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.
Bob_FJ
I agree that the “hide the decline” divergence problem (between observed temperatures and tree ring proxy data) is not so much an issue of post 1960 warming. Instead, it points out how weak the tree-ring reconstruction data for earlier periods really was. And this is the reason that it needed to be hidden, in my opinion.
Max
Max: I agree with your 8526.
In The Times today there’s an article by Andrew Watson (Royal Society Research Professor at the University of East Anglia) telling us that the CRU emails have been taken out of context. He cites in particular the notorious “hide the decline” email. As I say in a comment, I suspect he knows he is misleading us. That email may have been taken out of context by some. But the context is arguably worse.
The CRU was keen to find a way of showing that the Medieval Warm Period (the MWP) didn’t really exist. (As you know, the MWP is important because it appears to show that, around 1200 AD when man’s CO2 emissions were negligible, temperatures were higher than they are today.) The tree ring data seemed to show that temperatures at that time were not particularly high, thus achieving the CRU’s ambition. But, towards the end of the 20th century, tree ring data showed a decline compared with the actual instrument record. Therefore, as you say, tree ring data is clearly an unreliable guide to temperature and cannot eliminate the inconvenient MWP after all. That was the decline CRU wished to hide – that was the “trick”.
Max
Most scientists do not agree that if the “atmospheric CO2 concentration really were reduced to zero the earth would be a not ‘insignificant’ 18degC cooler as a result”, as Peter states.
He doesn’t believe it either, but likes to quote it to us because Plimer said it! Actually, it wouldn’t matter if it were true, as the absence of CO2 would have put paid to any organic life anyway…
Max,
You write “The generally accepted number is 5 to 7degC.”
Do you have a reference? You may think I’m just point scoring but I would be seriously interested to know just what the correct figure was.
I’ve asked Ian Plimer, who hasn’t answered, for a reference for a his figure of 18 degs.
I see the WMO is doing its bit for Copenhagen. Does anyone know how they arrived at such a conclusion, since even our MO (Vicky Pope) has stated the opposite..?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html
to TonyB #8503
I agree the real work is being done outside the public blogs, and what you’re up to at climatereason is an excellent example. I compare your honest hard work with this:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=356&filename=1062592331.txt
and weep. Note that the above email is from a scientist who wants to inject some honesty and transparency into the “scientific” process, yet even he proposes adjusting the input to fix the results, tacking on the names of fictional authors, and then retiring! These people are plumbers (in the literal, and the Watergate sense) not scientists.
To others: my little rant at #8496, 8500 wasn’t a criticism of anyone, but a simple suggestion that the most useful thing any of us could do at the moment would be to guide the huge number of angry sceptics commenting in the mainstream press to blogs like this one, where they can refresh themselves with the clear waters of common sense and sweet reason.
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen
PeterM
You asked for a reference to the natural greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide of 5 to 7°C.
We have been through this question before on this blog, but I can summarize.
The total natural greenhouse effect is generally estimated to be around 33°C.
“About 80-90% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.”
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_the_greenhouse_effect.htm
This would leave around 3.3 to 6.6°C for CO2 and other minor GHGs.
Another source puts the total GHE at 30°C and the natural CO2 impact at between 9% and 26% of the total, which translates to between 2.7° and 7.8°C.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
Three other frequently quoted estimates:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
At the low end, Lindzen has estimated the natural GHE from CO2 at around 1.7°C. (Richard S. Lindzen, Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, 94, 8335-8342 (1997) 8 and (in German) Klima 2000 (Heuseler), 2, 3-8 (1998) 5/6
Kondratjew and Moskalenko estimated it at 7.2°C (K.Ya. Kondratyev,N.I. Moskalenko in J.T.Houghton, The Global Climate”, Cambridge Universitiy Press, 225-233 (1984)
On the high end, Charnock and Shine estimate it at 12°C (Henry Charnock, Keith P. Shine, Physics Today, Dec 1993, p. 66)
So if we were to average all these various estimates, ranging from 1.7° to 12.0°C, we would get: 5.9°C.
I’d say 5-7°C would be a good range.
Max
Robin (8527)
I am always amused by the role that the Mann et al. “hockeystick” has played, particularly in the rather myopic view of IPCC.
In the TAR SPM report it got “center page billing” as a key piece of evidence that current warming was unprecedented.
After having been comprehensively discredited by M+M (confirmed by Prof. Wegman) it was moved to a less conspicuous location in IPCC’s most recent AR4 report (hidden in Chapter 6, but this piece of junk science is amazingly still used as a “piece of evidence” for the claim per SPM 2007):
This is, of course, total balderdash.
There have been over twenty studies using all sorts of paleoclimate reconstructions from all over the world, which confirm that the MWP was somewhat warmer than the current period.
China
De’Er Zhang
Henan Province
0.9-1.0°C warmer than present
Link 1
Eastern China
Ge, Q., Zheng, J., Fang, X., Man, Z., Zhang, X., Zhang, P. and Wang, W.-C.
0.4°C higher than today’s peak warmth
Link 2
Pearl River Delta, S. China
Honghan, Z. and Baolin, H.
1-2°C higher than that at present time
Link 3
Japan
Adhikari, D.P. and Kumon, F.
warmer than any other period during the last 1300 years
Link 4
Yakushima Island, S. Japan
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E.
about 1°C above that of the Current Warm Period
Link 5
Sargasso Sea
Keigwin, L.
~1°C warmer than today
Link 6
Tropical Ocean (Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Caribbean)
Alicia Newton, Robert Thunell, and Lowell Stott
0.4°C warmer than today
Link 7
New Zealand
Cook, E. R., J. G. Palmer, and R. D. D’Arrigo
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
Link 8
New Zealand
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P
0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period
Link 9
Barrow Strait, Canada
Vare, L.L., Masse, G., Gregory, T.R., Smart, C.W. and Belt, S.T
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
Link 10
Northern Gulf of Mexico (Pigmy Basin)
Richey, J.N., Poore, R.Z., Flower, B.P. and Quinn, T.M
about 1.5°C warmer than present-day temperatures.
Link 11
Coastal Peru
Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C
Medieval Warm Period for this region was about 1.2°C above that of the Current Warm Period
Link 12
Venezuela coast
Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R.
approximately 0.35°C warmer than peak Current Warm Period temperatures, and fully 0.95°C warmer than the mean temperature of the last few years of the 20th century
Link 13
Lake Erie, Ohio, USA
Patterson, W.P
both summer maximum and mean annual temperatures in the Great Lakes region were found to be higher than those of the 20th century; mean annual temperatures were 0.2°C higher
Link 14
Chesapeake Bay, USA
Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A.
mean 20th-century temperatures were 0.15°C cooler than mean temperatures during the first stage of the Medieval Warm Period
Link 15
Greenland Summit
Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J.
temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1100) were about 1°C warmer than those of the Current Warm Period.
Link 16
Sweden (Central Scandinavian Mountains)
Linderholm, H.W. and Gunnarson, B.E.
Between AD 900 and 1000, summer temperature anomalies were as much as 1.5°C warmer than the 1961-1990 base period
Link 17
Finnish Lapland
Weckstrom, J., Korhola, A., Erasto, P. and Holmstrom, L.
0.15°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period
Link 18
Ural Mountains, Russia
Mazepa, V.S.
Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant portions of it were as much as 0.56°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.
Link 19
Altai Mountains, S. Siberia, Russia
Kalugin, I., Daryin, A., Smolyaninova, L., Andreev, A., Diekmann, B. and Khlystov, O.
mean peak temperature of the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period was about 0.5°C higher than the mean peak temperature of the Current Warm Period.
Link 20
NW Spain
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W.
mean annual temperature during this time was as much as 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period.
Link 21
Antarctica (Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica)
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T
The MWP at ca. 750 14C yr BP was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP.
Link 22
Global reconstruction
Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058 and
Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100.
The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
Link 23
As you can see, the evidence for a global MWP with temperatures somewhat higher than today are overwhelming.
There is no need to rely on a single since discredited study (with a poor correlation between tree-ring data and physically observed temperature after 1960) or any of the “copy-hockeysticks” that followed it.
Max
Links to follow
Link 1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
Link 2
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_easternchina.php
Link 3
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pearlriver.php
Link 4
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N13/C3.php
Link 5
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_yakushima.php
Link 6
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503
Link 7
http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/stott%20papers/Newton%20et%20al.,%202006.pdf
Link 8
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014580.shtml
Link 9
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nzcave.php
Link 10
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_barrowstrait.php
Link 11
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pigmybasin.php
Link 12
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_perushelf.php
Link 13
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacobasin.php
Link 14
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_lakeerie.php
Link 15
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_chesapeake.php
Link 16
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_gripsummit.php
Link 17
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_jamtland.php
Link 18
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_tsuolbmajavri.php
Link 19
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_polarurals.php
Link 20
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_altaimountains.php
Link 21
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nwspain.php
Link 22
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_ameryshelf.php
Link 23
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Max (8526 & 8534) & Robin (8527)
Yep; how different the debate and “consensus” would be if those so-called scientists would admit that the MWP etc was real, and that thus the current warm period is not unprecedented!
An argument out of Copenhagen being sprayed around on the ABC this morning has been that the current decade is the warmest on record, (160 years). This is of course a very powerful argument to anyone uninformed in the detail or on the MWP.
I actually feel that although M & M have done some excellent work showing scientific fraud in the MBH 99 manna graph etc, (in coding, data, and statistics) , I think that a problem with it is that it is far too complicated and advanced for most people to understand, including many scientists. Consequently, I submit it may have done possibly more harm than good in the mainstream general understanding.
There are however other neglected fatal issues that are much less difficult to understand, and why they don‘t come to the fore, is totally beyond me!
The simplest of all is that even if the shape of the MBH 99 curve were correct, the best that can be claimed for it is that the tree-rings (the overwhelmingly predominant proxies) apply only for the summer daytime growth period proxy data. This is obviously incapable of inferring full diurnal and annual temperatures that make-up the so-called global average. Additionally, the tree sites are regionally restricted to generally high latitude and/or altitude locations where the argument appears to be that precipitation etc have remained constant for millennia. Similar regional limitations apply to the few proxy series allegedly based on ice-cores and whatnot. (although I’m puzzled how the different types of proxy data can be correctly merged, weighted, and cross calibrated!).
A laughable aspect of it is that the hockey stick adherents claim that one reason for discounting the MWP is that it was highly regional and/or the different regions were out of sync, meaning that it did not have global average significance! (despite that the history and science of the MWP is worldwide with no evidence of out-of-sync.). Incidentally, MBH 99 is only claimed to cover the Northern Hemisphere, not the globe, although about 1/3 of the proxy data were sampled in the SH. Currently, the SH lags the NH.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, I see that over on the ‘never fear Pachauri is here’ thread at # 8 that a well known commenter here does NOT understand the difference between proxy calibrations complete with their significant indicative* uncertainties, (grey), and temperature data that are depicted absent of uncertainty. (or is he trolling?) In other words there is an uncertainty indication that the smoothed proxy data does not necessarily line-up with the red T data as shown, and McIntyre is discussing the proxy data..
Another thing that strongly irritates me is that the Manna graph shown is not the original MBH 99, but an IPCC massaged version of 2001, which terminates with the famous 1998 “super El Nino” with an anomaly of just over 0.5C. So, why is it that in their 2001 version, they did not include the 1999 and 2000 anomaly of less than half that of 1998?. Furthermore, why did they not smooth the red temperature data to show an indicative trend, just as they did with the blue data? Well, of course, it would not have looked half so scary right?
* BTW, a Climategate Email discusses the need for uncertainty bars, but it does not really matter what accuracy, as long as they are included as a matter of policy.
I didn’t write this – honestly!
“The only people who didn’t fall for it {AGW } were we mouth-breathing, Bible-thumping, beer-guzzling, cousin-humping, baby-bumping, overfed, inbred, illiterate, gun-clinging, buck-toothed, trailer-park-living, truck-driving, ATV riding, Wal-mart shopping, knuckle-dragging, military-supporting, ain’t-recycling, patriotic, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist hillbillies with cooties.”
Anyone know what a ‘cootie’ is ?
An interesting letter (an open letter to the UN Secretary General) here. I don’t expect to see it mentioned in the MSM.
Peter M
A ‘cootie’ (in US “redneck” talk) is a tiny animal that usually lives in a rather untidy individual’s hair.
The statement (not yours, of course) is by definition false as you see from the many posters on this blog who do not fit the description, but still do not support the premise that AGW is s serious threat.
But we’ve gone through that once before, with the poll we all took here that refuted your claim that AGW non-believers were also anti-scientific non-believers in the Darwin theory of evolution.
Most of those on this blog appear to be rationally skeptical, well-educated, well-informed and quite literate individuals from various backgrounds and nationalities, who have thought this whole thing out before coming to the conclusion that AGW is not really a threat to our society and environment, but rather a means for levying draconian carbon taxes (direct or indirect) on humanity without achieving anything as far as our climate is concerned.
Don’t you agree?
Max