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.
Max,
So, some records, for this century, are showing warming. Some show a cooling. Some a showing that its flat. How about ‘statistically indistinguishable’ ? Wasn’t that David Whitehouse’s phrase from the New Statesman?
David Whitehouse is a solar scientist. If you look carefully at what he’s written “Has Global warming stopped etc” you will notice that he’s avoided openly siding with you guys. He’s trying to make the most of the quiet sun. Its not what he says that I’ve a problem with. More what he doesn’t say and the way that his articles can be deliberately misinterpreted.
Brute,
You say “Cap and Trade will fail”. Well it hasn’t failed for SO2 emission control. So whether it will fail for CO2 control is just a matter of speculation at the moment.
You say “I know you better than you think I do”. You’d have to know how well I think that you think you knew me to start with! I really hadn’t given the question any thought at all I must say.
But seriously, I would support the idea of everyone having a ration of CO2 emissions which they could sell, in a free and open capitalist market, if they wished. That would help reduce the gap between rich and poor which you suddenly seem to be very concerned about.
So you can’t object to that then can you?
Max,
Good idea about moving those thermometers. It should be good news for Himalayan glaciers. They’ll suddenly stop melting.
http://www.mountain-portal.co.uk/text/himalglacierx.html
The forestry guys are concerned that they may have to plant different species as the climate changes.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090209-trees-migrating-north.html
They won’t have to bother if your idea is taken up.
Re: #6126, Peter
As an astrophysicist, David Whitehouse can be expected to exercise the kind of caution in expressing his arguments that is common in scientific disciplines that do not carry heavy political overheads. Only in climate science does it seem to be acceptable for researchers and commentators to write with absolute certainty and claim to know all the answers all the time. You might be interested in a more recent article that he published in the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
TonyN and Max in particular will be distraught by these reports.The first that the BBC is cutting some envioronment reporters from the team
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/11/bbc-newsnight-science-environment-cuts
The second that Pen Hadow and his team are being rescued from the ice sometime this week. They are around halfway to the pole and expect the current -7C temperatures to drop sharply in the next few days.
Tonyb
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/11/catlin-artic-ice-survey-packing-it-up-what-have-they-accomplished/
Hey Peter,
Thanks for your constructive thoughts.
You mention glaciers with a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the concept of an upward distortion to the surface temperature record and melting glaciers are mutually exclusive i.e. one cannot be happening if the other is).
Since glaciers are, indeed, melting (in the Himalayas), you seemed to suggest that there could be no UHI effect.
Since I live in Switzerland glaciers are a topic dear to my heart.
The Swiss have been studying alpine glaciers for several hundred years. They know that they are currently retreating from their highest extent in 10,000 years, which occurred around 1850.
Over this same time period the global average temperature (Hadley) has been gradually warming at about 0.04C per decade, and there is a very good chance that this warming is related to the current shrinking of the glaciers.
Physical evidence, records of human migrations across alpine passes plus studies by glaciologists tell us that the glaciers were smaller than they are today during the MWP, also providing indirect evidence that it most likely was warmer then than today.
The same is true for an earlier period called the Roman Optimum, when Hannibal even crossed the Alps with elephants over passes that are still closed today; this tells us that it was most likely warmer then than today.
There is no evidence, however, that human CO2 has anything to do with any of this.
So yes, it is warming today (and has since the record started and we have been coming out of a colder period called the Little Ice Age).
And yet, a part of the most recently measured warming (up to 2001 when it stopped, at least) may have actually been a result of distortion of the surface record, due to urbanization, poor station siting, shutdown of a large number of rural stations, etc., but I do not believe one could rationalize that ALL of the warming was caused by these distortions (maybe around 0.3C out of the total, as several studies indicate).
After all, the satellite record (which does not have these distortions) also shows warming, albeit at a somewhat lower rate and only since 1979.
So the premise of an upward distortion to the surface record resulting from the UHI effect and a slight real warming of our planet (whether due to the sun, GHGs, changimg ocean currents or a combination of all of these and/or some other factor of which we are not yet even aware) are not mutually exclusive concepts.
In fact, I believe that the evidence shows that both are likely to be real.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You opined to Brute (regarding carbon cap and trade):
Your statement is true, of course.
But to compare the emission of SO2 (a toxic compound not found naturally in our atmosphere, which also causes acid rain and, in higher concentrations, destruction of forests, etc.) with CO2 (a non-toxic naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which is essential to all life on our planet) is patently absurd, Peter, as I am sure you are aware.
It is like comparing abatement of crude oil spills with stopping people from watering their lawns.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 6126, I do not believe that David Whitehouse and I are on a different wave length at all.
After all, he wrote the lead article to the precursor to this site, which suggested that the late 20th century warming trend may have ended at the turn of the century.
His new article suggests that the unusually inactive sun may be causing the current cooling trend.
This could well be true. Only time will tell whether or not the currently observed cooling will continue to become a new multi-decadal trend, like so many that we have witnessed before.
At present, it has lasted only 8.25 years, and that is only 1/3 as long as the much-ballyhooed late 20th century warming period from 1976 to 2000, so it is still a “baby” and has a way to go to become a real “grown up” trend.
Regards,
Max
Max your 6124
I thought you would be particularly interested in these links which combines your post 6124 with others.
You know of my antipathy to the concept of ‘global’ temperatures in general and of Historic ones in particular. This gives me the opportunty of combining the latest report from Anthony Watts on the deficiencies in surface stations, together with James Hansens 1987 work on historic temperatures.
It could usefully be read in conjunction with the post I made yesterday on UHI
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6256520.ece
Sometime ago I bought the archives of GS Callendar who -as well as his seminal work on co2- was also a noted amateur meterologist. He complained about the very small number of reliable weather stations on which to base his work, and the fact that stations were often closed, moved, new uncalibrated equipment put in, and generally the data was highly inconsistent.
The link below is Hansens 1987 paper which is still much used by the industry as proof of temperature change since 1880.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
It was a good piece of detective work in the days when he was a proper scientist. The following year he used this document as the basis for his talk to Congress on catastrophic warming- after ensuring the air conditioning was turned off to ensure his message had a greater impact.
If you look at figure 4 (after first reading how many times the word ‘estimates’ is used to excuse the interpolation of data to compensate for the lack of numerical or spatial coverage) you will see that it shows the tiny numbers of stations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
In 1850 in the whole of the NH there were 60 weather stations and in the SH there were 10. G S Callendar wrote his co2 thesis in 1938 and even then used only a total of 200 stations worldwide, many of which he was not impressed with-the numbers he was impressed with for the period in question here (pre 1900) numbered in the few dozens
By about 1900 we theoretically had 50% coverage in the NH (if you accept very large gridded squares of 1200km as ample coverage with which to record inconsistent data) and it took until 1940 for the same coverage in the SH.
The SST has been hotly contested due to the nature of the ships data being used-you might have followed the long debate on CA about Buckets and water intakes. You will also be aware of the incorrect algorithm Hansen used that forced him to concede that the 1930’s US temperatures were higher than he calculated.
(As an aside, quite by chance I met someone who served on a ship and took these water temperatures, and the word haphazard is far too kind a word to use)
This rebuttal from Vincent Gray of the nature of Hansens data
http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/The_Cause_of_Global_Warming_Policy_Series_7.pdf
This from CA
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2015
This refers to the fuss about McKitricks paper.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Ross_McKitrick
To use data from 1850 (Hadley) or 1880 (Giss) is meaningless due to their incompleteness and lack of reliability and consistency. Since then there has been a whole series of changes in the station number and locations, and measurements at UHI hot spots are not fairly adjusted for. In addition there is a severe problem with general siting of many stations-that is the prime focus of Anthony Watts site surfacestations.org
Below is a repeat of Anthony Watts report, just out, on the very poor quality of US surface stations.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Combine the very poor data from a tiny number of inconsistent stations since 1880 (Hansen) with the Report on the temperature increse caused by UHI (Sunday Times) and the unreliability of US weather stations (Anthony Watts) and it is impossible to see how any credence can be placed on temperature data in general and Long term global ones in particular.
TonyB
Max,
I don’t know about wavelengths but it seems that you and David Whitehouse are in some disagreement.
He is saying that the temperatures for this century are ‘statistically indistinguishable’. Sounds like temperatures are flat, don’t you think?
What about your graph of Dec08? Are you still standing by that? That doesn’t show any cooling either. You were in agreement with DW then. Has so much changed in just a few months?
I’m not sure what David Whitehouse’s definition of ‘major impact’ is. See the link to the Independent article on the current deep solar minimum in TonyN’s last post. It’s the equivalent of 7 years CO2 emissions. It wasn’t predicted. As the IPCC say the level of understanding of what drives the solar cycle is low.
According to David Whitehouse the sun has ‘gone to sleep’. If it had, none of us would be around to discuss the problem. If he was wanting to be scientifically accurate he would have said the the intensity had fallen by less than 0.1% which doesn’t have quiet as high a ‘gee whizz’ rating.
It’s not normal, and anyone with a grain of intelligence wouldn’t want to rely on the sun continuing to diminish in intensity at exactly the right rate to offset the effect of increasing CO2 levels for ever.
It may be recalled that, in response to Peter (who, for some odd reason, now prefers to call himself tempterrain} challenging me to tell him how I think the dangerous AGW hypothesis should been verified, I asked him to
After various diversions, he said that the answer was the IPCC’s AR4 “Synthesis Report”. I demonstrated (#6058) how utterly that failed to meet my request. So, having lost that argument, he’s now trotting out a new one by claiming (post 15 of TonyN’s new Channel 4 OFCOM thread ) that somehow the dangerous AGW hypothesis is a special case to which the long established scientific process by which a hypothesis is validated doesn’t apply. He supports this absurd argument by pointing out that there’s just one Earth and that therefore what he describes as controlled experiments are impossible. I’ve referred him back here for my comment.
Peter: as you know very well, I am talking about testing by the observation of empirical evidence. Researchers who wished to demonstrate there was a smoking/cancer link didn’t say “there’s only one Earth to test it in, so you’ll have to take our word for it” – no, they went out there and looked at the evidence (see #5959). Likewise, William Herschel didn’t say “there’s no point in my building better telescopes and looking for evidence of the complexity of the Galaxy because there’s only one Universe that I can observe, so you’ll have to take my word for it”. No, he built the telescopes and he did the observations. That is how science has been done for 300 years – the dangerous AGW hypothesis is not exempt.
PS: I’ll now be away from my computer for three days (in Lisbon).
Robin,
I always thought barristers were supposed to be particularly bright people!
Instead of “ya boo sucks” towards the IPCC reports, why don’t you get into some detail? If you’ve got a problem with any of it, why not explain just what is. Suggest what you’d like them to include instead?
There’s no point saying that the IPCC report doesn’t meet the high standards of Robin ( I don’t know much about science) Guenier. No one will care what you think unless you can raise your game a bit and start sounding a little more informed and intelligent.
Peter:
In view of your comment here do you consider that David Whitehouse ‘understands science’?
Peter
(apologies for jumping in Robin)
“Robin ( I don’t know much about science) Guenier”. That is something of a pot/kettle/black moment for you Peter, given your seeming assertion that standard scientific method doesn’t apply to AGW (strictly speaking i don’t think it does, but it should do).
I think what Robin would like to see (along with all of us) is some direct empirical evidence that man made CO2 emmissions have caused the bulk of the late 20th century warming. Not model outputs, not evidence of surface/atmospheric warming, not retreating sea ice or glaciers, not rising sea levels, not ocean acidification, etc etc. These are effect or fortune telling, they give no evidence as to cause, and that’s the $64,000 question.
Re: #6130, TonyB
I wonder what the BBC’s focus groups are telling them about audience reaction to AGW output?
Hi Peter,
I am beginning to wonder if you are really dull or if you are just trying to irritate me with your last silly blurb:
The graph to which you refer
COVERED THE PERIOD 1998 TO 2008 (using Hadley annual data). It was intended to show how ex post facto “adjustments” of data can cause the numbers to change.
In this case, theoriginal data showed a very slight cooling trend from 1998 to 2008, while the “adjusted” data showed a few slight warming OVER THE PERIOD 1998 TO 2008.
The latest curves I have shown are based on the monthly data of Hadley (plus other records) for the 21st century, i.e. BASED ON THE PERIOD STARTING JANUARY 2001 THRU MARCH 2009.
ALL RECORDS show cooling over THIS period, at an averagerate of around 0.1C per decade (Hadley shows cooling at 0.126C per decade).
PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CURVES COVER TWO DIFFERENT PERIODS AND THEREFORE SHOW DIFFERENT RESULT!
Have put this all in caps so you could understand it all a bit better.
Hope this clears up your obvious confusion on this point once and for all.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
You opined (referring to the Whitehouse article):
Sorry, Peter. Your logic is weak here.
The observed physical fact is that after a period of unusually high solar activity in the 20th century (highest in several thousand years according to solar experts!) we have entered a period of very low solar activity, particularly since around January 2008.
We know from solar scientists that the high level of solar activity contributed around one-half of the physically observed warming over the 20th century.
Some solar scientists now say that the current cooling trend is partly caused by the present unusually low level of solar activity, and that if this low activity were to continue, we could have another Dalton or Maunder minimum, with a resulting longer period of more severe cooling, as was physically observed then.
Like it or not Peter, you cannot deny that it is cooling, rather than warming currently, so that is not the point of discussion.
But the point is this: If it continues to cool sharply despite all-time record human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then this constitutes fairly compelling evidence for the premise that human CO2 is not really driving our climate, but that other factors dominate.
It is not Pachauri’s old “smoke and mirrors” postulation that the CO2 warming is really happening, but is temporarily being masked by something else (which we cannot explain as yet, but are checking out).
Is this what you think, Peter? If so, how do you defend this postulation against the postulation that other forces are driving our climate, despite all-time high CO2 concentrations?
Regards,
Max
Entertaining article on ICECAP. Apparently the UHI effect which has a “negligible” effect on the global temperature record is going to cause cities to bake.
Appears the right hand and left hand aren’t talking anymore.
Cities to Sizzle as Islands of Heat
By Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor Timesonline
LONDON and other cities could see summer temperatures rise to more than 10C above those in the surrounding countryside, according to Met Office research being used to help devise the first official climate change map of Britain. Scientists have been studying a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect, in which cities become significantly hotter than the areas around them because of the heat they generate themselves.
Big cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow already reach temperatures 2C – 3C above their surroundings in the summer. Scientists fear that difference could grow four to fivefold as hotter weather combines with soaring energy use and population growth, making such temperature gaps more frequent and more extreme.
The research is linked to a wider project aimed at helping scientists predict the impact rising temperatures will have on different parts of the country. The full results will be released next month by Hilary Benn, the environment secretary. Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “As the climate gets warmer, sweltering summer temperatures will combine with rising energy use, the heat-retaining properties of buildings, and the sheer volume of people, to push temperatures higher and higher. It may sometimes make life in the metropolis intolerable. Imagine the scorching conditions that commuters will face on London’s Tube network.”
The warning follows the disclosure by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global temperatures have risen by almost 1C since preindustrial times. The panel predicts global temperatures will have risen by 2C by 2050 with total warming of up to 5-6C possible by 2100. Such findings are now widely accepted but questions remain, especially regarding the impact on cities, where more than half the world?s population live. New York – hotter in summer than British cities – is regularly 7C-8C hotter than nearby rural areas.
In Britain, 90% of the population lives in urban or suburban areas so the impact on people is potentially huge. The research is based partly on data from heatwaves, such as the one in 2003, and on computer projections. It also looked at cities such as Athens and Beirut which suffer from the urban heat phenomenon. The August 2003 heatwave saw England?s daytime temperatures top 30C for 10 days and exceed 35C in many places. The same heatwave saw temperatures in the upper 30Cs in the centres of cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester. This was often 6C-7C above those in rural areas.
Researchers fear central city temperatures may exceed 40C as the century progresses. “The high temperatures of 2003 were extraordinary but may become common by 2050 and even be seen as relatively cool by 2100,” said Pope. One of the factors that made London so hot was its inability to cool down. At night during the heatwave, the city centre was sometimes 9C warmer than its surrounding green belt.
This is because rural and suburban areas lose heat at night but in cities the materials used for hard surfaces store more solar energy and lose it more slowly. This effect is amplified by the heat from lights, electrical equipment and cars. Also, as cities get warmer, they consume more power trying to stay cool, because of airconditioners and fridges working harder. Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the Met Office, who oversaw the research, said Tokyo showed what British cities might face. Its tall, densely packed buildings and high energy use mean the Japanese capital is often 10C hotter than the surrounding countryside. “We must change how we plan cities, to maximise green spaces and create structures that dissipate heat,” said Betts.
Urban heat islands have a serious impact on health. In 2003 there were 2,091 more deaths than normal between August 4 and 13 in Britain, most of them among elderly people in southeast England. For people aged over 75 there was a 33% increase in mortality.
The UKMO is promoting and the author is endorsing the IPCC forecasts which are failing miserably. They are ironically now “studying” the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect that was said to not be important to global temperatures. The Hadley Center (like NOAA) makes no adjustment for UHI based on Jones et. al. (1990) and later Parker (2004) who claimed that the non-climatic bias due to urbanization is less than one-tenth of the global trend. Recently Jones coauthored a paper that showed significant UHI contamination in China but he claimed it did not apply globally and now the UKMO is using it to pump up the scare tactics for the UK.
Hello Barleysane 6143
I posted that article a couple of days ago and again yesterday on 6134 addressed to Max. Its intriguing isn’t it. I combined 6134 with past IPCC studies showing that UHI apparently had a negligible effect, plus dubious Hansen Historic temperatures back to 1880, plus the latest findings from the surface stations project.
All in all the surface records of the 20th/21st Century are suspect enough without people attempting to place credence on them to calculate warming to a fraction of a degree back to 1850 (Hadley) or 1880 (Giss)
It becomes even more laughable that the historic temperatures are baaed on a couple of dozen stations worldwide with a very poor spatial spread that contained information that the Father of AGW (Callendar) said was suspect.
The idea of a global temperature is bizarre in the first place, as our planet consists of millions of micro climates and if you average bad and insufficient data you end up with bad and inaccurate averages.
Although the actual surface area of urban areas is tiny, the number of stations located in them is very substantial (see my 6134) and has a disproportionate effect on overall temperatures
AS you say, so on the one hand UHI is of no importance at all, then apparently it is of great importance. Sounds like more fudge than a well stocked sweet shop.
tonyb
Hi Tonyb
Sorry, i’m obviously doing really well at keeping up on events here.
As you say the whole thing is a little bizarre. I’ve kept an eye on Antony Watts surface station project. Combining that with all the various other effects i do wonder how we place and serious credence on the surface temperature record. The only decent measure seems to be the satellite data, but obviously that doesn’t go back very far.
Barleysane
Satellites have their short comings as well which is why I like well documented national surface records (which also have their shortcomings!) and think some of us place far too much credibility on such global data when producing graphs that illustrate accuracy going back 150 years to a fraction of a degree. It can’t be done from a few dozen poor stations. When it is being done at Nasa and IPCC level the lack of accuracy is unforgivable as it is being portrayed as utterly factual
tonyb
Re Urban Heat Islands (TonyB’s 6122, Barelysane’s 6143), I find it intriguing that phenomena that the Met Office used to view as insignificant bit-players in the great drama of AGW – La Nina, the PDO and now UHI – have become rather more prominent of late (although AGW still officially gets top billing.) Switching metaphors now, I’m reminded of a group of opposition political parties being hastily invited to a power-sharing deal by an increasingly beleaguered and out-of-touch president.
Alex
That is a great analogy.
Perhaps the ‘new’ science needs much greater attention, whilst the old science (Global temperatures, how long co2 stays in the atmosphere, how quickly co2 increases after temperatures rise etc etc) is not as settled as had been thought.
Tonyb
Pete,
I have an idea…..why don’t we tax the Global Warming Alarmists and force them to pay to relocate all of the polar bears to Australia?
Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier is advancing at the rate of seven feet per day…..
http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/05/11/columns/columns06.prt