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.
Hi Peter,
Don’t forget the last 10 months’ data if you want to see latest trend(that would be cherry-picking, right?)
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
Your comment with curve from Phil Jones is funny.
Back when there really was global warming, “good ol’ Phil’ warned us of accelerating warming trends (which would have us all being fried in a few short 100 years or so if they continue, as the models predict they undoubtedly will).
Now that global warming has stopped (even if Peter hasn’t gotten the word yet), Phil no longer talks about warming trends. He now gives us double-talk about the year 2007 as the “seventh warmest year on record”. Huh?
Now if 2008 ends up with an annual anomaly equal to the current 10-month average of around 0.30C, this will be 0.10C colder than 2007, 0.18C colder than 2005 and 0.31C colder than the record year, 1998.
In order to “fog up” the fact that it is cooling out there, good ol’ Phil will probably warn us that this definitely “colder” year was the “tenth warmest year on record”. And true AGW-believers like Peter will fall for this double-talk.
Regards,
Max
A mind-twister for Peter and Bob_FJ
Put away your fancy charts for a moment and try to imagine: Back in the happier horse and buggy days (Brits may refer to the period as “Victorian”, although those who are less “Anglocentric” might refer to the “time of Hawaiian King Kamehameha” or “of the greater Zimbabwe Mwene (Emperor) Dzuda”) there were some who already feared that mankind was going to warm our planet through increased CO2 from unbridled fossil fuel combustion sparked by the (evil) Industrial Revolution (obviously a British phenomenon) and man’s blatant disregard for “our planet”.
Let’s say that one of the supporters of this brand new theory was a pioneer English meteorologist, we’ll refer to as “Grandpappy Jones”.
Jones had been following temperatures closely through the record-breaking warming period from 1858 to 1879. He had warned that we were indeed headed for big trouble, as the observed warming rate of 0.172C per decade was both “unequivocal” and “unprecedented”. By 1879 there had already been linear warming of almost 0.4C over 1858, and things looked grim for humanity, according to Jones.
People started listening to Jones who used the latest technology of the time to make dire forecasts for the future.
But then a strange thing happened. Despite Karl Benz’ first gasoline driven “horseless carriage” and other rapidly following copies, global temperatures began to drop.
What could Jones do to keep people from noticing this cooling trend?
Ah-ha! The answer was simple: Switch from talking about the “unprecedented warming trend” to talking about “record warm years”.
So during the 30+ year cooling trend that started around 1879, Jones reported each year: 1881 became the “second warmest year since records began”, 1882 the “third warmest”, 1883 the “fourth warmest” and so on, until by year 1910 (the “thirty-first warmest year”, when temperature had dropped a full 0.3C below the year 1879 reading, the cooling trend finally stopped and warming resumed.
Unfortunately for Jones, he had retired long before things started warming again.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 2900 to Bob_FJ and me, where you gave me a fancy hat.
Hey, you lucky guys in Oz are headed for a nice cool summer this year but it’s getting cold here in Switzerland now that “global warming” has stopped. Winter hasn’t even really started yet, and we’re up to our eyeballs in snow already, and it’s cold enough to freeze you-know-what off of a brass kangaroo.
So, if you are going to give me a nice hat, make sure that it is fur-lined and also comes with some clip-on ear muffs (see pic).
Regards,
Max
Max
Thats a nice hat-perhaps we can order about 50 -one for each of the climate scientists at the IPCC
TonyB
( I knew TonyN shouldn’t have told you lot how to post graphics!!
Peter,
Look at your own graph, start at 1910 end at 1945, see the temperature incline, now go to 1975 onwards, notice any significant alteration in the incline, there isn`t one. CO2 I believe has been pumped into the atmosphere by man at unprecedented levels since the 60`s yet there appears to be NO increase in the rate of warming from 1975 to the present, take away UHI and the incline is less. During that period the sun`s energy output has been at it`s highest level for 1150 years and the PDO has also been in it`s warm phase, yet no increase in the rate of warming. Now there is cooling, if CO2 is the driver where is the evidence.
Peter, high levels of CO2 + very active sun + PDO warm phase = same rate of warming as the 1910 to 1945 warming, CO2 has made NO difference, if you turn the gas up the water boils faster. If the warming trend from 1975 had been more severe than the earlier warming there would be some evidence linking CO2 with this later warming but there is none.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/co2vtemp.jpg
Peter, common sense would indicate that if CO2 were the driver the temperature post 1975 should have risen more sharply than pre 1945, especially as already mentioned with a very active sun and a warm PDO.
1945 : 305 ppm of CO2
2006 : 388 ppm of CO2
Hi TonyB,
I agree we should magnanimously order one fancy fur-lined dunce hat for each of the IPCC climatologists (plus one for Peter).
But, according to Dr. Pachauri, wouldn’t that be 2,500 (+ 1) hats, rather than only 50?
Please let me know the “head count” before I send the order to China, where they will be produced.
Thanks.
Max
Max
I said one for each climate scientist-not researchers, helpers, oxfam representatives, Greenpeace activists, insurance assessors, engineers and the like. Fifty should do comfortably.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Rob (2906) has brought up a very salient point concerning early 20th century (pre-anthropogenic CO2) warming versus late 20th century (post-anthropogenic CO2) warming, which may have escaped your attention.
You may recall that this apparent dilemma for AGW-aficionados has been mentioned previously on this site by others.
It does, however, bring to mind an extremely clever IPCC graph (in its AR4 report) purporting to explain how warming has accelerated in the late 20th century (due to AGW, of course), which I will show below, using the technology provided by TonyN (sorry for cluttering up your site, TonyN).
Below this scientific graph I will post another one (equally as silly as the IPCC graph), which demonstrates the point made by Rob (2906) that early 20th century warming (without the benefit of human CO2) was actually more rapid (and therefore more alarming) than the entire 20th century warming (with all those SUVs and record human CO2 emissions), and that we have (thank God!) been able to slow down the AGW threat despite higher CO2 emissions.
Just something to think about, Peter, as you put on your fur-lined hat in anticipation of a bit of cooling for the next few deacades.
Regards,
Max
The second curve is attached
Max
Note to Tony B,
Thanks for info on “head count”. The order is in for 51 fur-lined hats with clip-on ear muffs (as specified).
Due to global economic slowdown, we got a special price from Guangdong Province manufacturer with guaranteed delivery before first major (-10°C frost) in London.
Regards,
Max
Hi, manacker,
It is the first time I have seen this “clever” IPCC graph, The trends are hilarious, who are they meant to convince, surely not the general public, they would just drop a line through 1910 to 1945 as you have, it must be for the likes of Peter and the dumb politicians. Active sun + warm 30 year PDO + rising CO2 = less steep warming trend. I wonder why they left out the 1910 to 1945 trend line. You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Note to Bob_FJ, Brute, JZSmith, Rob, Robin Guenier, TonyB, Tony N and other well-meaning contributors to this site who have been skeptical of “imminent AGW tipping points that will soon destroy our planet”.
Due to the current economic slowdown, we have not been able to include you in our order for the fur-lined, ear muff enhanced dunce caps (as originally conceived by PeterM and subsequently enhanced by myself to correspond to latest climate developments), which will be supplied to the 50 IPCC climatologists (estimate by TonyB) plus Peter as a “mitigating” move in anticipation of continued global cooling.
We suggest that you try increased combustion of (currently attractively priced) fossil fuels to keep warm during these trying times.
Sorry for this inconvenience, but we hope you will understand.
Max
Rob,
The rate of temperature increase with CO2 concentration is not linear but logarithmic. This means that the increases in CO2 levels up to the 1940’s , even though they are smaller than the increase since, have had proportionately more effect.
If the mean point IPCC estimate of [2 x CO2] (doubling of CO2) is taken, 3 deg C , the increase in temperature due to increasing CO2 levels will be given to a good approximation by:
T = 10 log ([co2]1/[co2]2) where [co2] is the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
This means the increase from:
280ppmv to 305ppmv (1940 level) will produce an increase in temperature of 0.4deg C
280ppmv to 388ppmv (2007 level) will produce an increase in temperature of 1.4deg C
It is not correct to assume that the early 20th warming was completely independent from increases in CO2 levels, although, there were other factors involved too. In the later 20th century, again, other factors were involved. Particulates can cause a cooling. There is also a time delay. A kettle doesn’t boil immediately it is placed on a stove, for example.
This means that temperatures will still increase, even if CO2 levels remain constant.
Pete,
Further to Max’s 2902, I would like to add that when another 35 days have passed, it will become 2009 AD, and thus Giss & Hadley will be formulating their reports panting with excitement and anticipation ASAP after that. All the indications are that 2008 should show a significant dip on their calamity graphs especially O’er your presentation from GISS in your 2900, (ending in 2006?). However we will have to wait and see how they spin it.
Meanwhile, I would like to continue with your education on some elementary matters of science, which seem to have you confused. First of all, please carefully study the following graph adaptation after yours, which in part probably better shows what you were attempting to show way-up above….. (just removing the obvious errors, re my 2887.)
<a href=”
” title=”Pete AA by fj_bob, on Flickr”>
Problems with moving average smoothing include that the time span or point numbers, and weighting/filtering, if any, are purely arbitrary, and with thousands of options. However, it sounds better in a technical report, if some mathematical option is somehow selected,(without justification), rather than applying human judgement, and saying; “Intuitively, we think this smooths out to: etc. OK, so let’s accept that technical etiquette requires, some mathematical treatment. The main problem is that it all falls apart at the end of the data set, which, unfortunately, is typically the most important area TBD.
Perhaps you could refer again to my 2891, and notice the hesitance of Hadley in 2008 to judgementally continue the broken blue line, versus dear ol’ Phil in 2006.
Ok, now take a close look at the graph above, and see if you can suggest where that green line should extend, and if its lead-in is relevant, regardless that 2008 should drive it even lower, when it becomes available.
Are you getting it yet? Don’t hesitate to ask if not.
I was going to set you some additional homework, but perhaps that might be too much for you on one post, so could you please attend to the above first.
Pete,
Further my 2915,
Upon reflection, the following graphical comparison MAY, in a supplementary way, help you to understand what I said in 2915.
However, I won’t pressurise the issue by setting your homework that I intended on it at this time
<a href=”
” title=”Petes A&B by fj_bob, on Flickr”>
Good luck Pete, I’m just trying to help you to understand the science.
Max, Reur 2913:
You wrote in part collectively to various rationalists on this site:
Don’t worry Max; we do not expect you to resolve all of the world’s problems, even with the help of your past contacts in China!
Speaking for the Antipodes, whilst we have had quite a lot of weather down here recently, especially along the East Coast, we are coping OK. My five-star-efficient gas-space-heater, (in the far SE: Melbourne), has been working quite well over the past week or so, but ‘tis warmer today and now in OFF mode, as from late morning.
Two (?) days ago, I watched in horror as amazing hail was bouncing off my pride camper vehicle, worrying particularly about my ~$1000 solar-cell thingy on the roof, and the dog trembled in terror at the noise. And, keeping it brief, there was other stuff around like unusual snow. (in Victoria & NSW)
I do have a rather good polar fleece ski-beanie, (an OK après ski hat), which will probably be adequate for a few future Oz winters. However, I worry about Pete, because there has been a lot of weather around Brisbane too recently.
There was HUGE disruption up there with fallen trees and stuff, and prolonged big power-outs, (according to “the news”) Even the military were called-in to help Queensland!
Anyhow, Pete seems to have escaped…… Maybe he had a good quality “Hard Hat”?
Hi Peter,
Sorry for cutting into your “AGW 101 lecture” to Rob, but you got some parts wrong, so I’ll fill in the correct answers below:
Theoretical greenhouse warming from added CO2 is logarithmic, so you got that part right.
You missed on the amount of warming, though.
Let’s start with the long-term look.
The Hadley record shows a total linear warming of around 0.7C over the 158 –year period from 1850 to 2008. This represents an average linear rate of increase of 0.043C per decade over the entire period.
Based on IPCC and Mauna Loa, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 285 ppmv in 1850 (C1) and 386 ppmv in 2008 (C2), so there was an increase of 101 ppmv.
The ratio of C2 / C1 = 386 / 285 = 1.354
IPCC (Myhre et al.) tells us that the theoretical radiative forcing from CO2 should be 5.35 times the logarithm of the C2 / C1 ratio = 5.35 * 1.354 = 1.623 W/m²
[Note: IPCC figures this radiative forcing to be 1.66 W/m², based on a starting point of year 1750 with 280 ppmv CO2 and an end point of year 2005 with 379 ppmv.]
IPCC further tells us that the theoretical warming from all other greenhouse gases is roughly offset by theoretical cooling expected from land use changes and aerosols (so we can forget these).
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation we divide the radiative forcing by:
4 * 5.67E-08 * (T³) (where T = average temperature in °Kelvin = 15°C + 273.16 = 288.16°K), or 5.427, in order to calculate the theoretical dT
dT = 1.623 / 5.427 = 0.3°K (= 0.3°C) warming from CO2 over 158 year period.
We see from many studies by solar scientists that the latter 20th century was a period of unusually high solar activity (highest for several thousand years), and that this increased activity resulted in an estimated increase in temperature of around 0.35°C (average value of nine studies ranging from 0.2 to 0.5°C).
So on a long-term basis we have accounted for the total warming experienced from 1850 to 2008.
[Note that this probably just means that the many other not yet fully understood factors that affect our climate cancelled each other out over this 158-year period.]
The warming did not occur in a smooth increase (as did the increase in atmospheric CO2), but rather in two periods of warming with periods of cooling in between.
There is no clearly observed correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature for these periods:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/3049644317_b5460e9c9e_b.jpg
You wrote: “This means that the increases in CO2 levels up to the 1940’s, even though they are smaller than the increase since, have had proportionately more effect.”
This statement is correct, but it should be quantified to avoid any confusion.
Using the same formula at before:
C1 = CO2 concentration in 1910 = 294 ppmv
C2 = CO2 concentration in 1944 = 309 ppmv
ln (C2 / C1) = ln (294/309) = 0.0498
C1 = CO2 concentration in 1976 = 334 ppmv
C2 = CO2 concentration in 2000 = 370 ppmv
ln (C2 / C1) = ln (370/334) = 0.1024
So the 1976-2000 warming from CO2 should have been (0.1024 / 0.0498) =
Slightly more than 2 times the 1910-1944 warming from CO2.
Yet the early 20th century warming period 1910-1944 saw a linear temperature increase of 0.53°C, while the late 20th century warming period 1976-2000 saw a linear increase of 0.37°C, so there is obviously something at work here other than just CO2.
In between and in the 19th century there were cooling periods that cancelled out around 0.4°C of the cumulated warming over the entire period.
There is a reasonable correlation between CO2 and temperature for the period 1976-2000 (major increase in CO2, rapid warming). In fact the warming correlates real well with the theory, when taking into account that most of the solar warming occurred in the later 20th century.
There is less of a correlation for the period 1910-1944 (minor increase in CO2, rapid warming).
There is even less of a correlation for the late 19th century warming (essentially no increase in CO2, rapid warming).
There is absolutely no correlation for the period 1944-1976 (accelerated increase in CO2 with cooling).
There is also absolutely no correlation for the current 21st century cooling period 2001-2008 (all-time record increase in CO2 with cooling).
So you are correct in saying that the long-range (1850-2008) correlation and the late 20th century (1976-2000) correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature both seem to check fairly well (when including the solar effect and forgetting about any hypothetical model-based feedbacks from water, clouds, etc.).
Other multi-decadal periods do not check too well.
Regards,
Max
PS Forget the “tea kettle” time lag voodoo. We’ve shot that one down several posts ago.
Images have certainly added colour and interest to this thread, but one can have too much of a good thing.
I don’t know much about Flickr, but several of you seem to use this site to host images you want to display. I assume that it provides facilities for re-sizing, and it might be worth reducing the ones you link to down to around 1000 pixels width. If this makes the detail harder to read, then if you include a hotlink too, viewers can access the larger image if they need to. If Flickr makes it possible to create thumbnails, then that would be worth exploring too.
This is not a plea to stop using in-line images, just a suggestion for making them a little more orderly.
A PS to #2919
If you want to do some experimenting out of the public eye then use the Admin thread: link in LH sidebar under categories.
Message to Rob and Peter
In the first report of 1991, IPCC predicted, “Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other … scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2°C [to] about 0.1°C per decade.”
As we now know, there were no “increasing levels of controls” and human CO2 emissions kept growing from 1991 to 2008, where they now stand at an all-time record level.
So the 1991 IPCC prediction was for 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade (with a mean of 0.3°C per decade). By the year 2100 the mid-range estimate was a warming to 3.55°C (based on the Hadley anomaly).
The actual decadal rate of increase turned out to be 0.17°C. Over the past eight years it has even stopped warming.
IPCC didn’t do too well. By 1995 their forecast was off by 0.12°C, in the all-time record El Niño year 1998, they caught up, but by 2000 the discrepancy had risen to 0.31°C. In another strong El Niño year 2005 the discrepancy was 0.22°C, but by the La Niña year 2008 the discrepancy had risen to 0.48°C. This may not sound like much, but when we compare it to the 0.7°C warming of the entire 20th century, it represents an error equal to 2/3 of this total net warming in 18 years (from 1991 to 2008).
The curves show how IPCC has come down with their forecasts with each report, but are still significantly above the actual warming trend.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/3061103689_b357f9ffd1_b.jpg
If we start from today’s actual value and project the same rate of warming we have actually seen over the past century, we should have a warming to around 0.86°C by the year 2100 (0.56°C above today’s value).
This projection assumes that we will continue to recover from the Little Ice Age as we have in the past, and that the solar scientists (who predict a sharp cooling over the next decades due to an inactive sun) are incorrect.
This makes a lot more sense to me than the inflated computer-generated IPCC forecasts that never come true.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin says:
Rob,
The rate of temperature increase with CO2 concentration is not linear but logarithmic. This means that the increases in CO2 levels up to the 1940’s , even though they are smaller than the increase since, have had proportionately more effect.
Peter I understand that, I also understand that the foundations to the argument of human caused catastrophic global warming is NOT increased levels of CO2 alone but CO2`s link to the major green house gas water vapor. This I believe should have made it`s presence felt from 1945 to the present, the slope of the warming trend should have been steeper from 1975 to 2008 if the theory is correct. Without water vapor as a significant positive feed back there can surely be NO catastrophic warming, CO2 cannot do it on it`s own.
The increase in CO2 in the 20th century has been nothing other than a huge benefit to mankind, the small temperature rise if any is neither here or there.
I still believe that UHI will dispose of most of the ground based temperature increase since the early 70`s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
There is a very interesting debate going on at wattsup regarding ENSO and the general impact of the oceans on our climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/#comments
Whether they are a sink or source for our co2 is dependent on ocean temperatures and similarly whether they are in warm or cool mode is a fundamental driver of our climate
The graphs and calculations are particularly intersting.
TonyB
Max,
There was about the same warming in the two periods you mention of about half a degree. I don’t want to have to post up the same graph yet again to prove it.
And no one is saying either that CO2 was the only factor causing the early 20th century warming. However, it is not negligably small. The kettle has had longer to sit on the stove and we have actually seen the temperature rise in the records.
CO2 rose (or is projected to rise) from 317 to 384 ppm between 1960 and 2010. Applying my formula, which uses a figure of 3 deg C for the 2xCO2 factor.
T rise = 10 x log (384/317) = 0.66 degs
This works out at 0.166 deg C per decade. What was you claimed measured figure?
0.17deg C per decade. It seems a pretty good correlation to me.
My formula looks like it could be an underestimate. I haven’t included any time delays.
Hi Peter,
In your latest “kettle story” you also have forgotten to include any added warming from the sun, which solar scientists tell us accounted for at least half of the 20th century warming. A major oversight, Peter.
It’s always best, Peter, to look at the simplest solution first. The sun (as we all know) is the source of all the warming our planet enjoys. It’s the only thing that “heats the kettle”. Without it we would freeze quickly, no matter how much anthropogenic CO2 our atmosphere would contain. Variations in its output will automatically cause variations in our climate (as well as that of other planets near us, as has been measured on Mars, for example).
The sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than it has been for several thousand years, as solar scientists have measured and reported, resulting in warming estimated at 0.2 to 0.5C, with an average just above 0.35C. Sounds reasonable to me (and very straightforward, as well). I don’t have to “think around the corner” three times to grasp that.
So that leaves about 0.3C for “other forcing factors”. Let’s assume this was all from anthropogenic CO2 (an unproven but not unreasonable hypothesis, which incidentally checks prety well with the greenhouse theory and the forcing factors as estimated by IPCC, as I pointed out earlier).
Without making things too complicated (with all sorts of assumed “positive feedbacks”, “enhancing” either the solar or the greenhouse warming from water vapor, clouds, etc. or any totally unproven “delayed equilibrium” hypotheses), this covers 20th century warming quite nicely, thank you.
It’s the old “KISS” principle: “Keep It Simple, Stupid”.
No need to conjure up complicated “voodoo” relationships.
The 3.2C climate “sensitivity” for 2xCO2 is a computer assumed “voodoo” myth, which has been proven false by actual physical observations on both clouds (Spencer et al.) and water vapor (Minschwaner and Dessler), as has been pointed out very clearly on this site.
We also know that ENSO, PDO, NAO play a role in our climate. And we know that these were particularly favorable for warming in the 20th century.
And then there are factors we really cannot yet quantify (cosmic rays / clouds), but cannot yet rule out.
But the 21st century appears to be a “new world”. While we are probably still slowly recovering from the Little Ice Age since the 19th century, the sun is no longer hyperactive, and it appears that ENSO (plus PDO?) are no longer playing a warming role.
What will happen in the future?
You do not know. I do not know.
As I have demonstrated, it is unlikely that IPCC (with its totally one-sided approach and miserable forecasting record) can answer this question.
If the solar experts are right, we are headed for a bit of cooling.
As sorry as I am to say this (since our planet does not need any significant cooling) I think their arguments make much more sense than the oversimplified computer-generated AGW arguments of IPCC or the hysterical “tipping point” predictions of James E. Hansen.
Peter, I honestly hope that you are right and I am wrong, because I think that a fraction of a degree C warming over the next century will be much better for all of us than a return to early 19th century temperatures.
Regards,
Max
PS A tip: Remember “Occam’s razor”: go for the simplest and most straightforward solution wherever possible rather than “cobbling” things up with complicated hypotheses.