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,
You wrote, “whereas earlier warming can be explained by the sun, it can’t be for the late 20th century warming…”
It appears that you have still not realized that you are “beating a dead horse” with your “yeah, but what about late 20th century warming” argument that solar warming was insignificant. Or are you just being stubbornly obstinate? I am truly beginning to wonder…
I have conceded (as many of the reports I cited have shown) that solar forcing ALONE could not have caused the long-term warming or the warming of the last 30 years.
[Please read the above sentence slowly, 10 times in a row, then think about what it says, and slowly read it another 10 times in a row. I am not going to repeat it anymore.]
I have just shown that solar experts believe it caused a significant portion (somewhat over 50%) of the total warming we have seen to date. And that this leaves AGW at the level assumed by the greenhouse hypothesis as well as IPCC (Myhre et al.) radiative forcing. That’s all. No big deal, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Now to the third topic in your last post.
You cited a U. of Wisconsin computer study that concluded “according to the same computer simulations, the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age”.
To this you opined, “It’s an interesting concept, and if true, does suggest that climate and atmospheric management is going to be a necessary part of keeping the earth inhabitable for future generations.”
Your conclusion is rather strange here, Peter. I draw exactly the opposite conclusion.
UW computers tell us that human impact has slowed down the beginning of a new ice age (which would obviously be a disastrous thing for mankind). You conclude from this report that “climate and atmospheric management is going to be a necessary part of keeping the earth inhabitable for future generations”.
The “human influence on climate” that averted a new ice age and kept “earth inhabitable for future generations” (according to UW computer studies) was not by any stretch of the imagination an exercise in “climate and atmospheric management” by a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats based on computer-generated input from a group of pseudo-scientists.
I personally do not put too much faith in computer studies (after seeing the ridiculous IPCC computer-generated forecasts that never come true). There is just too much agenda driven GIGO in these studies.
If the UW study has any merit, it tells us that human CO2 (and other impacts from clearing forests for agriculture, urbanization, etc.) have caused a beneficial slowing down of an impending period of disastrously colder weather. So we should keep doing what we are doing in hopes of continuing this delaying of a next ice age.
“Mitigation” strategies in a futile attempt to reduce the beneficial CO2 emissions would be exactly the WRONG thing to do.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
You wrote that you are keeping warm despite the record anthropogenic cold wave in your area, by throwing logs and shredded car tires into the fireplace.
I could suggest another good fuel: outdated 1,000-page (2007) IPCC reports. They burn well (once started) have a relatively high heating value (and essentially no inherent alternate value), plus they give off less black smoke than the car tires.
Just a thought, before I go out to my driveway to shovel away some more of the record anthropogenic snow we are enjoying here.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
We have established that the increase in atmospheric CO2 content from 1850 to 2008 could have caused a warming of around 0.3C.
This observed actual warming agrees with the greenhouse warming one would have expected based on the greenhouse theory and the radiative forcing according to IPCC (Myhre et al.)
On this basis we can calculate a theoretical greenhouse warming from today to year 2100 of around 0.4C, based on CO2 increase from 386 to 560 ppmv (all other things being equal).
Do you agree, and, if not, why not?
Regards,
Max
Brute,
Tuning in late as I turn-in to bed, I have to quickly say that I greatly enjoyed your 3248.
(It might be tad too subtle for Pete to understand though!)
Hi Bob,
Several days ago you posted a chart, which showed strong ENSO years superimposed on the temperature record. This chart showed visually that the period of warming since 1976 or so had several major ENSO events.
So I did some checking on the impact and duration of these events and found a NOAA link, which provided this information.
Now, just so Peter does not get excited if he happens to read this:
THE CHART YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE IS NOT A SCIENTIFICALLY DERIVED OR MODEL-CALCULATED HINDCAST.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/3120559552_7d038c13f5_b.jpg
I just took the Hadley record and subtracted the stated ENSO impact over the stated number of months of the ENSO event, and compared this with the unadjusted Hadley record.
This shows me that there was an observed linear warming of 0.37C over this period.
If we “remove” the ENSO impact the warming would have been 0.21C.
From this we can conclude that the ENSO contribution to the 1976-2000 warming was around 0.37 – 0.21 = 0.16C or a bit more that 40% of the total warming.
Now I have seen studies that link ENSO events with solar activity, but I have not seen any that state that ENSO events are “positive feedbacks” resulting from higher CO2 levels.
So I must assume that they are “natural” rather than “anthropogenic” in nature, and that, therefore around 40% of the 1976-2000 warming can be explained by “natural” forcing factors (with the remaining 60% due to “anthropogenic” factors.
Does this rough analysis make sense to you?
Regards,
Max
Hey Bob,
Yes, the more I research I conduct, the more cynical, sarcastic and skeptical about Anthropomorphic Global Cooling/Global Warming I become. Again, these Global Warming nuts are actually worried about a .6 degree rise in temperature “averaged” over the entire planet, “averaged” over 150 years……..I’ve yet to see any evidence proving that manmade CO2 is impacting the global temperature. All these knuckleheads have is rhetoric and multimillion dollar crystal balls that “forecast” future weather based on data, (which they’ve provided), with the skewed results directly effecting their wallets.
The entire thing is a shakedown/confidence scheme.
“There’s a sucker born every minute” – P.T. Barnum
Global Warming News
http://www.globalweathercycles.com/media.html
manacker says:
December 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I am assuming that you have taken the time to study the many solar studies I cited in order to convince yourself that around 0.35C of the total 0.65C long-term warming from 1850 to today has been caused by unusually high 20th century solar activity, as these studies show.
Is the UHI effect important post 1998.
The warmers say UHI is negligible, let them have their day of glory, they Know as do the skeptics that UHI is significant and accounts for as much as 50% of the warming from 1900 as derived from ground based temperature records. The warmers may though only get one bite of the UHI cherry as the effect since the mid 1990`s has been pretty much saturated within the ground based global temperatures. The growth of the worlds urban areas where the majority of the weather stations are situated has pretty much reached its maximum with regard to development and the UHI effect within those areas, excluding China. The increasing urban heat island effect is directly linked to urban growth, If urban development has slowed or ceased there will be NO significant rising temperature trend due to UHI. This can be clearly seen in Steve Mc`s study of rural and urban temperature trends (major league football stadiums), the study indicates that both rural and urban temperatures show no trend from around 1998. If as studies indicate UHI is 50% of the observed global ground temperature increase since 1900 then the most we can expect from 1998 is a 0.3 degree C increase in the next 120 years and that includes CO2. I believe there is little chance of rolling back the Hanson fraud, it is to ingrained, it is the data from 1998 onwards that is now important, without the UHI effect driving temperature data upwards that data should now be reasonably accurate. We are I believe in for level or reducing temperatures unless Hanson can find other ways of fiddling the numbers. The real difference now is that there are many eyes watching, including Argoss bouys and satellites.
It appears there is only 0.05% C temperature rise over 120 years due possibly to CO2.
In fact it`s all total rubbish, the global temps cannot be measured, the global average is unknown, and the sea level has never risen to any degree since the Maldives were formed and it`s certainly not rising now.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGR07-background.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859
Brute and Bill
You two are right, of course.
The whole AGW hysteria is based on very shaky pseudoscience.
The distortions to the surface record due to urbanization could well explain all the measured warming, which was 0.65C from 1850 to 2008.
Solar impacts (based on known mechanisms) can explain 0.35C.
This does not include the solar influence from the (Svensmark) cosmic ray / cloud connection, which is currently being tested in CERN Geneva, and could (by itself alone) explain all of the observed warming.
Then there is the warming from ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc. What causes this and to what extent has it been responsible for the total warming?
In talking with Peter it is important to talk about these things one at a time.
At present, I have established with him that, even if one (a) accepts the greenhouse hypothesis as stipulated, using the anthropogenic forcing factors as stated by IPCC, (b) accepts the Hadley temperature record as clean (and not distorted in an upward direction by the UHI effect from 1850 to 2008), (c) accepts the studies by solar scientists that tell us the 20th century was a period of unusually high solar activity that resulted in global warming of 0.35C, (d) ignores the cosmic ray / cloud connection and (e) ignores any effects from increased ENSO activity, the total net anthropogenic warming effect over the period 1850-2008 was 0.3C.
Using this value and the expected increase in atmospheric CO2 from today until year 2100, the total future anthropogenic warming will be 0.4C.
That’s it, folks.
This shows that the whole computer-generated hype about massive “positive feedbacks” that increase the CO2 effect by a factor of 3 to 4 to cause a 2xCO2 warming of 3+C have not been observed in real life from 1850 to 2008 and therefore do not exist.
So the massive warming and “tipping points” etc. predicted by IPCC and Hansen are GIGO from the virtual world of computer models that have no substantiation from the real world out there.
I believe Peter has understood this, although it may be difficult for him to accept it just yet, since it goes against the grain of a deep-seated paradigm or (emotional or almost religious) belief that industrialized man is guilty of destroying our planet with evil emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2), which must be stopped ASAP to avoid disaster by imposing draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes (called “mitigation”).
But this is a “one step at a time” process.
And there is no guarantee that it will work with Peter (if he does not want to open his mind to challenge his paradigm).
Regards,
Max
Max,
I don’t know how to explain it, but there exists a self loathing/guilt that permeates the entire global warming/environmentalist movement…..scratch that…..they don’t hate themselves for being materialistic or wasteful they detest others that strive to be successful. I’m going to look around for an article or paper that sums up this worldview better than me……..
Take a close look at any supposed “green” organization, (I have). They use energy and natural resources at the same rate as any other organization, however possess the stones to sanctimoniously demonize business in general for operating in the same fashion as themselves. I’ve done energy assessments at many of these so called “green” organizations and forwarded recommendations to consume less energy…..they aren’t interested. You see, they simply don’t want to be uncomfortable themselves. And, unless the recommendations I put forth are not readily visible, i.e. solar panels or windmills, they pass…..I’ve written proposals to provide energy efficient lighting for instance….they’re not interested because it isn’t “sexy” or “flashy”…..they can’t point it out to their guests to display their “commitment” to “saving” the planet. The Return on Investment is great; much better than solar panels or a green roof, but they can’t show the world that they reset their indoor temperatures and they don’t want to make the sacrifice.
I suggested to one Operating Engineer that he drop the daytime winter temperature set-point 2 degrees, (which he did). The howls of protest from the eco-chondriacs that work there was deafening. They want you to freeze inside of your house but don’t make them uncomfortable at their homes or workplace. It’s the typical Liberal “do as I say, not as I do” rant.
It’s a queer paradox……Take Al “D Student” Gore for example. Here’s a guy who’s never had to work in his life; he’s had everything handed to him since he’s was conceived. He wastes more energy, natural resources than any man on the planet, but yet has the temerity to lecture the rest of us……criticize how we conduct our lives…..unbelievable.
People such as Mr. Martin must “rebel” against something, always. It really doesn’t matter if the cause is valid or not……they simply must crusade against something. I believe that they criticize other people so they don’t have to take a good hard look at themselves.
Then there is organized government and other institutions that feed from the public trough……they have a financial interest and ideological reasons for perpetuating this myth. Unfortunately for them, the weather/climate is not cooperating.
Mark my words, the next statement to come from the global warming crusaders will be that they have arrested the ever rising CO2 levels which in turn has caused the downward spiral of global temperatures and will claim that they’ve been vindicated.
I think the common thread with these nuts is that they want to always be viewed as being “anti-establishment” non-conformists. The trouble is that they are now “establishment” and must rebel against themselves.
It’s already beginning to happen with the Obama kooks……They were all happy before and just after the election…..blowing kisses at each other and having visions of moonlight and canoes…… now they’re already at each others throats and the guy hasn’t even been sworn in or walked on water yet. Reality is beginning to take hold and they’re disenchanted.
Very interesting to watch how quickly they’ve turned against each other. They’re already referring to Obama as “The Mistake by the Lake”, (a reference to Chicago’s proximity to Lake Michigan). They also have produced bootleg bumper stickers where they’ve replaced the word “hope” with “dope” and “nope” under the pre-election photograph of Obama.
Max,
By making the solar contribution slightly too high at 0.35deg C and the actual amount of warming slightly too low at 0.65 deg C, it looks like you have convinced yourself that the major contribution is from solar changes. Its not a conclusion that mainstream science would endorse but its a big improvement over your ‘puny man being incapable of making any changes at all to the climate’ statement of last year.
You’ll have to be careful. The sort of company you are keeping these days wouldn’t be too happy with even the smallest concession to reason. They are still spouting the same sort of nonsense. For them, even the CO2 record is part of the great conspiracy. I can’t explain why some people hold to these rather strange views, anymore than I can explain why some people think that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaur bones and fossils have been fabricated and planted by the devil to try to discredit the Genesis account of the creation.
Its interesting that you think the Uni of Wisconsin reports might have some merit. Maybe that’s not too surprising. It’s long been a contrarian argument that AGW may be a good thing. What they are saying is that the tiny amounts of CO2 and methane that have been released, by humanity, over the past two thousand years may have been just enough to stave off a return to ice age conditions. That’s not quite the same thing as saying that the 25Gt of CO2 that are now being emitted into the atmosphere annually is a good thing too.
Next time you have a headache you might find that a couple of paracetamol tablets will make you feel much better. Don’t go applying the same logic that you have just used on CO2 emissions though, and swallow the whole bottle!
Global Warming: Neurosis or Psychosis?
Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it’s time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA’s Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of “99% confidence”).
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world’s oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that “80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters,” according to a report by NPR’s Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere’s coldest in decades.
In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t evidence of global warming? What we have here is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.
So let’s stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism.
Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific “consensus” warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to “patriarchal” science; curtains to the species.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” That’s Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the “solutions” chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What’s remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you’re inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature’s great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, “morbid-minded” religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
By Bret Stephens
Wall Street Journal Online
July 1, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=todays_columnists
———————
Psychiatric Linkages to Global Warming:
As an illness, neurosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosis) represents a variety of psychiatric conditions in which emotional distress or unconscious conflict is expressed through various physical, physiological, and mental disturbances, which may include physical symptoms (e.g., hysteria). The definitive symptom is anxieties. Neurotic tendencies are common and may manifest themselves as depression, acute or chronic anxiety, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, phobias, and even personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It has perhaps been most simply defined as a “poor ability to adapt to one’s environment, an inability to change one’s life patterns, and the inability to develop a richer, more complex, more satisfying personality.” Neurosis should not be mistaken for psychosis.
A psychosis, on the other hand, is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a “loss of contact with reality” and deterioration of normal social functioning. People experiencing psychosis are said to be psychotic and may report hallucinations (the end of the world) or delusional beliefs (carbon dioxide is a life-threatening pollutant in the earth’s atmosphere), and may exhibit personality changes and disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior (consuming scarce food supplies in combustion engines), as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.
Brute,
What category, ‘Neurotics’ or ‘Phsycotics’ or otherwise would you, or whoever you’d copied #3264 from, place the author of the following?
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90%+ probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
The average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise.
Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003, about 3.1 mm per year.”
There lots more of the usual stuff on the link below. Who do you think it might be?
Would you say that they suffered from some religious delusion? Or maybe you’d put it down to some sort of “leftist nostrum“? Part of the UN conspiracy to bring about a New World Order and destabilise US capitalism maybe? Greenie Tree Huggers?
Go on have a guess first then click on this link
http://89.151.116.67/info/inf59.html
to find out who, and read more.
Max
Each year, the AGU uses an AGW catastrophe story to publicise its fall meeting. This time round it’s retreating Swiss Glaciers, and here is the BBC’s dutiful version of the story.
If you have time, I woudld be very interested to know how this is playing, if at all, in the Swiss Media. It would appear from the BBC report that the research has been submitted to two journals but not yet accepted or published by either.
Very Interesting. More regarding Climate Change Psychosis……
Climate Change Psychosis And Lily Pad Cities
http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2008/7/16/climate-change-psychosis-and-lily-pad-cities.html
More on the delusional fears of the global warming Alarmist; this phenomenon is closely associated with the massive crowds that attend automobile speed contests. They are fascinated/obsessed with the prospect of witnessing a catastrophe. It’s also related to the Paul Revere syndrome……they MUST be the first to sound the alert…..to display their self righteous commitment to “save the world” and become heroes, (in their minds). Generally people with too much time on their hands that lead dull, uninteresting lives with little foundation in reality. Oftentimes referred to as a “Messiah complex” in varying degrees.
Apocalypse Not
http://www.davekopel.com/env/enaponot.htm
Excerpt:
And this…..
Hi Peter,
In your 3265 to Brute you gave some famous quotes and asked who wrote them, specifically “what category, ‘Neurotics’ or ‘Phsycotics’ or otherwise would you place the author of the following?”
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90%+ probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Let’s start with the first two sentences:
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”
The statement comes from p.5 of the IPCC 2007 “Summary for Policymakers” (the document prepared by IPCC for non-technical bureaucrats and politicians), which is sub-titled “The Physical Science Basis”. It was probably written and edited by a handful of people (possibly there were even some “scientists” involved,). I doubt if there were any psychotics or neurotics in the bunch, but agenda-driven “political” representatives definitely got their “slant” into the document.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
BTW the statement is correct, i.e. that’s what the Hadley record showed in 2006.
But the continuation of the statement (which you did not quote) gets a bit less obvious:
“The up-dated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C is THEREFORE [caps by me] larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C.”
When one examines the Hadley record for 1901 to 2000 one sees that the linear trend over this period was actually 0.65°C (rather than 0.6°C), in other words the 5-year shift actually added 0.74 – 0.65 = 0.09°C, rather than 0.74 – 0.6 = 0.14°C, as claimed by IPCC, to the record. A minor slip-up, which can be justified as a “rounding error”.
However, if one takes the time to look at the Hadley record, it becomes clear that the increase in warming from shifting the 20th century by five years did NOT come from added warming from 2001 to 2005, as implied by IPCC with the word “THEREFORE”, but rather mostly from eliminating a period of sharp cooling from 1901 to 1905 from the record. So the word “THEREFORE” is purposely misleading.
Unfortunately, it gets even “curiouser”. IPCC then continues by comparing short term trends with long term trends (a “smoke and mirrors” approach that very few politicians and bureaucrats will see through).
“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.”
OK. 0.13 is indeed 75% higher than 0.074 and that’s “nearly twice” (if you stretch it a bit).
But this is due to the fact that a shorter-term trend picked out of a cyclical long-term trend is by definition steeper than the overall long-term trend (if properly picked).
It is also just as true to say: the linear warming trend for the first 40 years (0.135°C per decade) is “nearly twice” that for the entire 100 years (0.074°C per decade), since this is exactly what the Hadley record shows.
In fact the warming trend for the “first 40 years” (0.135°C per decade) was slightly GREATER than that for “the last 50 years” (0.130°C per decade).
(But, of course, IPCC did not tell us that.)
So the IPCC statements, while not direct lies, are giving an impression of “hockey stick” warming at the end of the century compared to the early part of the century, which does not really exist.
This is the classical IPCC “smoke and mirrors” approach, which can be found throughout the SPM report.
But let’s continue the IPCC quote:
“The total temperature rise from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C.”
Note the change. IPCC now talks of temperature rise between two periods of different time length, rather than of linear trends over long-term periods, as discussed earlier in the paragraph.
The truth of the matter is that the linear rise over the entire time period 1850 to 2005 was 0.65°C. Why suddenly switch from linear warming over a long-term time period to some other less transparent comparison? (Because it “sounds better”?)
But here comes the “hammer”. IPCC continues the paragraph with:
“Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.”
This is an outright lie, as many reports from all over the world have shown. The influence has been shown to be between 0.3°C and 0.5°C on the record over the entire century, or around 0.03°C to 0.05°C per decade (rather than “less than 0.006°C per decade” as claimed by IPCC).
So we’ve got some “bending of the truth” with false implications, some phony statistical comparisons of short and long-term trends, some changing of bases to make the result “look better” and an outright lie. All in one paragraph of the SPM report!
Now to the second statement you cited:
“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90%+ probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
This statement comes from p.10 of the SPM report.
The claim is rather speculative and not really supported by robust scientific evidence, but rather by model simulations. 90+% probability is a “statement of faith”, not backed up by any physical observations.
I would strike the whole sentence and replace it with a more scientifically correct statement (since this report is supposed to represent “the physical science basis” and not a “sales pitch” for AGW):
“As supported by the greenhouse hypothesis, a significant portion of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century could well have been caused by the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Based on model studies this could have been responsible for over half of the observed warming over this period, although there are still many unknowns regarding the causes of late 20th century warming”.
Enough for now, Peter. The other statements you quoted will come later.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I forgot to add that discussing this topic with a fanatic, global warming Alarmists is akin to attempting to debate the existence of the Tooth Fairy with a 6 year old petulant child. No matter the facts or evidence they simply refuse to admit that that the theory is without merit. They obfuscate and shift the subject, never addressing the facts directly preferring to resort to “projections” and shifting, nebulous, fanciful rhetoric.
No Consensus: Warmie Hysterics Ignore Reality
http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/12/20/no-consensus-warmie-hysterics-ignore-reality/
Hi Brute,
At the end of your post 3261 you wrote:
“Mark my words, the next statement to come from the global warming crusaders will be that they have arrested the ever rising CO2 levels which in turn has caused the downward spiral of global temperatures and will claim that they’ve been vindicated.”
I am also of the opinion that your statement is exactly correct.
Global temperatures will likely continue to drop (as they have at least since 2001) because of reduced solar activity, changes in the ENSO cycle, or whatever, despite all-time record human CO2 emissions.
The current recession may, however, dampen the future increase in CO2 emissions, so may act as the “black swan” for the “global warming crusaders” (as you call them).
So you may be right that this group will claim that “they have arrested the ever rising CO2 levels which in turn has caused the downward spiral of global temperatures and will claim that they’ve been vindicated” (i.e. “thank God for the global recession!”).
Let’s see how this plays out as we cool off a bit over the next decade.
I seriously hope that Peter is right and that we do not “cool off” too much, because I am convinced (based on past history) that this would be a much more catastrophic development for our civilization and our planet than any warming we might experience from AGW (although it appears that Peter has been unable to grasp this as yet).
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
You implied (3270) that Peter (as one of many “global warming Alarmists”) would “obfuscate and shift the subject, never addressing the facts directly preferring to resort to ‘projections’ and shifting, nebulous, fanciful rhetoric.”
In the past, this seems, indeed, to have been Peter’s approach. But let’s give him the “benefit of the doubt” and see from his future behavior whether you are right or not.
Regards,
Max
Max,
You’ve somewhat missed the point of my last posting, which was who was making the arguments which I’m sure you’ve all heard before. They are, essentially, the position of mainstream science on the AGW issue. Which you obviously have a problem with.
An acceptance of these arguments doesn’t necessarily turn everyone into a communist. Neither does it make them a part of some fictitious UN plot to destabilise US interests in the world. Did you take a look at the link? It was from the nuclear power lobby. And yes I know that they have a vested interest in pushing for low CO2 power generation.
There are lots of other vested interests in solar and wind energy too. And of course you have to bear in mind these interests when listening to their arguments. Just like you have to bear in mind the vested interests of the coal and and oil lobbies too.
However, it is quite clear that there are very many hard headed business types out their who are looking to make the most out of the many opportunities that will arise as the change from 19th century polluting fossil fuel technology is replaced by 21st century low CO2 and clean technology. Do you really think that you can just dismiss these guys are ‘Psychotics’ and ‘Neurotics’? ‘Warmies’ or ‘Tree huggers’?
Pick a story, any story……All are observational FACTS, not computer generated prognostications. Sleet, Blizzards, Heavy Snowfall and bitterly cold temperatures………Winter officially begins today here in the U.S. and many areas have already seen 4-6 weeks of winter weather.
The only answer must be that global warming causes frigid cold temperatures……or, that CO2 is not causing global temperatures to rise.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rls=DELA,DELA:2006-06,DELA:en&q=US+Winter+Storms&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title