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.
TonyB
You mentioned “wave power”.
Just did some checking and saw that “wave power” (as opposed to “tide power”) has nothing to do with tidal fluctuations (as I erroneously thought), and that a modern design prototype station is being built by a Scottish firm in Portugal.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/alternative-energy/newest-alternative-energy-portugals-wave-power-plant/
But, as with all these “renewable” and “free” sources of energy, there are some strings attached.
In an earlier exchange with TonyN on this site (578/588/601/617/623/629) we discussed the pros and cons of wind generation, in the context of the T. Boone Pickens proposal for the USA (to replace natural gas as a motor fuel) as well as in the UK as part of a government mandated plan to move away from fossil fuel fired power plants.
We then expanded the discussion to include Al Gore’s proposal that the USA should replace all its fossil fuel fired power plants in the next 10 years, preferably with “renewable” sources.
The “take-home” from all of this was that the only viable large-scale replacement for fossil fired plants is nuclear. Hydroelectric is limited geographically to a few locations, as is geothermal (with today’s technology). The other “renewable” sources, such as solar/wind can cover small local requirements, but are not economically viable as large-scale replacements for fossil fuel plants, due to their high investment costs and low “on line” factor.
Optimistically, we came up with investment costs per MW generated of:
$11.7 million for solar
$5+ million for wind
compared to around $3 million for nuclear
And both solar and wind would require “backup” sources for the ~75% of the time when there is no wind or sun.
Looking at “tide” or “wave” power:
Tide power
Large scale “barrage” plant in Brittany (Rance), France
240MW nameplate capacity
68 MW average power generated (600 million KWH/year)
On-line factor = 28.3%
Investment = 95 million Euro equiv. (1960) = 140 million $ (say 360 million $ today at 2% average annual inflation)
Investment cost per mw generated = $ 5.3 million
(Roughly equal to the investment cost for “optimum large scale” wind and 1.8x the cost for nuclear)
A modern “non-barrage” plant based on newest turbine technology (proposed for Fundy Bay, USA/Canada)
6000 MW nameplate capacity
On-line factor = 30% (projected)
Investment = 2 billion $ (projected)
MW generated = 6000 * .3 = 1800
Investment cost per mw generated = $ 1.1 million
Note: These are figures from a projection and are likely to be understated, but even if the investment cost were twice the projection, this could be an attractive alternate for those few specific geographical locations that have the right geology, geography and tide conditions. Since these locations are limited, it is highly unlikely that tide power will ever represent a significant percentage of total power generation.
Wave power
Small modern plant
Full-size prototype 2.25MW
Investment = 10 million $ cost of 3 base units only, excl. installation and transmission lines
Investment (total installation) assume 1.5x cost of base units = 15 million $
On-line factor = 50% (assumed)
MW generated = 2.25 * 0.5= 1.1 MW
Investment cost per mw generated = $ 13.6 million
Assume future larger plants will benefit from economy of scale, and that a 100MW plant could be built for $250 million
On-line factor = 50% (assumed)
MW generated = 100 * 0.5= 50 MW
Investment cost per mw generated = $ 5 million
(Roughly equal to the investment cost for “optimum large scale” wind and 1.8x the cost for nuclear)
The argument can be made that the basic source of energy in wind, solar, wave or tide is “free”, so that once the investment has been made, these alternates could be very efficient and economically viable.
This may be so, but fuel cost represents <10% of the cost of nuclear power, and the “on-line” factor is above 90%, as opposed to 25-50% for the renewable sources.
It appears to me that there is no viable large-scale alternate to fossil fuel power generation today other than nuclear (fission), but who knows what the future will bring?
Nuclear power plants will probably not be the preferred answer for the many poor nations in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, due to the political instability of many of these nations and the potential for generating nuclear weapons. So I believe that it is highly likely that these nations will need to install conventional fossil fuel plants (primarily based on coal) to help lift their populations out of their current poverty, and we will see no net “reduction” in human CO2 emissions, even if the industrially developed world switches to nuclear.
But, then again, your study will likely show that human CO2 emissions are not a real problem in any case.
Just a sideline to our other discussion.
Regards,
Max
TonyB
Do you have any idea to what extent they depend on earning their funding by selling their services? And is there any chance that you could scan that advert and put it in a comment? I’m still very interested in the Met Office/Hadley/CRU conglomerate.
TonyN and TonyB
The Met Office (with or without Katie Hopkins) knows how to parse words when discussing “climate” almost as well as the absolute masters at this skill, the IPCC.
For a few years we heard that the “rate of increase” of the “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” had reached all-time highs and was both unprecedented and unequivocal, “proving” that human CO2 is causing the globe to warm.
Well, as we all know, it stopped warming somewhere around the end of the millennium, and all records show that it has, indeed, been cooling since 2001.
So now we no longer hear about the “rate of increase” of the “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (because there isn’t any; there is a “rate of decrease”, which could be discussed, but obviously is not).
We now hear of the absolute anomaly rather than its rate of increase: we read of “another top ten year”.
AGW theory is not based on the same concepts as “zero based budgeting”, where one starts off at zero for each new cycle. The absolute value of the temperature anomaly is meaningless, just as the absolute value of sea level tells us nothing.
The only thing that really counts is the rate of change. If this is strongly positive or even accelerating we can talk about “global warming” (and then debate the causes).
If the rate of change is negative (as it has been for the past 8 years) there is nothing to talk about except “global cooling” (and its possible causes).
“Another top ten year” discussions are a good sign that the Met Office is getting nervous and trying to keep the discussion away from the real issue, i.e. the “rate of change” of global temperature.
It’s sort of like the old song, “Ya gotta accentuate the positive and e-liminate the negative…” (Too bad about Katie, though…)
Regards,
Max
A philosophical question for PeterM.
While NSIDC does publish up-dated monthly Arctic sea ice extent figures, their long range studies all end in 2007.
I hope they can update their records to include 2008, the year of “unprecedented” recovery of the sea ice following a year of “unprecedented” loss of sea ice that was widely reported and hailed as evidence of increasing AGW.
Is this dramatic recovery a sign that the IPCC efforts to awaken awareness to AGW in the general public have been successful?
Should Pachauri take a bow for this apparent success?
Maybe IPCC and their Bali boondoggles are doing some good, after all…
Just some food for thought, Peter.
Regards,
Max
TonyN
Re the Met office conglomeration
http://www.cief.org.uk/pdf/worksnote_cief_120204.pdf
This from the above link re their move to Exeter (from Bracknell) in 2002/3. Their turnover in 2000 was around £150 million, I understand it is currently £175. Their brief was to break their dependence on the MOD.
“The move to Exeter and the design of the new building will enhance our image as a world leading scientific organisation, and reinforce our reputation as a leading provider of first-class environmental services”
Of course they fund a climate chair at Exeter University
http://www.secam.ex.ac.uk/index.php?nav=189&sid=448
who hosted a climate conference recently with all the worlds leading climate scientists, as I reported on here several months ago. Their ‘chair’ worked at Hadley.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
From the above link go to ‘about us’ then ‘jobs and careers’ and the corporate analyst position I described- plus many more- are advertised.
Also go to services (business) and then ‘consulting’ where their whole suite of ‘environmental’ services are shown.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/verification/target.html
This shows expected business profit of £7 million
The link below goes to an excellent report highlighting the way ahead for Hadley which I believe has been adopted.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/pdf/hadleycentrereview0507.pdf
As far as we can tell locally it is the climate change aspect that is getting a high profile as the ‘Hadley’ brand is built. I often tangle with Prof Cox- the Exeter Uni ‘chair’ -in the local paper, challenging some of the stuff he produces- obviously as a proxy for Hadley.
Coincidentally, prior to moving here I lived near Bracknell where the previous Met office buildings were located. They were very run down. I went round it several times with business groups and once was treated to a lecture by a very senior and prominent expert -who shall remain nameless- on constructing Global temperatures. That is why I remain sceptical about them to this day…
Is there anything else I can find out for you as a ‘local?’
TonyB
I posted this message on TonyN’s other site concerning IPCC, in response to PeterM’s lead article:
Peter, I believe it is a bit simplistic and naïve to suggest that the IPCC was set up by the “Reagan administration in the USA” to “fail” as you indicate that Spencer Weart of the Institute of Physics may have opined.
The role of the IPCC is clearly defined in item 2 of its document “Principles Governing IPCC Work”,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”
You will note that its role is not to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding changes of climate per se or to understanding non-human-induced climate change. Its role has been defined to assess the “risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”.
By definition, if IPCC cannot demonstrate that there is, indeed, a “scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” with some significant “potential impacts” on our world, there is no reason for the IPCC to continue to exist.
I am sure that you will agree that essentially all bureaucratic committees have one thing in common: they want to continue to exist. They do not want to disband or die for lack of a valid reason to exist. In other words, their “raison d’être” must be validated.
Therefore, it is logical that the IPCC should undertake everything possible to demonstrate (a) that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change”, (b) that “its potential impacts” are significant enough to warrant serious attention by the world’s “policymakers” and (c) that there are “options for adaptation and mitigation”.
This motivation of self-preservation sets the stage for “agenda driven science”: if the underlying “science” demonstrates a “risk of human-induced climate change” of significant “potential impact”, it is embraced enthusiastically; if, on the other hand, the “science” demonstrates that there is no risk of human-induced climate change of any significant impact, it is rejected, ignored or simply not accepted as relevant. There are many examples of this in the latest IPCC reports, which I will be very glad to demonstrate, if you are truly interested.
If one reads the IPCC reports, in particular the more “political” reports intended for (non-scientific) “policymakers”, this becomes very apparent. “Human-induced climate change” is projected to cause increased floods, droughts, heavy precipitation events, tropical cyclones, heat waves, extreme weather events, melting of ice sheets with resulting accelerated sea level rise and extreme high sea levels, without any sound scientific bases for any of these projections.
Your rationalization that there were hidden “political reasons” on the part of (U.S.) “conservatives” to create an IPCC doomed to failure from the start are speculative, conjectural and unsubstantiated.
What’s even more important, Peter, they are totally irrelevant.
IPCC exists today. It has an “agenda” (supported indirectly by a very large budget funded by tax-payers). This “agenda” is to continue to exist by convincing the world at large (and particularly the political and bureaucratic “policymakers” who will influence the budget) (a) that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change”, (b) that “its potential impacts” are significant enough to warrant serious attention by the world’s “policymakers” and (c) that there are “options for adaptation and mitigation”.
Seems pretty simple to me, Peter.
If you can counter the logic in this assertion, please do so.
Regards,
Max
TonyN: Please keep comments on Peter’s guest post off this thread as I asked in #2759.
For you guys that have not yet “tuned in” to TonyN’s other recent site on “The Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate”, with a very interesting and thoughtful lead article by our friend on this site, Peter Martin, here is the link:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=124
Max
Re “Wind-farms“,
Sorry if I ruffled some feathers with my outrageous comments above, but what really caught my eye was the following. (Robin’s 2752).
A few years ago, however, the Danish Economic Council conducted a full evaluation of the wind turbine industry, taking into account not only its beneficial effects on jobs and production, but also the subsidies that it receives. The net effect for Denmark was found to be a small cost, not benefit.
I’ve only kept my ear half-cocked to this topic, but IF that study was an unbiased realistically costed and weighted process, then I thought it had interesting implications. (e,g. WRT potential cost effectiveness improvements with increased scale etc.)
And yes, I agree that the location of “wind-farms” needs to be aesthetically considered.
Last I was in the San Francisco area in the 80’s, I was always impressed, (thought they were beautiful), when seeing from the highway, a great long array of turbines along a hill-crest.
On the other hand, when in England recently, particularly in my beloved Dorset, I was relieved to see nary a turbine. I would have been truly irritated to see any on St. Albans Head , or along those magic walks from Lulworth Cove! (I might have become quite cross!)
There is also the NIMBY issue of course, and for instance, the sculptural grace of a turbine in my own back yard might wear-off for me after the passage of some time
Yet in Oz, people live in houses almost underneath those hideous power transmission pylons/lines, and even under the flight-paths close to international airports!
Re the Swiss yacht squadron;
Those pesky Kiwi’s!
They have just a short while ago, bowled-out the Aussies on the first day of the first cricket ‘Test Match’ in Brisbane, for a rather modest Oz score.
However, we can thank them for the popularity of ‘kiwi fruit’, the Haka at rugby games, and for diminishing the possession of the ‘Americas cup’ urn by the NY yacht club.
They also have a highly commendable Climate Science Coalition…. One of the best I think @
http://nzclimatescience.net/
Thought this was interesting re ice cores
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/two-mile-deep-antarctic-ice-core-reveals-stupidity-of-agw-catastrophism/
TonyB
Re: #2828, Max
You have probably seen this, but if not the sentence in bold here is interesting, particularly in view of what TonyB says in #2830 about the Met Office’s commercial activities:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070202.html
I notice that that the Met Office has not had anything to share with the press about October GMT. Presumably the Hadley/CRU output failed to match NASA’s estimate (either original or corrected) once again. Or maybe they just want to keep their heads down until GMTs become a little less controversial.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070202.html
Re: #2830, TonyB
Many thanks for that. I’ll chomp my way through it in detail later today
Re #2833, Bob
You may find that Dorset has changed next time you visit:
http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/planning.asp
And even if there are no turbines at Lulworth, there may well be plenty to look at out to sea. The government plans for renewables by 2020 includes a further 7000 offshore turbines distributed around the whole UK coast. And that isn’t a typo for 700 or 70!)
TonyN
In the link above re Hadley I hadn’t noticed the position for ‘strategic marketing director’ which says it all about their ambitions.
As the Met office say they value ‘diversity’ should I apply on the basis that I dont agree with their views on AGW, or do you think diversity of views isnt included???
TonyB
Re TonyN 2836
Yep. Climate can be BIG business (as long as one can keep the fear of ”potentially rapid and dramatic [anthropogenic] climate change” alive and in the awareness of politicians and the general public).
“Met Office climate consultancy” sounds like a great revenue generator that could rival the pre-Enron-collapse “Arthur Anderson” consulting group.
I particularly liked Dr. Woods’ self-congratulatory “pat on the back”, and not-so-hidden appeal for funding for new supercomputers:
“Great advances in climate change research have been made by the Met Office in recent years, but there are still major challenges ahead. In particular, there is a need for detailed regional information to help decision-makers in government and business plan for and adapt to potentially rapid and dramatic climate change. In order to do this we need to combine our first-class science with increasingly powerful supercomputers.”
Follow the money trail…
Max
More here on the German Chancellor’s statement that “measures to cut greenhouse gases shouldn’t weigh on the economy”.
TonyB
This may be of interest to you:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle
Follows the Keeling / IPCC party line on human impact, but gives some good info on the natural carbon cycle, including some hypotheses for the “missing sink”.
Some general comments:
Based on an essentially balanced cycle between photosynthesis and respiration / plant decay / forest fires, but does concede that photosynthesis may have increased with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and slightly warmer average temperatures. An increase in photosynthesis of 6% is mentioned.
The estimate of this annual CO2 cycle is around 110 GtC, so a 6% increase would roughly represent close to 90% of the annual human emissions from fossil fuels (7.5 GtC).
Assumes that surface oceans absorb a net 2 Gt/year more carbon than they emit (due to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations), but provides no real supporting evidence that this assumption is correct. Does not consider the impact of slightly warmer temperatures on this exchange.
Does not show an exchange between the estimated 800 Gt upper ocean and the 40,000 Gt deep ocean.
Also does not mention any exchange between marine sediments and sedimentary rocks and the ocean, oceanic life or the atmosphere. At an estimated 66,000,000 to 100,000,000 GtC these sediments represent a major carbon sink.
Assumes that there are 4,000 GtC in the remaining fossil fuels on Earth. This is roughly three times the amount of optimistically estimated total recoverable fossil fuels (approx. 1,400 Gt).
Cites some sources that may be worth following up.
Regards,
Max
Max #2839
Thanks for your post re cO2.
I also posted the original question elsewhere and was graced by a reply from Eli Rabbett himself who linked to his site.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/06/doc-martyn-gets-boots-with-box-model.html
I am getting this uncomfortable feeling that no one has the faintest idea as to how much carbon is out there, where it is located and how quickly it goes from source to sink.
Everything ultimately seems to get back to the IPCC figures.
Is it me or is there more uncertainty about this subject than should be expected?
TonyB
Note to TonyB
Here’s another factor that may have been overlooked.
One of the variables that has apparently not been studied in any great detail is the natural CO2 cycle between photosynthesis and respiration, plant decay and forest fires.
Based on a 1999 study by Soon et al. entitled “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide” (Clim. Res., v.13, no.2, pp.149-164), de Freitas shows the impact of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on photosynthesis. An enrichment of around 65 ppmv as we have seen since Mauna Loa measurements started in 1958 should cause a growth enhancement (i.e. increased photosynthesis) of somewhere around 10 to 15%.
The “guesstimates” that are floating around out there tell us that this cycle is somewhere around 110 GtC per year, so that a 10 to 15% increase in atmospheric CO2 absorption by photosynthesis should result in 11 to 16 GtC per year “removed” from the atmosphere.
Note that this does not include any growth enhancement from the slightly increased global temperatures, which (although significantly smaller) could add another percent.
The point here is that this one small change, which has occurred over the past 50 years, represents a net increase in the annual carbon sink that is 1.5 to 2 times the total annual amount of carbon emitted by humans.
Max
IMPORTANT – EVERYONE
JohnA, CA’s original webmaster, has very kindly tweaked a php file, which I wouldn’t have dared lay a finger on, and as a result it is now possible to use in-line images on this thread. So instead of just using links to graphs etc, you can now display them as part of your comment.
Here’s what you will need to do:
1. Move the mouse cursor over the image that you want to use.
2. Right click and then select ‘Copy image location’.
3. Return to the comment input form at Harmless Sky.
4. Click on the form to indicate where you want the image to appear.
5. Click on the ‘Img’ button above the form.
6. Paste the image location into the first box that appears
7. Paste the image location again into the second box that appears
8. That’s it.
The image may not appear in the preview window, but it should appear in your comment when you submit it.
You do not need to use the image location in the alternative name box, you could use anything that you want, but this will ensure that you will be posting the link even if the image fails to appear.
Some images may be so large that they spill out of the comment area of the window. This will not break the page, but it may make scrolling necessary when viewing the image. If it becomes a problem, then we may have to think again. It may be best to avoid very large images.
Please try to use this feature. Apart from making comments more comprehensible to casual visitors, it should also add a touch of cheerful colour to the thread. Don’t worry if things go seriously wrong, I will probably notice and make edits.
More examples can be found here; scroll down.
Hi TonyB,
This interesting paper on the CO2 cycle is cited by de Freitas:
Regards,
Max
TonyN
Does it only work with certain images? I dont get ‘copy image location’ as any of the possible actions. I even tried to copy one of John A’s images.
Max
The link looks interesting I will have a good read!
TonyB
Max
In the paper you cite the guy says exacly what I posted independently here a few weeks ago!
“Callendar (1940, 1958) selected atmospheric CO2 data from the 19th and 20th centuries. Fonselius et al. (1956) showed that the raw data ranged randomly between about 250 and 550 ppmv (parts per million by volume) during this time period, but by selecting the data carefully Callendar was able to present a steadily rising trend from about 290 ppmv for the period 1866 – 1900, to 325 ppmv in 1956.
Callendar was strongly criticized by Slocum (1955), who pointed out a strong bias in Callendar’s data selection method. Slocum pointed out that it was statistically impossible to find a trend in the raw data set, and that the total data set showed a constant average of about 335 ppmv over this period from the 19th to the 20th century. Bray (1959) also criticized the selection method of Callendar, who rejected values 10% or more different from the “general average”, and even more so when Callendar’s “general average” was neither defined nor given”.
I posted the Slocum report previously and there is no doubt he was highly sceptical of Callandar, who was an amateur with no training in statistics.
I have traced the history of all this month by month as it developed through 1954/55, and it is clear that Callandar badly wanted to believe in man made warming, although he had no shred of evidece to support it. He concocted the data to suit his belief and in Keelings own words, greatly influenced him. Keeling had no knowledge of the history of past measurements and as a young, inexperienced person in his first job he just accepted the historic levels he was given by Callandar. This appeared to support his own readings in 1958-that co2 levels were rising and it was mans fault.
The earliest study I can find that Keeling himself made was;
“The Concentration and isotopic abundances of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (june 1960)”
If Callandar had chosen to try to disprove man made warming he could just as easily have selected much more compelling figures that averaged 335ppm.
TonyB
Note to TonyB
Thanks for your very interesting 2845 (Callendar/Slocum).
There is another major (largely unknown) variable in our carbon balance.
The solubility of CO2 in sea water is apparently lower than that in fresh water, but varies strongly with the temperature.
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200501/000020050104A0896701.php
It is easy to imagine how cold surface ocean waters in the higher latitudes (north and south) could absorb large quantities of atmospheric CO2 to either be absorbed by phytoplankton through increased photosynthesis, circulated to deeper colder layers, where they stay indefinitely as a miniscule addition to the estimated 40,000 GtC in the lower ocean or to be circulated to warmer waters nearer the equator, where the CO2 would again be released to the atmosphere.
The effect on this balance of a few tenths of degree warming over a century of the “will-o’-the-wisp” concept called the “annual globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” is not very clear to conceptualize, except to say that warmer ocean temperatures should theoretically decrease the net amount of atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the oceans.
Are the oceans “net” absorbers of atmospheric CO2 as currently assumed?
Will they remain “net” absorbers if the atmosphere warms by a few tenths of a degree C (which appeared to be the case in the early and latter 20th century)?
Will they remain “net” absorbers if the oceans warm by a few tenths of a degree C (which appears not to be the case today, based on latest Argo satellite measurements)?
It appears that paleoclimate studies have demonstrated that long-term warming of the atmosphere and oceans has resulted in an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, with a lag of several centuries.
I have not seen any convincing “net” CO2 material balance between the atmosphere and the oceans, despite the IPCC suggestion of a projected future “positive feedback” to atmospheric CO2 concentrations and resulting added global warming of more than 1 degree C (by year 2100) from this stronger model-projected “climate-carbon cycle feedback” resulting from reduced ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2 due to projected warming of the oceans.
Hard data based on physical observations are required, rather than just “climate model projections”. Unfortunately these hard data do not exist.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyN
Thanks for input on how to attach a graph directly to a post.
Just for the helluvit I’m going to try this with the 1990s and 21st century “globally averaged land and sea surface and lower tropospheric temperature anomalies” (whew!) of Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH. Let’s see if I got it.
http://
Max,
I’m afraid that your graphing skills have not improved as much as I had given you credit for. I’d asked for a plot of temperatures in the early nineties. So you lose quite a few marks for not paying attention there :-)
If you had concentrated on this time span, you would have seen that it was a period of quite pronounced cooling. Much more noticeable any supposed cooling that has occurred in the last decade. Even you are only claiming a cooling of 0.05 deg C, whereas the Hadley Centre are saying that the warming trend continues.
If you had plotted out what I asked, you would have noticed the early nineties cooling. I’m just wondering what you would have said in 1995 or 1996? Or even what you actually did say at this time? Would you have claimed that AGW was dead, buried, and shown up to be a complete fraud?
Of course you would. That is what exactly what you are saying now, isn’t it? And, you would have been just as wrong then as you are are now.
Here’s a strange thing: politicians (including Peter Lilley, my Member of Parliament) talking sense on climate change. A quotation:
Whatever next?