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.
All the talk about what the IPCC do or do not include in their calculations reminded me of this study.
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
It is by an Australian scientist and covers solar activity, electro magnetism and the effect by other planets.
TonyB
In 3044 Luke mentioned about the need for taking a consistent series of measurements rather than a ‘snap shot’ something the older scientists were aware of but the inexperienced Keeling wasn’t. The following is an excerpt from Becks latest paper.
“Figure 2 shows the birth of the idea of a CO2 background concentration 1955.
At that time C. Keeling had measured CO2 in summer, using a home-made
manometer. He needed about 90 minutes to obtain each value [17]. He conceded in
1993 that he had not read any technical literature [16], so he probably did not know
that by using the existing high precision gas analysers designed by Haldane,
Petterson, Schuftan or Kauko, he could have obtained readings within minutes,
getting a far more accurate value down to 0.33%. This means an accuracy of about
+/-1 ppm using 309 ppm in 1955.
Considering the measured diurnal CO2 variation in the forest we notice a much
higher CO2 content in the air at night than during the day, caused by the absorption of
some of the carbon dioxide by the photosynthesis. The correct average would have
been 365.3 ppm, which is typical for such a location in summer. In fact Keeling used
only the lowest measured values made in the afternoon on the grounds and that there
is a compensation of soil respiration by soil organisms and photosynthesis. Soil
respiration produces about the same amount CO2 as the respiration of animals on the
ground. But plants do respire too especially at night. Keeling did not measure the soil respiration and the possibility of geological soil degassing by rock weathering
remains. This procedure of ignoring natural CO2 sources that may make a large
contribution to the atmospheric concentration is maintained until today.”
These natural sources were mentioned in a variety of books and literature over 130 years ago, but we seem to have forgotten some of what we then knew.
This is not an ad hom attack on Keeling who seems a thoroughly nice man. However the idea that he is some top notch chemist with a detailed knowledge of co2 who was always eager to get into climate science bears no scutiny at all. He stumbled into the job, had no knowledge of co2, no knowledge of the history and accepted what he was told about historic levels by Callendar, an amateur with a theory but do data to back it up with other than a few figures he had chery picked and seemed unware of the thousands of other references available at the time.
TonyB
About a month ago I posted a great deal of information about sea levels, pointing out that according to Proudman they were at best static- at worst (for the IPCC) dropping slightly. This information was also repeated in the abstracts from the Exeter Climate conference that I posted.
Here is official confirmation. My information from the Environment Agency- the official UK govt body for sea levels -and for whom I do some work-shows a drop of around 2-3mm over the last couple of years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
TonyB
“2008 will be coolest year of the decade
Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists”
JZ Smith #3054
What a silly article from the Guardian who make an ill researched reference to Dickens and say how even the current ‘cooler’ temperatures would still seem very warm to him.
“Charles began work as a solicitor’s clerk. In the evenings he taught himself shorthand, which led to work as a reporter, first at Doctors’ Commons law courts, 1829-31, then recording parliamentary debates for newspapers, 1832-34. In 1834 Dickens began placing humorous and satirical essays in magazines under the pseudonym “Boz.” Some of these were included in his first book, Sketches by Boz, published in 1836. His reporting provided him a wealth of experience. By 1858 critic Walter Bagehot would call him “a special correspondent for posterity.”
In 1834 Dickens would have been sweltering in an average of 10.47 rather higher than 2008 is likely to be. To this day the winter of 1833 is the third warmest on record, the warmest being 1733 and second 1868. Our warmest sumnmer was 1976 and second warmest 1826, so Charles Dickens actually lived through some notably warm periods! Of course we always associate him with snow and Christmas a la ‘A Christmas Carol’ which he apparently wrote in a heat wave in a few weeks in order to earn enough money to stave off bankruptcy.
TonyB
TonyN says:
December 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Re: #3031, Bob
I assume that you are familiar with Ross McKitrick’s paper which suggested that the global historic temperature record relies heavily on data from areas that have seen the greatest degree of industrialisation in order to establish the 20th century temperature gradient.
You then get the Peterson calm and windy nights study which the warmers accept.
There are adequate Rural weather stations covering the whole of the US, there are also urban neighbours to these rural sites, why neither warmers nor Skeptics have attempted a large scale study of urban v rural giving individual trends to each data set is beyond me, this is common sense, you just compare the two trends. This would indicate what the true US trend actually is and would put to bed the UHI argument. See the late John Daly site. Has the UHI effect already been saturated within the Us temperature trend, Steve Mc`s small study showed rural/urban convergence around 1998. If it has then the temperature from 1998 will be reasonably accurate. This small schoolboy study I have posted before is what I am talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
How can Hanson possibly construct an algorithm to extract the UHI effect out of the global urban data if that effect is not accurately known.
Thousands of stations are not needed to show an accurate trend, only a small number of evenly dispersed stations are required, the oceans cover 70% of the planet and only a small number of Argos Buoy`s are felt necessary to provide an accurate sst.
TonyN, Reur 3038, where you wrote to me:
Well no, I have not read Ross’s paper as such, but think I may have seen extracts or comments on it for instance at WattsUp. I did not refer explicitly to the term UHI in my 3031, but am very familiar with the concept, and am totally convinced that it is true. For instance, I live in a NE suburb of Melbourne, and the T’s here differ variously by several degrees C relative to the City, diurnally, and seasonally. (I watch it with interest)
I just thought my 3031 graphic added a bit to the much other evidence of UHI being a REAL phenomena.
I’ll leave you to respond to Rob’s interesting 3056, if you like.
TonyB, Reur 3034, where you wrote to me in part:
Tony, I’m sorry but I have no recollection or knowledge of the associations or issues that you raise of me. All I have done is paste/quote the data apparently originating from NOAA.
I might add that as an engineer, I find the concept of defining what IS this thing ENSO, to be a frighteningly obscure concept. We are talking of a turbulent condition of varying shape and size with additional weather variation and temporal complications. How any really sensible multi-dimensional index can be defined and determined is far beyond my (real-world) comprehension!
Meanwhile, ALL WE CAN DO is go with the published data!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Max, Reur 3028, you wrote in part:
I really warmed to the plain logic in that, as most rationalists would!
I wonder if Pete might respond in the fullness of time?
Max,
You seem to have quibbled about my use of the figure 0.8 deg C for the warming between 1850 and 2007. I’ve used the same figures that you referenced and linked to yourself in:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
If you subtract the 1850 figure from the 2007 figure you get 0.805 degC
A better method is to take the readings from the rolling 5 year average in which case you get 0.777 degC
Straight line regressions are Ok for some things but its pushing it a bit for 150yrs of data. Have you played around with trend lines in Excel? Just right click on the curve and choose “add trend line”. I prefer the rolling averages, as do NASA, but I notice Hadley seem to like polynomial fits.
Its interesting that the figure that came out of treating the relationship between CO2 and Delta T to be logarithmic is 1.75deg C for a doubling of CO2. This may happen around the turn of the next century, giving a figure for temperature rise of 0.175 deg C per decade. Almost exactly what we’ve had for the last few decades.
This is on the lower end of the IPCC range. The danger is, though, that it might never slow down even if CO2 emissions do stabilise. There are vast areas of Arctic permafrost which are pretty close to melting and releasing vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a more potent GHG than CO2.
Pete, Reur 3045,
Thanks for your graph, it is a very convenient reference.
However, I spent so much time in a graphic response, that I’ve run-out of time to prelude it with the text.
Meanwhile, you might study the image, but pause while I explain more later; Gotta go!
If no image click: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/3086654478_7c5bcea3ee_o.gif
Hi Peter,
“You seem to have quibbled about my use of the figure 0.8 deg C for the warming between 1850 and 2007.”
No quibbling, Peter. I just plotted the complete Hadley record and drew the linear regression line (as IPCC does in establishing temperature trends).
I did include the (almost complete) year 2008, however, which you seem to have truncated from the record. BTW this does not change the overall linear trend or warming significantly, but it does point out the folly of just subtracting “year 2008” from “year 1850” to determine a trend.
5-year trailing averages are very nice, but for determining long-term trends I think the IPCC approach of using the linear trend over a long time period using the original annual data probably makes more sense.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Your discussion of possibly melting Arctic permafrost possibly resulting in massive methane releases possibly causing accelerated greenhouse warming are very nice but a bit off topic.
The topic here is allocating the actual warming since 1850 to anthropogenic and natural factors and, from this, establishing the climate sensitivity to increased GHGs (in this case primarily CO2).
We have done this an established that CO2 could have caused a linear warming of around 0.3C over the 158-year period.
We arrived at this number by subtracting the amount of warming estimated by solar scientists to have come from increased solar activity (0.35C) from the total observed warming (0.65C).
We then confirmed this with the greenhouse theory and the change of atmospheric CO2 over the period, again arriving at an impact from CO2 of 0.3C.
So we get a reasonable check.
Taking this information and calculating the theoretical increase from a 2xCO2 scenario, we arrive at around 0.7C.
This is the CO2 increase from 1850 that we expect to see by year 2100.
So subtracting the 0.3C from the 0.7C gives us the theoretical greenhouse warming we can expect from CO2 from today unyil year 2100.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
The paper cited by TonyB (3051) does show a link between solar activity and ENSO cycles.
I will study the links provided to see if we can make some sense of all of this, getting back to Bob_FJ’s post showing a strong apparent correlation between temperature and ENSO cycles.
Are these cycles driven by the sun? I do not think anyone has proposed as yet that they are driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote (3060): “Its interesting that the figure that came out of treating the relationship between CO2 and Delta T to be logarithmic is 1.75deg C for a doubling of CO2. This may happen around the turn of the next century, giving a figure for temperature rise of 0.175 deg C per decade. Almost exactly what we’ve had for the last few decades.”
As I see it your number is too high by a factor of around 2.5 based on the actual long-term observations on both CO2 and temperature to date.
Please provide calculations for arriving at 1.75C for 2xCO2 based on actual observations.
Thanks.
Regards,
Max
Very interesting article from Icecap saying exactly the same thing as me about co2 and the ice cores.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
TonyB
Hi Max,
Pete asked me in his 3045 if I was happy with the Hadley numbers that he used in his graph, and my 3061 graphs suggest that there have been some questionable changes for 1998 through 2000, probably recently.
Earlier this year, you queried some surprisingly large changes that you noticed elsewhere in Hadley, and I’m wondering if you have archived any numbers for 1998-2000 that might track-down when and how many times that that el Nino/a event has been “adjusted”. I suspect this would be mostly during 2007/2008 when they became ever-more worried about the extent of the cooling trend since 1998.
I had a look at the numbers at the Climate Research Unit (CRU @ UEA), at the following link, for the year 2007, but could not find anything for prior document-years.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ Last updated: January 2008, Phil Jones
The numbers turn out to be different to the Hadley Pete-graph in 3045, so I’ve overlaid the CRU data onto Pete’s in pink:
If no image, try: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/3087657139_34a292a4c5_o.jpg
Presumably, the 1998 number was first available almost ten years ago! It seems a bit odd that it was revised recently, and in the direction (together with 1999 & 2000) that results in a reduced cooling trend over the past decade.
It’s also interesting to compare with GISS, using two other Pete-graphs laid side by side in my 2916/20
I guess the point when Hadley really started to get worried about cooling was about the time when they wrote this:
If no image OR, if you like, for a good laugh at the full Metoffice yarn, click:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
I just love the: “that caused much discussion”….Oh to have been a fly on the wall!
Bob_FJ,
I’ve always taken my data from this source.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv
Which seem to agree more with you figures. I’m not sure why there is a small difference. I used the figures from Max’s reference because he can get quite upset about 0.1 of a degree C here and there , and I wouldn’t want to upset him any more than necessary!
Max,
Before we delve back into calculations, maybe you could complete the list of climate forcings which you have started. You’ve just mentioned solar and CO2 so far. What about particulates (smoke), CH4, volcanic activity? Maybe you could have a stab at assigning these some values too?
Pete wrote to me in his 3045, and I respond in line-by-line yawn:
1) Are you trying to goad me into produce a graph starting in 1998 to the present?
No, but thank you for doing it.
2) Are the figures from this link [Hadley] OK for you?
No; See my other posts
3) Max himself uses these so they must be OK.
Why? All we can go on is the published data. That does NOT mean that it is correct!
4) Is the same linear regression method that Max used for his graphs good enough for you too?
Not entirely for short time-series; See my various other posts, and my part 2 of 2 on trending, to follow.
5) I’m sure that Max can vouch that I’ve done it all correctly. As he says himself, its all quite simple.
Why should Max vouch for you, e.g. see 6)?
6) If you have a problem with the way Excel calculates and plots either linear regressions or running five year averages maybe you’d like to take it up with Bill Gates?
Don’t be silly! Why do you continue to deny the blindingly obvious that your recent 5-year smoothing, howsoever you did it was WRONG. As I’ve asked before; Do you have a spatial perception problem?
7) What was that you were saying about “the time span of almost eleven years then becomes rather more significant, even when using straight-line mathematical trending” ?
You should not deny the context of this conditional statement. I explained that eleven years is better than say eight, and note that I make a similar CONDITIONAL statement elsewhere in that discussion.
8) Actually I’d say that the graph shows that the temperatures have been pretty flat for the last decade. Lets see what happens next.
This is an intelligent comment!
9) Anyone care to make it interesting with a little bet on the 1998 peak being exceeded in the coming 4 years?
Was it TonyN who queried Steward inquiries etc? I truly admire Max for taking-on the bizarre “legalities” of a bet with you!
Hi Max,
Re Pete’s 3068, written in part to me.
I can’t be bothered with it, and since it may be slanted at you, please feel totally free to respond, if you can avoid yawning
Hi Peter,
You wrote (3068), “Before we delve back into calculations, maybe you could complete the list of climate forcings which you have started. You’ve just mentioned solar and CO2 so far. What about particulates (smoke), CH4, volcanic activity? Maybe you could have a stab at assigning these some values too?”
Peter, I believe we can keep it as simple as possible by not getting too far sidetracked into factors that are less relevant.
Let us assume that IPCC has a pretty good handle on the anthropogenic forcing factors involved (sort of their “specialty”).
Let us also assume that the many solar scientists who have made studies on solar forcing also have a good idea of what they are talking about (sort of their “specialty”).
IPCC has informed us in its SPM 2007 report (p.4) that the radiative forcing from CO2 (1750 to 2005) was 1.66 W/m^2.
IPCC has also provided estimates for many other, less-important anthropogenic factors, such as those you have mentioned above, and has stated that these all essentially cancel one another out, so that the total net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 W/m^2.
Adjusting this RF slightly to account for the total period of the Hadley temperature record and applying the greenhouse theory we can establish that the theoretical greenhouse warming from CO2 over the period 1850 to 2008 should be around 0.3C (see earlier post for calculation).
IPCC have noted that their “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”, so we are better off using the estimates of the experts in this field. These experts tell us that solar forcing accounts for around 0.35C warming over the 20th century. This is an average of the results cited by the various studies I cited earlier.
When we add up the warming resulting from these two principal forcings (anthropogenic and natural) we arrive at 0.65C warming.
The Hadley surface record shows a linear rate of warming over the entire period of 0.65C, so we have accounted for all of the observed long-term warming with two main factors, without the need for complicating things by adding in other GHGs, surface albedo changes from land use and black carbon, aerosols, etc. (which all cancel each other out, in any case).
As far as the long-term impact (over 150+ years) of volcanoes is concerned, I have not seen any studies showing a major long-term impact over the period concerned. Have you?
Now to the more pertinent natural phenomena of the various ocean current oscillations (PDO, ENSO, NAO, etc.), I have seen references to studies, which indicate that there has been a correlation between these oscillations and solar activity in the past, but that the exact mechanism for this link is not well understood. I have seen no papers suggesting that ENSO, etc. are in any way influenced by atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Have you?
So I think we have enough data to go ahead and assess the theoretical warming impact of changes in CO2 concentrations based on observed temperature data, without complicating things too much with irrelevant side issues.
And, in so doing, we can establish that the past warming attributable to CO2 points to a 2xCO2 warming from CO2 of around 0.7C (as has been estimated by Lindzen, Shaviv and Veizer, etc.).
Since CO2 concentrations are estimated to double from 1850 to year 2100, this means 0.7C warming from CO2, of which we have already enjoyed 0.3C from 1850 to 2008, leaving us 0.4C theoretical warming from CO2 from today until year 2100.
Quite simple, actually.
Any comments? Please try to be specific, if possible.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
Reur 3067: Other than noting the major after the fact “upward adjustment” made by Hadley to its January-April 2008 readings, I have not seen any major shifts in their data. As you recall, I was unable to get a satisfactory explanation on CA from blogger “Phil”, who tried to defend and rationalize the ex post facto adjustments as first (a) “late data” coming in and then (b) “variance” adjustments, and finally saying (c) the changes really were not that great. So I gave up pursuing it further since the original data had been wiped out of the Hadley record.
I just hope these folks are not bamboozling us with bogus numbers in order to scare the public into believing their forecasts for the future in order to “sell” their new climate change “services”.
And if this is the case, I hope that those guilty of this misbehaviour are exposed and reprimanded (or fired).
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ,
Your original Hadley data intrigued me, so just for the helluvit I took the data, which you cited and compared it with the latest revised Hadley record (1998-2008).
It’s true that Hadley originally had slightly higher temperature anomalies for 1998-2004 (1998 was 0.546C versus 0.515C, for example). Using the original data the period 1998-2008 shows a slight cooling trend; using the revised data (as Peter has done) it shows a slight warming trend.
But I think that no matter which data set one uses, it is safe to conclude that the 11-year period 1998 through 2008 was a period of no warming, “unusual” in the sense that it was the first 10+ year period since 1976 or so when there was no warming trend.
Regards,
Max
Help needed to compile my Christmas presents list!
Its that time of year again when we start thinking about Christmas presents. For 2008 I have decided that my gifts will be in the form of science fantasy fiction books. I have made four choices so far, but I need everyone’s help with number 5 please.
Book 1 The Lord of the Rings- An exciting tale of magic unfolds as the heroes take part in an epic struggle to ensure that good overcomes evil. Available as a trilogy
Book 2 Harry Potter. Seven wonderful tales of magic in an epic struggle by the boy wizard hero who attempts to overcome evil.
Book 3 The IPCC chronicles– available in four books. An epic tale of climate heroes who try to overcome the evil climate realists. This book also has lots of magic as the heroes try to prevent the climate realists from releasing tiny amounts of co2 that will magically cause global temperatures to rise by 4.8degrees c and the earth to melt.
This book has a dramatic twist in the tale as the earth stubbornly refuses to follow the expected story line, as temperatures and sea levels drop whilst glaciers reform. What will the climate heroes do to overcome this puzzling turn of events? Several more volumes are expected of this expensive blockbuster.
Book 4 ‘The Hockey stick sagas’ by Michael Mann. Strictly for youngsters, as only those under 10 will be credulous enough to believe this fantasy-the storyline concerns a scientist who creates a magic wand that is often mistaken for a hockey stick! When he utters the magic phrase ‘the medieval warm period is an outdated concept’ he makes the earth’s previous warm and cold periods suddenly disappear! This has a happy ending as fortunately the warm and cold periods are subsequently found again-they hadn’t gone missing after all! What a relief!
Book 5 This is where I need everyones concerted help. My original choice was ‘Global temperatures from 1850 to the present day’. It has all the ingredients of a great science fantasy story-It concerns a fantastic myth known as ‘run away man made global warming’ and begins in 1850- an age when ‘global’ meant merely a few dozen places, where the very few data points continually changed or even disappeared, to be replaced by others that bore no similarity to what had gone before. In this saga adjustments and corrections are commonplace, and no reliable records exist for the 70% of the planet that is water. Stations are few and far between in the polar regions and whole swathes of stations are lost as regimes crumble- like the Soviet Union. All this uncertainty however somehow miraculously results in a scientific precision of fractions of a degree, despite the use of uncalibrated equipment and interesting methods of averaging, set against a backdrop of increasing urbanisation. This huge number of uncertainties admittedly contributes to a confusing story line. It currently ends in a somewhat Kafkaesque manner with the production of a completely meaningless average figure that everyone involved in climate science thinks has a meaning! Now this was originally an out and out winner for my fifth choice as it has everything- except science .
Yet those in this forum-whose views I respect- continually cite it. They seem to do so with a straight face. They don’t even make jokes about the graphs they post that might subtly indicate to the reader that they are part of a clever plot to secretly ridicule the scientific establishment, who do believe the figures have some meaning. ‘1850’ has everything, and is that rare thing-a humorous science fantasy as it successfully promotes the comical notion that we have reliable global temperatures that can be measured with precision, when in reality for much of that time many places hadn’t even been invented, let alone been within a hundred miles of a reliable thermometer operated by someone who knew which end to read.
So can some of you others- who obviously have much better knowledge than me- provide some information that will convince me that I should remove ‘Global temperatures from 1850 to the present day’ from the science fantasy section of my Christmas presents book list, and place it instead in the science refererence section where you all obviously feels it belongs?
TonyB
Max,
You are always asking for ‘hard scientific evidence’ rather than the results of computer modelling and simulation to support the idea that AGW is real and a problem to be seriously considered.
That evidence is there in the historical temperature record but, to make sense of it, you need to consider all the possible factors, not just solar and CO2. Are you saying that the effect of particulates, methane, and volcanic activity has been zero?