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.
Peter #2197
Well done Peter-I was confident you opened links! I had posted some further information on this in my #2190. I need to put together some other information for posting later so I’ll just keep myself entertained by reading your exchanges with Max on this subject after posting this one on the matter of M&D;
“A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.
Their (M&D) work verified water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere as the surface warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed.”
“Our study confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we expected,” Minschwaner said
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html
TonyB
Scary bit on the future of the politics of climate change.
Wow, check out this graph.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUCO2.jpg
Via: Greenie Watch
The End
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/divided-eu-wants-poor-countries-join-climate-pledge/article-176545
The EU has made further carbon restrictions conditional on India and China coming to the party — thus finally catching up with that old American guy — what’s his name? Ah! Yes. G.W. Bush. And that is the end of the game. Because India and China will NOT cut their own throats. Only tokenism is now on the cards — just enough to save face and make the retreat respectable
EU environment ministers want advanced developing states like China and India to “contribute adequately” to emissions reductions as part of a global climate change agreement next year. Meanwhile, a deal on the EU’s own climate and energy package remains elusive following opposition from Italy. In addition to comparable CO2 reduction commitments by developed states like the US, rapidly developing countries “would have to reduce their emissions by 15 to 30% below business as usual” by 2020 in order for the EU to sign up to a global emissions reductions regime in Copenhagen in December 2009, according to conclusions adopted by EU environment ministers yesterday (20 October) in Luxembourg.
Such mitigation efforts by rapidly growing developing states, notably China, would produce significant “co-benefits in terms of reduced air pollution, protection of biodiversity and energy security,” and emissions reduction credits obtained through afforestation or anti-deforestation efforts could provide a “major contribution” to reaching the targets, the conclusions state.
Least-developed states could be exempt from any constraints on emissions, while obligations on more advanced developing countries could be met through a variety of mechanisms, including sectoral industry agreements, according to the text.
The conclusions set the stage for discussions during the next major UN climate meeting, scheduled for 1 to 12 December in Poznan, Poland. The talks could become acrimonious, since rapidly developing countries like China, India and Brazil are likely to resist any calls for significant and binding emissions reductions on the grounds that developed states have not only got more financing and technological capacity to cut CO2 emissions, but also assume historical responsibility for the lion’s share of existing greenhouse gas emissions.
EU states, meanwhile, have dug their heels in on several divisive points of the climate and energy package, and environment ministers failed to produce any major breakthrough during their talks in Luxembourg. Italy and Poland remain wary that the package will be too costly for their already ailing industrial sectors, in particular given the current squeeze on financing. And Germany is at loggerheads with the Commission over the issue of when and how certain industry sectors should be identified and singled out for exemptions from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
Hi Brute,
Looks like Kyoto and its assumed successor have died and can now “Rest In Peace”, despite any posturing by the EU (your 2204).
Robin was right, after all.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Yep. You point out that Minschwaner + Dessler observe that tropospheric water vapor concentrations incease with surface temperatures, but that these do not result in a constant relative humidity (as all the IPCC models assume).
In fact, a closer examination shows that the physical observations of M+D (see their Fig. 7) show an actual increase (linear least squares fit with 95% confidence limit) equivalent to around one-tenth to one-fifth of the IPCC “constant relative humidity” model assumption.
M+D try to salvage some of the water feedback by their “model”, which (as Fig. 7 shows) assumes a tropospheric water vapor increase two to three times their own actually observed value, but still only half of the the IPCC “constant relative humidity” model assumption.
To make sure you have understood all this properly, I have reposted the link to the M+D Fig. 7 curve.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2958955575_2c69450bd9_b.jpg
The shaded area shows the actual M+D physical observations on water vapor increase with temperature, the somewhat steeper dashed line represents the relationship calculated by the M+D model and the even steeper dotted line represents the “constant relative humidity” case assumed by the IPCC models.
This all confirms that the IPCC model assumptions on water feedback and its impact on the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C are grosly exaggerated.
You wrote, “It seems to me that if you are in agreement with these guys, then you need to accept the principle of positive feedback as applied to water vapour in the atmosphere.”
That’s right, Peter, I do. And “if you are in agreement with these guys”, then you need to accept the fact that the positive feedback frm water vapor is around one-fifth to one-tenth of the amount assumed by the IPCC models, because that is exactly what their physical observations show.
Thanks for helping prove my point.
Regards,
Max
I see that the oil tankers and freighters are utilizing the Northwest Passage with impunity now that global warming has melted the North Pole.
Sea ice area approaching the edge of normal standard deviation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/sea-ice-approaching-the-edge-of-normal-standard-deviation/
Hi Peter,
Following your 2197, where you seem to agree with M+D that water vapor feedback is positive, but significantly less than that assumed by IPCC models, let’s summarize the situation again very briefly, so there is no misunderstanding.
IPCC assumes strong water vapor feedback based on “constant relative humidity” assumption and strong net positive feedback from clouds, resulting together in a model-assumed 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” of 3.2C.
Physical observations (M+D) show greatly reduced positive feedback from water vapor and other physical observations (Spencer et al., Norris) show a strongly negative rather than a positive net feedback from clouds.
These actual physical observations show that the model-assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is exaggerated by a factor of around four, putting the observed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at around 0.8C (as estimated by Richard Lindzen).
Due to the logarithmic nature of the greenhouse effect, we have seen almost half of this 2xCO2 warming to date, and we expect to see the rest by year 2100, which means we can expect a theoretical greenhouse warming of around 0.4C from today until year 2100.
Yawn!
Regards,
Max
Sun Warms and Cools the Earth
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm
Max,
3.2 deg C is most likely figure. The range the IPCC quote is 1.5 to 4.5 deg C.
Judging by the number of times you mentioned these guys, you were the one who is, or was, the big fan of M&D. I’m reserving judgement! I’m not sure that you’ll remain that way now that I’ve pointed out that they do contradict you “no feedback” claim, albeit at a less strong level than some models have used.
They don’t attempt to quantify the total effect, M&D are climate model enthusiasts themselves, so they will rely on the model to see how their results influence the outcome. The climate is ultra complex, it really is the only way.
Forget Lindzen. He can’t even get the right answer for “almost half of this 2xCO2 warming to date” which both you and I had no trouble calculating.
I might just ask you if you are saying that the earth’s atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium. I guess you must be with your ‘0.4 degC’ calculation. It isn’t difficult to see that this is very unlikely though. The oceans are currently absorbing large quantities of heat so the temperature rise we are currently seeing is being slowed down.
So, its not the same as “almost half of this 2xCO2 warming to date”. It a bit like walking into a cold room and switching on an electric heater. After a few minutes you can feel the temperature rise, but you need to wait for maybe an hour or so before equilibrium occurs and the room reaches a constant temperature.
Hi Guys,
I’m back to Oz, from a long holiday largely in Italy and England, and have just whizzed through a heap of your posts above. It strikes me that the person that really stands-out to potentially benefit most from my immediate input is Peter M. My comment is not so much about any scientific claims about so-called climate science, but how Peter seems to pick-up on the media reporting and/or politics of it or even ANY OTHER SCIENCE such as oil geology. In short, I have observed that media reports on any scientific topic (and in Wiki’ for that matter, especially on the more emotive stuff), although useful, needs to be treated with a great deal of caution and F/U research.
I thus broach the following example very pertinent to Peter himself, of such “interpretations” in the recent media:
Peter,
I suspect that you may have felt concern over a flurry of reports recently that dietary Omega 6 oils, which are important to human health, and contained in many “healthy“ foods, have been linked to causal factors for Alzheimer’s disease, if “normal” essential levels in the brain are exceeded and become “too high“.
I was intrigued by this report firstly because I consume substantial amounts of omega 6 in eggs (Free-range) and in flax-seed oil as a dressing on vegetables, (Good with spinach) etc. I like flax seed oil because it is primarily high in the very desirable omega 3, but tastes nice, not like fish-oil; the commonest dietary source of omega 3.
So, I thought I’d check this “Bad News” out, feeling secondly that a reference to research on laboratory mice VV humans was a tad ho hum.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relax Peter,
The good news!
It is probably OK for you to eat eggs, nuts, and various other foods high in omega 6 as much as you like! (Unless you want to insist that some hypothetical opinion of what might possibly be, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, is your “scientific” preference)
The BBC radio news and various newspapers have put a strong alarmist spin on research on mutant mice bred with Alzheimer’s-like symptoms, that may possibly indicate an area of research in humans, but to imply a link to the human disease is EXTREMELY tenuous.
Try this link less [[ ]] where a more sensible analysis of the scientific research is given, rather than the
sensational rubbish that the media feeds the world.
[[http]]://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/10October/Pages/Omega6andAlzheimer’s.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Brown:
Welcome aboard……… Looking back quickly, I’ve much enjoyed your stuff what I’ve so far read
Hi Peter,
In your latest post 2210 you wrote, “I’ve pointed out that they do contradict your ‘no feedback’ claim”.
I do not recall having made a “no feedback claim”. I am also not disputing that there could be feedbacks, both positive and negative.
But, Peter all this talk does not change the fact that physical observations (Minschwaner + Dessler) have shown that the IPCC model assumption of constant atmospheric relative humidity with rising surface temperature is incorrect, and that it grossly overstates the actually measured water vapor increase. As a result, the 2xCO2 temperature impact of positive feedback from water vapor is overstated by around 0.4 to 0.8C.
The two cited studies on clouds (Spencer et al., Norris) show that these have a strong net negative feedback with increasing surface temperature, rather than a strong positive feedback, as assumed by all the IPCC models. Based on these actual physical observations, the IPCC-assumed 2xCO2 temperature impact from positive feedback from clouds of +1.3C should be a negative feedback of around –1C.
Together, these two corrections to the erroneous IPCC model assumptions result in a reduction of the “most likely figure” of the IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks from +3.2C to around +0.5 to +0.8C.
Now, if you and I are correct that we have seen around half of the 2xCO2 theoretical warming to date, this means we will see the other half (0.4C) from today till year 2100.
If Lindzen is right (and we have already seen more than 50% of the 2xCO2 warming), we will see a bit less than 0.4C from today till year 2100.
The difference between the two calculations is insignificant; in either case, it is a negligible figure that gets completely lost in all of the natural climate forcing factors, as Lindzen has pointed out and as we are seeing today with record CO2 emissions and no warming.
I would suggest that if you want to defend the IPCC model assumptions on water vapor and cloud feedbacks, you should search for some actual physical observations that substantiate the underlying IPCC assumptions of
· A strong net positive feedback from clouds with increased surface temperature
· An atmospheric “constant relative humidity” with increased surface temperature
Anything other than this is evasive double-talk, Peter.
Regards,
Max
PS The IPCC atmospheric “constant relative humidity” assumption, which was refuted by M+D satellite observations, has also been contradicted by the years of NOAA radiosonde data, which show a progressive decrease in tropospheric RH over the years.
PPS You wrote: “The oceans are currently absorbing large quantities of heat so the temperature rise we are currently seeing is being slowed down.” A great “wait’ll next year” hypothesis, Peter, which has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion on erroneous IPCC model assumptions on water vapor and cloud feedbacks. Stick to the topic.
Message to Bob_FJ
Welcome back!
We have missed your incisive analyses in ballyhooing the AGW hype that’s floating around out there plus your Aussie wit.
Max
Hi Peter,
You made a very astute comment when you wrote, “the climate is ultra complex”.
It sure is, and we (climate science) have an extremely limited knowledge of all the many factors (mostly natural) that are driving it.
It sounds like you are in full agreement with Lindzen.
The IPCC emphasis of laying it all on anthropogenic factors is truly “sticking the head in the sand”.
The IPCC reliance on GIGO computer models to project Earth’s climate 100 years into the future based purely on anthropogenic assumptions is even more absurd.
So you are right, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Like I said, the climate is a complex system, but there are some parts of climate change that are easy to understand.
But, its quite painful to get you to understand the simplest argument. I would have thought that at least you could follow my ‘heater in a room’ analogy, and grasp the idea of why the currently measured figure for AGW isn’t the final figure. But no, you can’t.
So, what’s the point of going any further?
Your comprehension is clearly faulty by your claim ” It sounds like you are in full agreement with Lindzen”.
Er, well, no not really.
I’m not in full agreement with Roy Spencer either. I do have one or two small reservations about his creationist background! Is this the source of his ‘gut feeling’ that the earth’s climate tends to self rectify itself?
All: The chart in Brute’s post (2203) above; I wish one of you smart guys would plot that same chart, but over a much longer timeline… like 1850 to today. If data is available for prior centuries that would be even better. Also, I’d love to have sun spot activity (or whatever appropriate measure) were also overlaid on the same graph.
Hi Peter,
To Roy Spencer’s scientific qualifications and capabilities you opined, “I’m not in full agreement with Roy Spencer either. I do have one or two small reservations about his creationist background! Is this the source of his ‘gut feeling’ that the earth’s climate tends to self rectify itself?”
What in the world do Spencer’s religious beliefs have to do with his abilities and qualifications as a scientist? Please explain.
His “gut feeling” is more than just that. He and his co-authors have shown, based on extensive physical observations, that cloud feedback with surface warming is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive as IPCC models erroneously assume.
As for Lindzen, he is probably one of the world’s most renowned and qualified scientists in the climate field.
Your “thermostat” analogy is very easy to grasp, Peter. That’s not the problem here. The problem is that the assumed positive feedbacks that lead to major projected warming from a 2xCO2 scenario are based on computer-generated assumptions that are not supported by actual physical evidence, as I have shown you.
Then there is the question whether or not the oceans are really warming or not (although this has nothing to do with the IPCC feedback problem and should be reserved for another discussion, once we have concluded the discussion on feedbacks).
You have been unable to provide any actual physical data that (a) confirm a strongly positive net feedback from clouds or (b) confirm the IPCC assumption of a “constant relative humidity” of the troposphere, which yield the strong positive feedback from water vapor.
These are the cornerstones of the 3.2°C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 as assumed by IPCC.
Until you do, Peter, we are talking in circles. All of your “thermostat” analogies mean nothing and are just a sidetrack from our discussion here.
Regards,
Max
JZ Smith #2216
Not strictly what you are looking for but I posted this before and it represents the 30 year slope trend for CET records in ther UK- The longest continuous records in the world. These are taken directly from the Hadley figures and have not been adjusted in any way. Many of the records set in the early 1700’s still stand today.
You can add in your own scale at the side starting at 250ppm representing the start of the industrial era and finishing at 380ppm -the current values.
http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png
TonyB
JZ Smith #2216
Again, this is not strictly what you are looking for: it’s a regional series first developed by the late Prof Gordon Manley and now maintained and updated by the Hadley Centre.
JZ: further to my 2219 (although limited by being UK only) you might find it useful/intersting to superimpose this CO2 emission graph.
Hi JZSmith,
Re your 2216 here’s the best I can do for showing the longer-term correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature (using the Hadley temperature record and IPCC plus Mauna Loa records on atmospheric CO2.
It shows that since 1858 there have been several warming/cooling cycles that have no apparent correlation with changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the same time periods.
1858-1879 rapid warming, essentially no change on CO2
1879-1910 cooling, slight increase in CO2
1910-1944 rapid warming, minor increase in CO2
1944-1976 slight cooling, accelerated increase on CO2
1976-1998 rapid warming, rapid increase in CO2
1998-2008 slight cooling, record rate of increase in CO2
The one exception that happens to show a good fit is the “IPCC poster period” from 1976 to 1998. Most of their 1000 page report covers this period.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2614626004_591a1a939e_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
TonyB, Robin, Max,
Thanks for your help with this. I guess I’ll have to find the raw data then plot them out over a time line. Charting data like that is not my strongest suit, but I can probably get it done somehow.
Can one of you point me to the raw data sources? Max, I think you have found access to Hadley in a spreadsheet format. Ideally, somewhere I’d like to download a spreadsheet of the raw data by year for CO2 emissions, temp anomaly, and sun spot activity.
Not sure if the data is available, nor if I’m even up the the challenge, but being a ‘visual’ guy I need pretty pictures to understand.
Also Max, on your chart, why does the CO2 emissions DROP from 1998 to 2008? Am I misreading it?
Thanks again
Robin
Nice post of the John Daly material-we miss his work. Also interesting was the co2 graph that I haven’t seen before.
JZ Smith might note that our two graphs- although from the same source (Hadley)- are different in time and temperature scales-my 30 year one is the official time scale for climate references currently used in the modern era, but shows slight differences to the 5 year scale that Daly used.
Even better is the annual scale which I have logged for some years. In that connection the following might be interesting as the individual years don’t tend to show up in the longer time scales.
CET (Central England Temperatures) are said to be Indicative of the northern hemisphere.
My comments refer right back to the start of the graph in the 1660s
January
Generally past years are cooler than the 1990’s which was just 0.10C warmer than 1730’s and 1920’s
Overall the monthly figures are dragged right down by the very cold little ice age which covers most of the period from the 1660’s to around 1880
February
As above with 1730 cooler by .10 1860 by .2 1870 by .3 and 1920 by .2
March
As above but 1730 cooler by .6 1920 by .8 and 1930 by .9 i.e. one of the greatest changes in any month (other than winter Dec-February inc)
April
1990s cooler than 1940 by 0.7 1860 by .3 and 1730 by .2 otherwise broadly similar
May. 1990s cooler than 1660 by 0.3 same as 1720 and 1730 cooler than 1800 by 0.3 same as 1820 and 1830 cooler than 1830 by .10 and 1910 by .3 otherwise broadly the same
June
1990 same as 1980 1970 and 1960
Cooler than 1960 by .4 1950 by .2 1940 by .3 1930 by .4 1890 by .4 1870 by .1 1860 by .1 1850 by .3 1840 by .3 1830 by .6 1820 by.4 1800 by .2 1790 by .2 1780 by .8 1770 by .7 1760 by .1 1750 by .4 same as 1740 cooler than 1730 by .7 1720 by .9 1710 by .3 same as 1700 and 1680 cooler than 1670 by .3 and 1660 by .3
Overall June has become a much cooler month
July 1990 cooler than 1730 by .4 1750 by .5 1760 by .4 1770 by .4 1780 by .4 1790 by .4 1800 by .4 1870 by .5 1930 by .4
Overall July has become a rather cooler month
August
1990 was cooler than 1930 by .3 1770 by .5 and 1700 by .3
Overall August has become a little warmer.
September
1990s cooler than 1720 and 1730 by .2 and 1740 by .1 It was the same as 1930 and cooler than 1940 by .2
Overall there was little difference
October
1990 cooler than 1960 by .4 and .4 warmer than 1900 1850 1830 1820 1730 1660
Overall October has become a little warmer
November
1990s cooler than 1970 by .2
Overall this month has become distinctly milder
December
1990 cooler than 1980 by .5 1970 by .6 1950 by .2 1940 by .1 1860 by .1 1820 by .3 1730 by .3
The month has become a little milder
Temperatures have fluctuated considerably throughout the period with months often changing their ‘traditional’ characteristics.
Generally modern winter months have become milder than the winters of the little ice age period (not surprising!) which brought the overall averages for the year sharply down. November has also become distinctly milder and March much milder. July has become rather cooler whilst June is distinctly cooler, other months show limited difference either way.
The early 1700’s were remarkably similar to the current period but the warmth was over a more extended period and came from a lower base. In this respect average temperatures have barely changed in nearly 300 years from pre industrial times. Many other periods have been fairly close in warmth to the modern era but again the little ice age winters knocked the annual averages down somewhat. The 1820’s 1900’s 1920’s and 1930’s were also notably warm. Worldwide the 1930’s are now recognised as the warmest decade of the century in the US and as the same algorithm was used it is expected world temperatures will also be revised to show this (subject to James Hansen completing his calculations)
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/climate/joe/1930s.php
Seen in context against even the little ice age, modern temperatures seem nothing extraordinary.
Statistical artifices such as the hockey stick only work by starting it in the exceptionally cold 1880’s, smoothing out the intervening years and then carrying out the uptick without reference to the recorded temperatures of earlier periods. The methods of doing this have been posted numerous times in this blog as have the means of creating the spaghetti graphs which are the sticks successors. .
The apparent changes in the characteristics of months are well documented in other climatic periods, for example references from Chaucer, Pepys, Venerable Bede, Anglo Saxon chronicles, Tacitus, and contemporary reports that indicate very mild Novembers and winters and exceptionally early springs. Ice fairs are also well documented throughout the period 1500 onwards
TonyB
Max,
No. You still haven’t grasped it. There is no thermostat on the heater.
Its quite a simple ‘thought experiment’. The room starts off cold . Say 5 degC. A 1kW heater is switched on. After 10 minutes the temperature is measured at 10deg C. So if the same logic that you are applying to AGW, is applied, you could say that 1kW of heating produces a temperature rise of 5 deg C. After 30 minutes the temperature might have risen to 15 deg C and applying the same logic again you’d say that the first answer was now wrong and 1 kW of heating actually produced an increase of 10 deg C.
Of course, after the room has warmed up to its steady state temperature of 20deg C, a state of temperature equilibrium, after a couple of hours, it finally makes sense to say that a 1kW heater produces a 15deg C temperature rise in the room.
The current level of CO2 is about 390ppmv. So far, according to the global records, this has produced a temperature rise of about 0.6 degC. And yes I do accept that there is an uncertainty over this figure. There are some other positive factors, maybe even including a solar contribution. And there are some negative ones too such as the effect of particulates and volcanic emissions, which do cancel each other out to some extent.
Unlike the so-called expert Prof Lindzen, we can both calculate that 390 ppmv should take us to 47% of the figure for 2x CO2. But we have to be careful that we don’t make the same mistake as the guy in the room with his heater who doesn’t wait for the room to come into equilibrium before making his pronouncement.
We don’t have the same luxury as him, it is not practical to wait and also there is the added complication that the ‘heater’ is not constant but is rising slowly year on year as CO2 emissions continue.
It is a very conservative estimate to say that we are half way towards equilibrium. That means 0.6 deg will turn out to be 1.2 deg if we wait long enough. Multiply 1.2 x 2.1 (to get to 100% rather than the current 47%) and you end up with 2x CO2 being 2.5 deg C.
Which is on the lower side of the IPPC mid point estimate but not inconsistent with the general range of figures quoted.
TonyB,
You need to look at global temperatures not those for the UK or any other single country.
The UK is at a similar latitude to Hudson’s Bay but has quite a different climate, much milder, due to the prevailing winds coming from the west and over the Atlantic.
One consequence of AGW could well be changing ocean currents. Ironically, the climate of the UK could get colder, if the Gulf Stream weakens.
Global averages don’t give the full picture either.
See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif