoothed average shape (highlighted pale blue) appears to have no relationship to the tree-ring data. Rather, I suggest an “eyeball nominal” in yellow. (ignoring the different distracting red data)
5) You may also notice that all six (?) IPCC 2001 versions of the hockey-stick are strikingly modified over the original in Mann’s paper. However, they failed to revise the end-point beyond the very misleading 1998 El Nino spike. (Although they did so appropriately on other nearby IPCC graphs…. Strange that!)
<img src=”” alt=”Manna” />
Of course, the IPCC had to drop the hockey-stick in 2007, (without apology) but substituted the following spaghetti graph, which I’ve also marked-up:
In a footnote therewith, comment is made to the effect that a 30-year smoothing is used by the various authors, and that the “missing data” for the final 15 years out beyond the data series, is simply a repeat of the last 15 years. However, in order to get that desired up-turn at the end, something else must have been done such as flip-flopping the data.
<img src=”” alt=”spaghetti” />
Incidentally, Hadley also had an arbitrary, “repeat some data beyond the end of the T series”, for many years, but didn’t like the outcome with recent colder weather, so changed it in order to achieve a “better judgement”
Sorry Folks, In my 2701,
ILO the missing images, please try the URL’s below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/3028768382_50abd9e21a_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/3027938693_375b0d0017_o.jpg
I can get the command “IMG” to work on another WordPress site, but not here apparently
Fingers crossed this won’t get spammed.
Pete,
Further to my 2701 and 2702, (Hope you don’t mind Robin, me sticking my oar in!)
I suspect that you may not wish to read all of the paper that Robin cited because it does not support the dogma of the IPCC etc.
However, I wish to draw your special and careful attention to the conclusions:
In conclusion, the nonlinear response of trees to temperature explains the divergence problem, including cases where divergence was not found. The analysis here also shows why non-tree ring proxies often show the Medieval Warm Period but tree ring-based reconstructions more often do not. While Fritts (1976) notes the parabolic tree growth response to temperature, recent discussions of the divergence problem have not focused on this mechanism and climate reconstructions continue to be done using a linear response model. When the divergence problem clearly indicates that the linearity assumption is questionable, it is not good practice to carry on as if linearity is an established fact.
I actually feel that Craig Loehle‘s mathematical treatment, is just another hypothesis, of little certainty. What is FAR MORE IMPORTANT is the great number of other hypotheses, over the decades, that he cites, with no resolution, and the broader implications that I mention above. Particularly, the IPCC has expressed great confidence in tree-ring data, when clearly, it is currently, still in 2008, fatally flawed.
Brute,
If you were asking me, I would answer the question below by saying ‘nothing at all’
What does AIDS have to do with government paid scientists promoting fraud to further a political ideology and their own personal gain?
I would give the same answer if you were to substitute ‘AGW’ for ‘AIDS’. But you wouldn’t agree with that of course.
But, why not go the full way? Why not be skeptical on the AIDS/HIV issue too? If government scientists are the charlatans and fraudsters you claim, why believe them on anything?
Maybe the AGW issue is just the tip of the iceberg? Who knows? There could be one fraud after another just waiting to be exposed.
Robin and Bob_FJ,
Where was the the article on tree rings you mention published? A proper scientific journal?
Or maybe it was in Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen’s Energy and Environment which I think was set up to promote a viewpoint more akin to your own?
The next step should be to get the content peer reviewed and in to one of the more recognised scientific journals.
Max 2694
You are perfectly correct
Peter 2698
What has that Aids site got to do with anything
and why is it our sister?
All
There are more theories in science than you can shake a stick at, many of which tend to be revised or quietly dropped over the years.
Rudyard Kipling’s “nine and sixty ways of making tribal lays,” caused the climatologist C. E. P. Brooks to quip, “There are at least nine and sixty ways of constructing a theory of climatic change, and there is probably some truth in quite a number of them.”
In a similar lighthearted vein, two prominent oceanographers, David B.Ericson and Goesta Wollin, wryly observed: “It has been estimated that a new theory to explain continental glaciations has been published for every year that has passed since the first recognition of the evidence for past glaciation.”
This comes from a very readable account of the history of co2 and climate science
http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy/pages/9historical.pdf
I am sure the 1970 edition of
“The bumper book of incontrovertible
scientific theories”
would bear little relationship to the 2008 version.
TonyB
Peter
No doubt the link provided further into this post is another fruitcake-but at least he is the Australian variety!
The amount of co2 emissions produced by man and the degree of concentration of co2 in the atmosphere (forgetting any sinks) theoretically has a relationship, or as Max says why would we be trying to mitigate the former?
According to current theory there is a direct tranference of man made emissions to atmospheric concentrations because we are in ‘equilibrium.’ Accordingly everything man contributes from burning old carbon stores goes straight to the bottom line -ie concentrations. This in turn raises temperature.
My graph shows some apparent contradictions which suggests it is useful to look at opposite ends of all possibilities and work towards the centre, that is;
1)Co2 concentrations caused by mans emissions have little correlation with temperature
2)The second that there is a degree of correlation between emissions, concentrations and temperaturers, but this is not shown by the chart(indeed the cdiac figures show none at all) So this suggests that there is missing data prior 1958 showing greater peaks and troughs of co2 than is currently admitted.
3) Whether those concentrations are then due to us is a third matter, or whether nature is largely to blame as it contributes most of the co2 emissions (annual and sink/outgasssing according to temperatures)
4) However they are in themselves a small part of overall green house gases, so what their overall importance is- compared to say water vapour- is questionable and has been hotly contested here.
That is four big projects Peter, which with a multi milion annual budget and hundreds of researchers could no doubt be cracked-although whether I’d want to crack it if I were getting a nice annual budget is another matter.
Some figures calculated by a variety of people illustrate the extent of our culpability;
a) 4% of the annual Co2 emissions total is man made
b) Britain produces around 4% of the worlds annual total
c) In turn 4% of overall greenhouse gases are co2
d) There has been an increase of concentrations post industrial of 100ppm
2Gt=1ppmv near enough
Total atmospheric CO2 ~ 800 Gt
Total sea CO2 ~ 40,000 Gt or 50 times the CO2 in the air (Interestingly this figure was known as far back as 1912)
UK current emissions ~ 6 Gt p.a. (there’s the 4% of the annual total)
Annual CO2 turnover ~ 150 Gt p.a. )
UK emissions ~ 0.24 Gt p.a.
A 1deg C SST rise would outgas 260 Gt according to Prof Endersbee’s chart (see link)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Globalclimatechangehasnaturalcauses.pdf
one third of the total atmospheric CO2, check the slope of the graph
So UK emissions are 4% of total emissions
Emissions 4% of natural CO2 annual flux
Flux ~ 20% of total CO2 in air
CO2 in air ~ 400ppm ~ 0.04% atmosphere
CO2 in air ~ 2% of total CO2 in water
UK annual emissions are 4/100 x 4/100 x 20/100 x 2/100 of total CO2 = 4x4x4/10,000,000 of total CO2,
less than one-hundred-thousandth of total CO2
Alternatively,
UK annual emissions are 4/100 x 6/800 x 400/1,000,000 = 12/1,000,000,000, about a one-hundred-millionth of total air
UK annual emissions at one hundred millionth of total air equates to 0.5 of a molecule in a milion of CHG
In more every day language;
Since 1750 Britain has contributed 0.5 man made molecules of co2 per 100,000 of atmosphere in total- much of which will have dropped out of the system anyway, assuming a half life of 40/50 years.
Looked at in this way its not surprising that temperatures dont appear to respond much to rising co2 when looked at in a historic and statistical context.
Perhaps the figures are plain wrong-like climate scientists mathematicians seem to come up with lots of different answers to the same question.
Or perhaps like Obama-the warmists have the better marketing men.
TonyB
Re: #2960, Brute
To include an image in a comment, right click on the image and select ‘Copy image location’. Return to the comment box at HS and click ‘Img’ in the Quicktags button bar. Paste the link to the image into the box that appears, then a title of your own choosing in the next box. Job done!
The image may not appear in the comment preview area, but it should appear when you submit the comment.
My initial interest in the 17th Oct EU green energy story was the emphasis on saving the planet. A related story yesterday was very much angled towards energy security. I suspect that this is a trend that will continue as the EU spin doctors realise that a recession is no time to try and sell hair shirt policies.
Also, it would seem that the EU intends to use their AGW crusade to create a half trillion euro fund to invest in types of energy generation of its own choosing. Politicians and bureaucrats tend to foul up when they trespass on the the commercial world, and this is no time for anyone to get experimental with energy policy.
It’s quite instructive to go back just a few months and count the number of commentators who were confidently saying that the age of cheap oil was over when in fact we were simply experiencing a short term spike. An energy market that is so volatile is no place for amateurs.
Hi Peter,
You are rambling again, Peter (2700). First you chide TonyB for plotting “human CO2 emissions” on his chart (the only certifiably anthropogenic component to the CO2 greenhouse equation), rather than “atmospheric CO2 concentrations” (which could or could not be a direct result of “human CO2 emissions”), and now you come back full circle proclaiming that increased “atmospheric CO2 concentrations” are the direct result of “human CO2 emissions”, with a philosophical side comment about the “seas and forests” and an unsubstantiated prediction that it would take around a hundred years for levels to fall to their pre-1850 levels even if emissions were to stop right now. Wow!
Hope you are not trying to teach this gibberish to “slow learning kids”. (Believe the fast learners would see through this “shell game” pretty quickly.)
Your over-simplified analogy of food and diet leaves out calorie burning from exercise. And our climate is infinitely more complicated than human metabolism. What’s more, there are major factors that are not yet understood and blaming it all on AGW is a crass oversimplification, as many physical observations (rather than model predictions) have shown vividly.
The medical literature is full of clinical studies that show a clear relationship between overeating (+ under-exercising) and obesity, and between obesity and predilection for certain types of life-threatening circulatory diseases.
There are no such studies based on physical observations, which would demonstrate that human CO2 emissions are causing potentially dangerous warming of our climate. It’s all GIGO model studies.
Don’t fall into the trap of making silly, oversimplified analogies to “prove” a point. It never works (as it failed earlier with your room heater or kettle of water on the stove).
Regards,
Max
Re: 2705, Peter
Can you explain the reluctance of the dendro’s to update the series that were collected in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which are still relied on in climate ‘reconstructions’?
Pete,
RE: 2700
Did Joe’s doctors purposely overlook his thyroid problem and covertly recalibrate his scale upward every month? Did Joe’s doctors also convince him to sign onto a very expensive diet plan that they concocted?
RE: 2704
Because I have seen a family member die from AIDS. I have also seen the polar ice cap expand, (when it was “supposed” to retreat) and global temperatures drop when they were “supposed” to rise.
Peter (re your 2705): the paper on tree rings was published by Springer, the leading German (and the world’s second largest) publisher of scientific, technology and medical journals; Springer has published work by over 159 Nobel prize winners. The paper was received on 3 September 2007 and accepted for publication, after peer review, on 2 June 2008. But you could have discovered all this for yourself had you taken the trouble to click on the link: why leap to the assumption that it was published by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (of whom incidentally I had not heard)?
Perhaps you will now respond to Bob’s post 2703 and TonyN’s 2710.
Re: #2705 again, Peter
Of all the arch-warmers, I’ve always seen Stephen H Schneider as one of the most sinister. I wonder what he would think of your characterisation of his journal.
http://esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews/climatic-change.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
Remember him? He’s the guy who told Discover magazine in 1989 that it was quite in order for climate scientists to exaggerate the credibility of the science supporting AGW in order to get attention. And I think I am right in saying that he was a lead author or review editor on one of the IPPC 2007 working groups. Not what you might call a climate sceptic, unless he’s standing on the road to Damascus right now, rubbing his eyes.
This article (an interview with Dr Benny Peiser, a political scientist and social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, who grew up in Germany in the 1970s where he helped found the Green Party) is important reading – especially for Brits. A taster from the opening paragraphs:
Referring to an interview in 2006, he says,
Here are three important stories illustrating Benny Peiser’s point:
From India: ‘Sibal rules out global action plan on climate change’, Press Trust of India November 11 (Kapil Sibal is the Science and Technology Minister):
From China: ‘China set to take the initiative in climate talks’, Reuters, November 6:
From the International Energy Agency (IEA): ‘Dirty coal to remain world’s top power source’ Reuters, November 12:
Hi TonyB,
Back to the CO2 emissions / concentration discussion.
PeterM insists we talk about changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, rather than about human CO2 emissions.
The AGW hypothesis suggests that our planet is in natural CO2 equilibrium, but that this equilibrium has been disturbed by human CO2 emissions, originating primarily from our combustion of fossil fuels. The natural cycle just cannot “keep up” with this added anthropogenic CO2 from our “industrialized society”, so it builds up in the atmosphere. Very simple (if a bit simplistic).
If we compare the total human CO2 emissions with the entire natural “carbon cycle” of our planet, we see that they are very small, indeed.
There are around 800 billion tons carbon (gigatons or GtC) in the Earth’s atmosphere (primarily as CO2) today, compared with around 50 times as much, or around 40,000 GtC in the “carbon sink” of the world’s oceans (as carbonates, carbonate deposits and marine life).
Another 610 GtC are estimated to be contained in the earth’s vegetation, 1,580 GtC in soils and 3,200 GtC in possible future worldwide reserves of fossil fuels. (One GtC is roughly equal to 1 x 44 / 12 or 3.67 Gt CO2.)
If all the possible fossil fuels of the world were to be consumed, this could theoretically increase atmospheric CO2 concentration to an absolute theoretical maximum of around 1100 ppmv (from today’s 385 ppmv), assuming all other factors are equal (which they are not, of course).
Annually photosynthesis (plants, algae, plankton, etc.) accounts for a net reduction of around 60 GtC, while animal respiration plus plant decay account for a slightly smaller increase of carbon in the atmosphere, or 58 GtC. Interestingly, with a 2007 world population of 6.6 billion, human respiration alone accounts for roughly 0.5 GtC of this, while termites alone contribute around 4 GtC.
Fossil fuel burning plus cement production accounts for 5.8 GtC, while deforestation (the other “influence of man”) brings another 1.7 GtC increase to the atmosphere. Of these 7.5 GtC (27.8 Gt CO2) “man-made” CO2 only around 55% stays in the atmosphere, resulting in an annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 1.8 parts per million (by volume).
What happens to the rest?
Is it absorbed by the oceans? Annually an estimated 800 Gt CO2 are absorbed by cold ocean water and growing biomass, which is roughly balanced by the degassing of 800 Gt CO2 from warm ocean water and decomposing biomass, with a possible slight “net” absorption of CO2. Theoretically, an increase in average ocean temperatures should result in a slightly decreased net rate of absorption and increased degassing.
Is it absorbed by a minor increase in photosynthesis (both on land and in the oceans, possibly resulting from slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures)? A 5% increase in photosynthesis would result in an additional annual absorption of 11 Gt CO2 (or 40% of the human CO2 emission).
Is it dissipated into space? Scientists have estimated that the “half life” of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 40 years. This would mean that around 10 Gt CO2 disappear every year.
It has been estimated that the organic content of soils represents 1,580 GtC (or 6,000 Gt CO2 equivalent). A one-half percent increase per year would be equal to all of the CO2 generated by humans.
Whatever the reason, around 45% of the human CO2 emissions (roughly 12 Gt CO2 per year) are “unaccounted for”.
Peter may be right in saying that human CO2 emissions are less important than atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but it is obvious in any case that the Earth’s carbon balance is much more complicated than assumed by the simplistic scenarios of the IPCC.
Regards,
Max
TonyN and Robin,
There does seem to be a lot of argument about whether it was warmer in the MWP than it is now. Does it matter that much? I would say probably not. What matters is what sort of temperatures we have now and more importantly what we can expect in 50 to 100 years time.
Loehle (the author you cite in the Springer publication) is probably right in pointing out some of the difficulties in using tree ring proxies. I must admit that I just have to defer to those who know more about all this that I do. All I can do, and I suspect you too, is read what they write and try to make sense of it.
Loehle originally published an article in Energy and Environment saying, on the basis of non tree ring proxies, that the MWP was 0.3 degs warmer than the late 20th century. He later published a correction restricting that claim to 1935 and included this graph in his correction.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/3031025572_7719ce8211_o.png
It is probably about 0.4 deg warmer now than in 1935 so I guess we could say, on the basis of Loehle’s revised work, that it is indeed now slightly warmer than the warmest of the MWP.
But, as I’ve said it is really quite a sterile argument. Even if it could be shown conclusively that the MWP was slightly warmer than it is now, or even that Mann was right and it is quite a lot warmer, then so what? Either way, it won’t make any difference to what will happen in the next century.
Hey Pete,
Just wonderful news that I heard latish last night on “News Radio”, and it kept me restless for too many hours into the night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a night-club in Amsterdam, named Wot What or Watt (?) which claims to be the first totally “green” disco scene. WOW!
Among other things including waterless male urinals, they have this magic dynamic dance-floor, which via the vertical body-mass impulses from the gyrators thereon, is claimed to generate up to 2,000 watts at peak times.
As an engineer, my eyes boggle a bit at the (first-sight) potential design and investment costs etc in such a seemingly complicated under-floor mechanism, but maybe such costs at a guess could be recovered in a decade or so?
Maybe it could be applied to pedestrian bridges or moving walkways at airports and the like?
Please give us your infinite wisdom on this Pete.
Peter 2717
This is a bit of a change in tone for you. May I remind you that Hansen had to admit that he had got his algorithms wrong and 1934 was the warmest year recorded and the 1930’s were the warmest decade? All previously posted by myself and no doubt others.
It is not ‘probably’ true therefore that it is 0.4C warmer today than 1935, it is definitely completely UNTRUE. However it is undeniable that it is warmer today than at periods in the last 100 years.
The only debate that exists today that the MWP and the Roman warm period and the Holocenes etc were cooler than today comes from the mind of Dr Mann and his supporters to prop up his discredited hockey sticks and Spagetti derivatives.
Does it matter? Yes of course it does as it illustrates the earth has natural cooling and watming cycles over millenia which is even picked up in the graph I produced dating back only to 1660. This mainly covers a period we know as the Little Ice Age!
So we are barely-if at all-warmer than periods during the little ice age!
It is not a sterile arguement to belive what has happened in the past is immaterial and I will be posting a seoparate item about the basis on which the belief was formed that we are causing harm with our emissions
TonyB
TonyN and Robin, Re; Pete’s astonishingly naïve 2717
As Max put it recently, (words to the effect), “discussing anything with Pete is a bit like nailing jelly to a wall”
I think Max made an excellent analogy, but I have another one that I rather like:
“ditto …. is a bit like trying to remove an eel from the hook”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A besotted friend of mine back in the sixties took his girlfriend fishing in his small dingy, thinking it would be a delightful new bonding experience for her and he, on a lovely summer’s day. Unfortunately, he hooked an eel, but NOT a common eel, but a CONGER, (big guy). He pulled it in unthinkingly, over the side where it thrashed around his girlfriends legs, (midst screams), before he decided the best selfish thing to do, was to return it to the waters, and cut the line. Bugger the poor eel with a hook in its lip!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can guarantee from personal experience that unhooking even a smallish eel for sport is extremely difficult, if you wish to avoid killing or stunning it.
Re: 2717, Peter
It matters a lot, but not for the reasons that you seem to have in mind.
The TAR was the first IPCC report to really have an impact on policy makers and the general public, and its main selling point was that present warming is ‘unpresedented’, as demonstrated by Mann’s Hockey Stick graph. Their argument was that, as such a thing had never happened before, then it could only have an anthropogenic cause.
Superficial as this reasoning might be, the impact was enormous, not least because those of a more inquiring mind looked at what soon became the Hockey Stick controversy with horror and began to ask questions about other aspects of climate research that they might otherwise have taken on trust.
Scientifically, the MWP debate demonstrates how inadequate our knowlege of past climate is and our inability to explain pre-industrial variations in temperature.
Hi Peter,
Re MWP temperature, the graph you linked (2717) shows that the temperature anomaly in the 9th century was a bit over 0.8C over a 2000-year average baseline. (Unfortunately the late 20th century temperature anomalies were truncated from the curve.)
But we have these anomalies from the recent Hadley record. After adjustment for the two different baselines, this is approx. equal to the 1998 peak of 0.515C, and around 0.25C higher than the average over the most recent decade 1998-2008 of 0.267C.
This correlates pretty well with low end of the many other studies out there, which show a MWP temperature of 0.3C to 0.6C higher than the current peaks.
These proxy study results are all nice as background information, when there are no real facts around.
Fortunately we have historical records from all over the civilized world at the time plus physical evidence that presents itself as glaciers retreat, all of which confirm that the MWP was warmer than today.
While written records from the earlier period known as the Roman Optimum are more rare, they do exist; in addition, receding glaciers have also exposed relics from this earlier period.
Despite the plethora of “spaghetti copy-hockeysticks” out there desperately trying to rewrite history, there is no serious question that these periods were a bit warmer than our current peak.
But what does it all mean? TonyN makes a good point (2721) why it “matters a lot” whether there have been warmer periods in our history prior to the current industrial age. Why else would there have been such a scramble among AGW-believers to attempt to wipe out the MWP?
But even more significantly, TonyN makes the point:
“Scientifically, the MWP debate demonstrates how inadequate our knowledge of past climate is and our inability to explain pre-industrial variations in temperature.”
This is an area where I believe the studies being made by TonyB will shed some light.
You are right when you write, “Either way, it won’t make any difference to what will happen in the next century.”
And we do not have any earthly clue, despite all the model studies in the world, what that will be, as the past cooling of around –0.05C per decade, despite all-time record CO2 emissions and IPCC predictions of “0.2C per decade” warming (from this added CO2) have shown.
If the models can’t even get the next 10 years right, how in the world will they be able to predict “what will happen in the next century”?
They obviously cannot.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just one more point.
Mann did the AGW movement a lot of harm with his hockey stick, as TonyN has noted.
His reluctance to provide basic information to independent auditors, his attempts at “covering up”, the many spaghetti “copy” hockeysticks that have sprung up in an effort to keep his since discredited study alive, have all raised serious doubts about the objectivity and reliability of AGW climate science.
Many (like myself) who were not really skeptical of the AGW hypothesis before the hockey stick dispute, became skeptical.
And the problem is that once one finds a “soft spot” one keeps digging to look for others.
And as each new exaggeration, omission or outright error in the “climate science” supporting AGW is uncovered, the degree of skepticism rises (and the digging continues).
Mann’s sloppy work was one issue. Had he admitted that he had made some errors and that his conclusions were therefore flawed, it would have died a natural death. But the stubborn attempts by both Mann and his “believers” (Gavin Schmidt, Tamino, etc.) to revive the hockey stick have raised serious doubts about the credibility of the AGW hypothesis.
I truly believe that he (and his followers) have done immeasurable damage to the “AGW movement”.
The arrogant and blatantly one-sided approach of IPCC, especially in its reports intended for the general public and “policymakers”, have also not helped the AGW cause.
It looks like “Mother Nature” is going to give the movement the death blow (if it continues to cool off), with a bit of help from the distraction provided by the current recession, but Mann + co. certainly helped initiate and accelerate the process.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You raised a philosophical question to Brute (2704), “Maybe the AGW issue is just the tip of the iceberg? Who knows? There could be one fraud after another just waiting to be exposed.”
As sad as this may seem, you are probably correct that there are many frauds out there waiting to be exposed.
In looking for such potential “frauds”, I would start by following the “money trail”. Just like the sub-prime mortgage story, most “frauds” involve larger sums of money changing hands (or about to change hands).
The billions of dollars for taxpayer-funded “climate research”, which is being used to gather support for political measures involving hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to be shuffled around by politicians and bureaucrats, tell me that there is a lot of power to be gained (and “big bucks” to be made) from the AGW movement. The media are having a field day (and making a nice buck along the way) with their disaster predictions.
If you can find another “movement” or “cause” where hundreds of billions of dollars are potentially at stake, that would be a good place to dig to see if you can expose a fraud.
Happy digging!
Regards,
Max
TonyB,
I think you are confusing world temperatures with American temperatures. If you’d like to check either the Hadley record or the NASA/GISS record you’ll see that the figure of 0.4 deg C, for the difference between 1935 temperature as compared with recent temperatures, is probably a little the low side.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/3025139351_2e8ee88a78_o.png
http://www.scar.org/images/news/Global_Temp_2007.png
I know that our American friends sometimes think that the terms ‘America’ and ‘the world’ are interchangeable but I thought you were a Brit? I’m surprised that you should make that mistake.
Max,
If you want to emphasise the importance of the the relative temperatures of the MWP as compared to now, I think we can safely say that thanks to Loehle, we now all know that temperatures of the last decade are warmer than the warmest of the MWP.
Loehle , if you remember, is not someone I brought into the discussion. Was that Robin? Are you all going to disown him now? Is he going to become another hate figure like Mann?
And to think that it was all published in Energy and Envionment too. Thank you, Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen!