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.
Like I said, a bitter cold slap in the face……literally and figuratively…..
Also, Peter; I’ve search through the scientific literature and cannot find the term “dickhead”….only vague references to “Richard”….must be something new; I’ll keep looking.
British government schemes to undermine European emissions law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/europe-energy
Glos’ Beirat für Umgestaltung des Emissionshandels
http://www.pr-inside.com/de/glos-beirat-fuer-umgestaltung-des-emissionsh%20andels-r1020136.htm
GERMANY MAY ABANDON CO2-CAP AS ECONOMIC CRISIS WORSENS
Economy Minister Michael Glos continuous to have serious misgivings about the EU decisions on emissions trading to combat climate change from 2013. On Thursday, the CSU-politician joined the call by his scientific advisory board to radically transform the emissions trading system. In its report, the scientific advisory board urged to repeal strict limits for CO2 emissions.
Instead, emissions allowances should be allocated on a flexible basis and a corridor for price controls introduced. Glos said: “I welcome the proposal to set prices for the period from 2013 through the flexible issuing of certificates in a stabel price range.” The background for the concerns is that the rules adopted by the EU in December for emissions trading could result in sharp price swings of emissions permits.
Glos said the fear of price uncertainty could discourage investments. “In addition, the current scheme would cost us valuable jobs if they move abroad as a result.” Glos regretted that the recommendations of the scientific advisory board had not been taken into consideration by the EU.
Funding freeze halts environmental projects across California
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-projects21-2009jan21,0,7540087.story
JZ,
I met with a guy this morning who told me California is writing IOU’s for Income Tax Refunds?
Is that true?
Peter #3875
If someone on this blog tells you something I dont expect you to investigate it in this manner-‘google proof’ is a very hit and miss affair.
Max shouldn’t need to provide you with evidence of what he has said or written. Personally if I were him I’d be hopping mad with you for questioning his word but I’m sure he will make his own comments.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
In your latest side-step (3875) you wrote, “Having just done a quick Google for your comments on the net, the earliest one I can find is:
http://www.climateark.org/blog/2007/02/ipcc_report_finds_climate_chan.asp
about 3/4 way down the page
Just the same sort of stuff we’ve been used to reading. But, interestingly, no mention of the nasty Dr Mann who so magically turned your opinion. “
Peter, if you would take the time to actually read the March 30, 2007 post from me, which you cited, you would read (among other comments):
“Is the ‘warmth of the last half century unusual in at least the previous 1300 years’, as the IPCC report states?
No. This is not true. It ignores the existence of the scientifically proven and historically well-documented global Medieval Warm Period, with temperatures higher than today.”
Duh! Who made the ridiculous (and later discredited) “hockey stick” study based on flawed Bristlecone Pine tree ring studies claiming unprecedented late 20th century warmth and denying the existence of the MWP (and LIA, for that matter)? So when you write, “no mention of the nasty Dr Mann who so magically turned your opinion“ you are not really telling the truth. This flawed study and the acceptance of its conclusion by IPCC is precisely what I was referring to.
Some pre-March 2007 background, to refresh your memory:
The hockey stick study by Mann et al. was first challenged by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in 2003. In a paper published in 2005, Mc + Mc showed in detail how the methodology used by Mann et al. was flawed; this paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the American Geophysical Union, the publisher of Geophysical Research Letters.
In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences released a report of no confidence in Mann’s assessment of surface temperatures prior to about 1600, stating “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”.
The Carl Wegman panel, which had been commissioned by the NRC, refuted Mann’s study in a report prepared in 2006 for a U.S. congressional committee, stating ” Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [Mann hockey stick] analysis”
So you see, by March 2007 (when I wrote that post you cited) there had been ample evidence refuting the Mann hockey stick (even though, strangely, there are still die-hards, such as the RealClimate site, that doggedly deny all this evidence and defend this bit of bad science) and the IPCC still stuck to Mann’s conclusions in their February 2007 report.
Then you added, “This [my post] was written 5 or 6 months before the release of that year’s IPCC report.”
Wrong, Peter, the IPCC SPM 2007 report to which I referred was released in February 2007. My post was written March 30, 2007, after I had taken plenty of time to review the IPCC report in some detail.
Tell me, Peter, why do you have to “MSU” (make stuff up), rather than stick to the truth? Lies always catch up with you, particularly when they are so easy to check as this one.
You opined further, “If anything I’d say that you’ve toned down your scepticism since then.”
Not really so, Peter. The more I have dug into the claims of IPCC and other AGW groups since then, the more I have seen just how questionable the “science” behind these claims really is. Fortunately there are increasing numbers of serious scientific studies that are beginning to point out the flawed “science” and faulty computer assumptions behind many of the AGW claims. As these all come to light, my skepticism (while not necessarily any stronger) is reinforced and reconfirmed by the facts.
Your statement, “You must either be clairvoyant or have some good inside contacts at the IPCC!” is so silly that it does not merit a response.
Peter, rather than sending out posts that are full of faulty assumptions and silly rhetoric, take the challenge and respond to my 3841, where I outlined the conclusions you and I have reached over the past several months in our discussion on the theoretical 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as well as the anticipated AGW impact on “global average temperature” to year 2100, as based on the actual physical observations to date.
These are:
– a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 to 0.8C, based on actual physical observations (rather than 3.2C, as assumed by the climate models cited by IPCC)
– a theoretical greenhouse warming by year 2100 of another 0.4C above today’s temperature based on the 0.3C warming attributable to CO2 since 1850 (rather than another 2 to 6C, as assumed by the climate models cited by IPCC)
Looking forward to your specific response (rather than more waffling and fancy side-steps).
Regards,
Max
Looks like we are back to UHI again.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901#comment-321847
JZSmith
Yeah. No matter how desperately the AGW enthusiasts try to push the UHI effect down out of sight, it keeps bobbing back up again.
Max
I don’t know if you have ever come across this before which is as elegant a dismantling of the basic hypotheses of the ‘doubling co2 will cause catastrophe’ nonsense as you will see.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
The above is the commonsense summary and right at the top of it is the link to the technical explanation.
TonyB
ALL: Joe Romm’s latest rant on Antarctic warming
Whilst reading through how everything is melting faster than you would believe, I accidentally clicked a link to his Climate Progress site, and noticed a famous-to-us poster-name.
Brute in particular is a great admirer of him, so here is one exchange for interest:
Dr.Vermin Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Yup, the science is solid…
Except when it isn’t.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ opinion/ main.jhtml?xml=/ opinion/ 2008/ 11/ 16/ do1610.xml
David B. Benson Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Dr.Vermin — Don’t believe anything in The Telegraph without doing other checking. For example,
http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2008/ 11/ mountains-and-molehills/ langswitch_lang/ fi
or the corresponding thread here, down a few.
TonyB,
Yes, I have seen the G+T report, along with an earlier study by the same authors, which states that the greenhouse theory itself violates the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore flawed.
I have refrained from referring to these studies in discussions with AGW-aficionados.
The reason I have done this is because it is like telling a devout fundamentalist believer that there is no God.
This tack will only break off all further communication rather than lead to a discussion.
I prefer the other approach of saying, OK let’s assume that the greenhouse theory itself is correct as postulated. How have actual physical observations confirmed the validity and impact of the theory and what is the extent of warming that we could theoretically expect from AGW over the next century?
Here one can get a response from AGW-believers and a dialogue (or debate) can be started.
The difficulty here is that when the observed facts demonstrate that AGW can only cause a relatively minor global warming, the AGW-believers try to find other magical factors, which cause AGW to be more serious than has been observed so far or than the theory itself would suggest.
The main arguments I have seen are the suggestion of strong “positive feedbacks”, which result in a several-fold amplification of the theoretcal effect of CO2 alone, or “in the pipeline” arguments, which postulate that most of the warming to date is “hidden” in the ocean, from where it will eventually be miraculously released some day in the future to cause more warming of our atmosphere.
These arguments are both very easy to “shoot down”, as you have seen in the exchange between Peter and myself.
Peter is now faced with the choice of accepting that AGW is not likely to beome a serious threat, coming up with more “miraculous” arguments or weaving and bobbing around the subject without really addressing it, as he has been doing most recently.
Regards,
Max
Here’s another go at those last two links
Dr.Vermin Says:
David B. Benson Says:
If that doesn’t work, perhaps try pasting it in full in your browser
Max,
The only date given on the IPCC website is Nov 2007. Maybe parts of the report were released earlier , but whether the release date was March or November, are you really saying that this, or the paper by Mann made any real difference to your attitude? Mann’s paper was attacked politically but later given a tick of approval by the American Academy of Sciences. His was not the only ‘hockey stick’. You can still disagree or have reservations about Mann without it cahnging your opinion of the likely climate damage that may occur if CO2 levels are left to rise out of control.
I don’t believe your attitudes are any different to any of the other contrarians on this site or elsewhere. Most have a poor grasp of the science. Their and your motivation in opposing the scientific establishment lies elsewhere.
The so called libertarian, or pro-capitalist right, see the political left as not only dangerous but as a vast establishment, and are very attracted to lone sceptic or contrarian, and not just on the topic of climate change, who might cause them some discomfort. How nice to be able to disagree with the leftist establishment, the internationalist establishment in the form of the United Nations and the scientific establishment all at the same time.
I do believe they, have a genuine fear that climate change will give governments an excuse to exert much more control in the economic sphere, which is of course, and from their perspective, a major undesirable. Being disingenuous about the science is therefore justifiable, as protecting society from ‘government’ is a far greater priority than a few degrees of global warming. Once the scientific debate is lost, they and you fear the political consequences will flow automatically.
Any argument to bring aaginst the consensus will do. Its Ok to argue that it isn’t warming. You can argue that it is warming but that the warming is a good thing. You can argue that its natural and caused by the sun or cosmic rays. You can accept that the figures on carbon dioxide or temperature are accurate, or if things look a bit sticky you can retreat into a postion that they are all falsified and part of a greater hoax. There is no need for consistency. It’s just about impossible to counter and I’m sure you guys can keep it up as long as you like. It’s a bit like trying to fight against the monster in a Sci -fi movie. You destroy it in one form but it then metamorphs into something different and comes at you all over again.
Hi Peter,
Your rantings appear to be getting a bit more emotional and shrill.
You wrote: “The only date given on the IPCC website is Nov 2007”. So what? The 2007 SPM report was published in February 2007. My comments to this report were posted March 30, 2007, after I had downloaded and gone through the report in detail.
Your implication that I commented on an IPCC report before it was even issued is therefore false and totally fabricated.
You wrote, “Mann’s paper was attacked politically but later given a tick of approval by the American Academy of Sciences.” Attacked politically? What total rubbish!
It was thoroughly debunked scientifically by Mc + Mc in 2003 and 2005, given a scientific vote of no confidence by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006 and refuted scientifically in 2006 by the Carl Wegman panel, which had been commissioned by the NRC, in testimony before the US Congress.
In other words, it was repeatedly scientifically certified to be a fraud. If anyone after all this gave it a “tick of approval”, this would have been clearly a “political” move (or the move of a lunatic).
You opined, “I don’t believe your attitudes are any different to any of the other contrarians on this site or elsewhere. Most have a poor grasp of the science. Their and your motivation in opposing the scientific establishment lies elsewhere.”
Peter, this is a totally absurd statement, as you know. I prefer to stay on the topic of the flaws in the “science” supporting alarming AGW. I have pointed these out to you repeatedly.
You apparently prefer to resort to polemics and silly statements such as suggesting that I “have a poor grasp of the science” or that my “motivation in opposing the scientific establishment [whodat, Peter?] lies elsewhere”.
Such utter rubbish!
I won’t comment on the next paragraphs of political / ideological rantings about liberals, capitalists, leftists, libertarians, etc. This has nothing whatsoever to do with our debate, which is centered on the scientific validity of the claims of alarming AGW.
You have asked for consistency. That is exactly what I want, as well. Let’s see if you can get back on topic and respond to my 3841 rather than posting such silly messages.
Regards,
Max
Max,
The myth of the breaking hockey stick looks set to last a little longer in the minds of climate contrarians.
The original hockey stick and its successors have incited great effort on the part of global warming denialists, to discredit them. But all the efforts to debunk the proxy reconstructions, have themselves been debunked. And, many other investigators have estimated proxy reconstructions of earth’s temperature history, both hemispherically and globally, on scales of a thousand years or more. The details always differ, but the bottom line is always the same: that sharp rise on the far right-hand side.
In fact, the National Academy of Sciences has issued a report on the state of the science of temperature estimates from proxy reconstruction. They urge caution interpreting results, and estimating the error ranges of past numbers, but their bottom line is that cutting-edge proxy reconstructions are most likely a correct reflection of the fact that temperatures now are higher than they’ve been in a very long time.
Not only has Mann substantiated his results in Sept 2008, this time without challenge from M& M, but also his graph has been reproduced independently by Wahl and Amman.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
And many other groups too.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Peter Martin,
And; Max, hope you don’t mind me cutting in, but just a quickie on Pete’s prophets; Wahl & Ammann:
Just as you have little understanding in physics*, you also obviously know very little about the Wahl and Ammann fiasco.
1) Did you know that the IPCC cited an unpublished, (unreviewed) paper by them, despite that it was “illegal” to do so. (presumably because it sought to support MBH99)
2) Did you know that that unpublished paper was shown to be false (in part) by several expert reviewers for the IPCC, in the second order draft, but that that issue was ignored by the IPCC?
3) Did you know that there is great confusion as to the date of the paper?
4) you quote a 2005 comment on W & A which includes the following inherent contradiction:
…Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust… (my bold emphasis added)
5) Steve McIntyre has written much about W & A, some of it clearly too complicated for you to understand, but the following is possibly within your reach…. Try it: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3110
*PSSST, for example! Did you not know in one of your posts above, that CO2 is an invisible gas in visible light?
Max and Peter
I’ve only skimmed the comments this morning, but this may be of interest if it hasn’t been mentioned already:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4866
Also: the IPCC WG1 SPM was published 02/02/2007. The actual WG1 report was not published until some time after (April I think), which caused some raised eye-brows as the reason given that sure that the report agreed with the summary!
Form then on, various other sections were launched at intervals throughout the summer, culminating with the Synthesis Report in November.
So a very PR savvy series of media events spread over nine months, yielded screaming headlines on each occasion. The result may not have been what the IPCC hoped for, as opinion polls show falling support for AGW over the period, possibly because it was all just a bit too slick and the general public became suspicious.
Max
Have you seen this?
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo414.html
sounds plaisble to me as it is observable rather than extremely theoretical assumptions based on blind faith. This, linked with actual solar variation and actual comparative temperatures sans UHI -as opposed to manufactured and demonstrably inaccurate global temperatures to 1850- surely reduce the role of co2 to the tiny impact that many climate realists could subscribe to.
Tonyb
Peter,
This isn’t about “Leftist” policies or “solutions”. This is about money and power. You’ve commented about other situations that you disagree with throughout this thread….. i.e. the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the certainty of weapons of mass destruction possessed by the former Iraqi regime…… In these cases you accept that information was forged, manipulated and falsified; however, in the case of global warming you swallow the assertions of government agencies, (heavily, if not exclusively dependent upon public funding), as gospel.
A few examples of why I question the theory of Anthromorphic Global Warming:
1. Manipulation of data. (September Numbers Used In October Observed Temperatures).
2. Numerous issues with collected data. (Temperature sensors located next to barbecue grills, air conditioning condensers, trash burn barrels, on asphalt parking lots as well as simple/explainable clerical errors).
3. Inclusion of information that supports the “global warming theory” and omission of data that refutes it by “credible”, “unbiased” scientists that is frequently used to formulate policy, (Mann erasing the Medieval Warm Period and The Roman Optimum from his hockey stick graph).
4. The failure of the greatest proponents of “global warming” to follow their own recommendations, (that they prescribe for the “commoners”) in their personal lives. I resent being lectured to by politicians who excoriate me for “harming the environment”…. going about my daily life or earning a living while they travel the world in private 747s, hawk their books, purchase 100’ house boats and purchase oceanfront property after they just returned from a lecture circuit where they’ve earned 5/6 figure fees proclaiming that the global sea level will rise 20’. 609 private jets being flown to Washington D.C last weekend for the Inauguration is another example of the blatant hypocrisy of supporters of the environmentalist Left…..(unreported by the media).
5. Preposterous assertions of apocalypse by people who should know better, (Jimmie Hansen).
6. The complete collusion of “the media” in promoting a political agenda based on junk science.
7. Unfounded demonization of anyone that disputes the information or assertions of the global warming theory.
8. Politicians that claim that “something must be done about emissions” but then block legislation or initiatives that will provide wind farms because they would conflict and despoil areas where they go yachting.
9. And, the fact that it’s 15 degrees Fahrenheit outside my window right now.
I have no problem if you or other Alarmists voluntarily practice the techniques recommended to reduce CO2 emissions. You believe/do what you want to.
What I do object to is government intrusion into my life. I do not trust “government”, I do not trust government funded agencies.
I don’t need the government to tell me how or when to wipe my ass….apparently, some do.
It isn’t that I think that government employee “A” is involved with a conspiracy to take away my personal liberties; it’s that policy makers sift through information that best supports their cause and bury the rest. I also know that typical government employees are lazy and uninquisitive…(they won’t question policy for fear of jeopardizing their jobs).
You seem to trust government when they release information supporting your cause and reject information that does not support you personal beliefs; you can’t have it both ways.
Every proposed “solution” to combat increasing CO2 put forth by politicians involves more and more intrusion of government into our lives and more and more taxes levied upon us…..why is that? Why is it that all of the “solutions” put forth requires Collectivist government policies and redistribution of wealth?
A theory has been presented to us all; “increased levels of CO2 cause a general warming of the Earth’s atmosphere”.
CO2 has increased and global temperatures have dropped or remained static, (which returns us to Dr. Whitehouse’s original article). When presented with this fact, proponents of global warming rewrite their claims stating that increased CO2 cause temperatures to rise and fall…..everything from excessive rainfall to irritable bowel syndrome are caused by rising CO2 according to the media and the politicians promoting this fraud which requires all of us to “mend our evil ways” and “fall into line”……to conform to a culture that they deem to be most favorable.
I’m certain that others can provide numerous/various reasons for questioning the global warming theory or why they aren’t blindly in lock step with the “enlightened” politicians; but this is a short list of my reasons for being suspicious of the theory and skeptical of the motivations of the people promoting it.
Hi TonyB,
Reur 3891 Very interesting. I had seen a similar (but less comprehensive) study for the USA.
As Hans Erren points out graphically, if all of the cooling in the USA from 1950 to 1975 were caused by increasing aerosols (Schneider et al) then all of the warming since 1975 could well be caused simply by eliminating a major portion of these aerosols.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/usso2vst.gif
Regards,
Max
Max #3893
Interesting graph. Yes, eliminating aerosols should reasonably have the effect described.
Add in UHI and other variables and co2 looks to be an even more minor player.
It would be interesting to see a ‘global sun hours to 1850’ chart. It has got notably sunnier here over the last twenty years-less fog, more solar variation,fewer aerosols, less pollution etc etc. More sun often means greater heat during the day which would create higher temperatures. Obviously that might impact on lower night time temperatures as well. Wheres a useful ‘1850’ figure when you need it?
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You are beating a dead horse if you are trying to revive the discredited Mann hockey stick. Let it “rest in peace”. It has been discredited several times, as I pointed out. It has been buried. It was a hoax. It is “ancient history”.
I am not going to get into a long-winded discussion with you about the many howls of anguish by AGW-groupies and sites like RealClimate when it was officially discredited or the quickly cobbled-together copy-spaghetti-graphs.
There are several studies that clearly show a MWP with temperatures a bit higher than the late 20th century temperatures.
In addition, there is a plethora of historical as well as physical evidence of a global MWP warmer then today.
End of discussion.
Let’s get back on topic to something a bit more pertinent:
We have thoroughly discussed the observed temperature increase from 1850 to 2008, we have established that around 50% of this increase can be attributed to increased 20th century solar activity, and based on this we have been able to show that AGW could theoretically have been responsible for the remaining 0.3C warming over this period.
Based on this knowledge, the IPCC-assumed atmospheric CO2 content in 1850 and the Mauna Loa measured CO2 level in 2008 we can calculate the theoretical temperature increase from AGW to year 2100, assuming a CO2 level of around 2x the 1850 level. This tells us that we will theoretically see another 0.4C warming attributable to AGW.
We do not know what the sun, ENSO, NAO, PDO, etc. will do between today and year 2100, so we cannot really be presumptuous (or foolhardy) enough to try to project what the temperature in 2100 will be, but we can safely say that assuming all other things are equal AGW could theoretically cause a barely perceptible warming from today to year 2100 of 0.4C.
We have also gotten a good check on the “feedback” question with Spencer’s actual physical observations of strongly negative feedback from clouds, essentially canceling out the positive feedbacks assumed from water vapor less lapse rate and surface albedo, bringing the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity in line with the observed temperature record (see above).
And finally, we can ignore the rather convoluted hypothesis of additional future atmospheric warming “in the pipeline” from “ocean uptake” as a fabrication without serious scientific merit.
These topics are the ones you and I need to discuss to conclusion, not whether or not one certifiably phony study denying the existence of a slightly warmer MWP (in total ignorance of the historical record) can be partly resuscitated or validated by copy-studies or loud cries of anguish from pro-AGW sites.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin,
May I draw your attention to the link in TonyN’s 3890, with a recommendation that you study it carefully and with patience:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4866
You have made claims that MBH99 has been verified by others, however, the somewhat similar spaghetti graphs that you like cannot be argued as independent in several respects. Please have a go at understanding it. It’s not too complicated…. Nothing very technical really; it’s just like studying a family tree, if you can cope with that level of difficulty.
BTW, there are various truly independent studies that do NOT result in your preferred Hockey-stick shape
Max,
It’s time to learn some new cliches. Repetitive use of the phrase ‘beating a dead horse’ is no real substitute for coherent argument.
You say, there are ‘several studies that clearly show a MWP with temperatures a bit higher than the late 20th century temperatures’. Such as?
This graph from “Stott et al” forecasts global temperatures in the coming century based on measurements of the last century. It is a little more comprehensive than your ‘back of envelope’ calculation.
But, if you do like back of envelope calculations: the temperature will continue to rise at approximately 0.15 deg C per decade, on average, over this century. That works out to be 2.3 degC above its 1850 value.
That’s a little lower than Stott’s and other forecasts. However, you are right in saying that the ocean will not stop taking up heat and slowing down the warming process. But it won’t stop it.
When CO2 levels are stabilised, at whatever level, the warming will continue for years afterwards.
Peter #3897 seems to have accidentally omitted the link so here it is.
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone2/
If you think that looks a Mannian uptick thats because it is. This piece surely wins the prize for most assumptions and hypotheses ever put together in one paper.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
I am not really interested in getting into a side discussion on the MWP at this time, until we have resolved out primary discussion. I will come back to you with several studies showing a warmer MWP than today, plus references to even more important historical and physical evidence.
But for now I see the Stott curve you posted predicting accelerated 21st century warming due to anthropogenic forcing, and I ask myself two questions.
What is the basis for this curve? In other words, what 2xCO2 climate sensitivity was used to arrive at these projected temperatures by year 2100, and what net cloud feedback was assumed?
What happened so far in real life?
The first eight years of the 21st century show a net cooling, at an average rate of -0.111C per decade (Hadley).
Stott’s prophesy was warming starting at a rate of +0.3C per decade for the first decades of the 21st century and leveling off slightly to reach about 2.5C warming over the entire 21st century.
So Stott is even further off than the IPCC (see curve).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3473/3226419409_857bfc8866_b.jpg
Peter, this is all hypothetical gobbledygook based on flawed assumptions.
Regards,
Max
United States and Global Data Integrity Issues
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/DAleo-DC_Brief.pdf