Shocker – Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC AR5 lead author

Dr. Ken Caldeira - Image from Stanford University

(via Tom Nelson) Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC lead author, saying:

“…it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…”

New Directions for the Intergovernmental Climate Panel – NYTimes.com

Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change. It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

But can anybody point to any important positive outcomes resulting from the IPCC AR4 process? [AR4 is shorthand for the panel's fourth assessment, which was published in 2007.] Is there reason to expect a greater positive impact from the IPCC AR5 process? [This is the forthcoming fifth assessment of climate science and policies, coming in 2013 and 2014]

I am all for scientific reviews and assessments, and I think the multi-model comparisons reviewed by the IPCC have been especially useful. However, it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…

(As an aside, I recently resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter simply because I felt I had more effective ways of using the limited amount of time that I have to engage in scientific activities. My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique. It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.

His bio page says:

Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries.” He also serves as a professor (by courtesy) in the Stanford University Department of Environmental Earth System Science. Caldeira is a lead author for the upcoming IPCC AR5 report and was coordinating lead author of the oceans chapter for the 2005 IPCC report on Carbon Capture and Storage. He was a co-author of the 2010 US National Academy America’s Climate Choices report. He participated in the UK Royal Society geoengineering panel in 2009 and ocean acidification panel in 2005. He was a lead author of the 2007 U.S. “State of the Carbon Cycle Report. Caldeira was invited by the National Academy of Sciences Ocean Studies Board to deliver the 2007 Roger Revelle Lecture, “What Coral Reefs Are Dying to Tell Us About CO2 and Ocean Acidification.” In 2010, Caldeira was elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.

About these ads

155 thoughts on “Shocker – Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC AR5 lead author

  1. When ships start sinking, every living thing on board tries to jump off to save themselves…

  2. “Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique. It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.”

    Bwaa ha ha ha!

    What he said amounts to: “I have no criticism of the science or the scientists but I quit because the work is not worth doing.”

    Nothing more need be said.

    [Moderator's NOTE: Theo, site policy requires a valid e-mail address. I had something to send you and it bounced back. Please provide a valid e-mail address. -REP]

  3. I wonder whether the IPCC has considered the possibility that some of the scientists may, slowly over time, develop …. ethics.
    It is worth hoping for and would devastate the ranks.

  4. “Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries.”

    Can one important scientific discovery be attributed to Ken Caldeira?

  5. Spoken like a true politician. …or was he supposed to be a scientist ? I forget ..remember, there was never supposed to be a blend of the 2, but this is what happens when you try and mix science with politics. The most trusted group of individuals in industry are scientists, and the least trusted are politicians ..Now we see how things turn out when you blend the two. When science has an agenda, politicians begin lying…and lie and lie and lie and lie..
    luckily science can be replicated and the truth came out, and will all come out. Like I said when Climate-gate 1 broke, this will take 5 years to go through the system, so far, its only 2 years. The dust has yet to settle. Stay tuned for many more chapters…
    Ian

  6. My reply would be: if the work being done by others is so wonderful, why leave? I think that Ken has come to the conclusion that Richard Lindzen came to, that the IPCC is a tremendous waste of time for able scientists.

  7. Rats also scurry to escape a sinking ship.

    The writing is on the wall: HMS IPCC is sinking faster than the titanic. thanks in part to Donna Laframboise and her new book, as well as WUWT, Lord Monckton and many other skeptic bloggers… finally the lies of the unelected bureaucrats, unelected government institutions and unelected NGO’s are starting to backfire.

    Soon Nobody with any sense will want to be associated with fraudulent CAGW

  8. The credibility of anyone who uses the term “climate-science deniers” instantly drops to zero in my book. Caldiera’s just hit zero. Oh well!

  9. The IPCC activity of comparing climate models is not scientific activity. Simply not science. So, it is a meaningless activity except for the illegitimate idea they have that climate models define global warming in combination with their two false hockeystick graphs for temperature and CO2.

    There is no other area of science which has a political body tasked to survey it. As a political body, it is impossible for the IPCC not to politicize the findings, particularly as their mission is not to survey climate science but to specifically show the effects of global warming and its impacts—the constant assumption is and has to be that global warming is happening, regardless of the real world. To do otherwise would be to fail their mission. There is no other conclusion that the reports can report, it is their raison d’etre.

  10. Look at them run for cover! They cannot recant what they have said and written about in the IPCC without admitting to academic fraud, they wanna keep their jobs, right? So they back away slowly…’Nothing to see here folks, everybody move along’….

  11. I particularly like how I assures everyone that the science is still settled and the IPCC is doing a great job, he just has more important things to do… like anything else.

  12. I believe that there is a strong possibility that the Cooling Signal evident in the last 10 to 15 years is likely cause for (Quiet) concern among the scientific community trying to convince us that AGW is a fact. It therefore seems likely that Mr Caldiera’s resignation is likely due to what could be viewed as His own “Concerns” that the cooling will continue and the next report IPCC AR5 will still indicate that the Models show Catastrophic Warming if Man doesn’t act to mitigate it. He likely doesn’t wish to have his name associated with just such a report.
    Could you blame him???

  13. “Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change.”

    The basic science (I assume the radiative physics part) was never enough to understand the climate system and justify decisions for pre-emptive trillion dollar committments.

  14. I first came to believe Ken Caldeira was having doubts about some of the IPCC positions when I saw this video of him entitled “Does increased evaporation lead to global cooling?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWsZJq_LQA
    In the video he states that yes it does, putting him in opposition to the view of the IPCC.

  15. This resignation statement was a bit like a sandwich.

    A bit of a dig at the UN and the bureaucracy
    A slap on the back for his colleagues
    Another dig at the the ipcc

    something for everyone, even a bit of ocean acidification

  16. Wow! The wheels are truly falling off.

    It seems that alot of interesting things happen just after the last climate conference ends in failure.

    I’m sure there is more to come.

    Now if the news media would just pickup the stories involving the UNs REDD program. REDD has got to go.

  17. “It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.”

    Really? What could be more important than to save the planet from pending disaster? (Sarc)

    “The danger posed by war to all of humanity – and to our planet – is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming. I believe that t he world has reached a critical stage in its efforts to exercise responsible environmental stewardship.”
    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

    “I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency – a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.”
    Al Gore

  18. AR4,5,6,7,8,9,10 … me thinks revisions are not good for those seeking consensus-building. They should’ve just stuck with the first version and learned from the fundamentalists in other religions. Never change a thing when you claim what is written is written by the Almighty!

  19. While I remain confident that the ship is sound and robust and on the correct track, I just felt a need to go for a swim. Because of the unrelenting AGW heat of course.

    As my statement confirms, I am still a worthy Team member and will be happy to accept contract work from the ship owners from my new island.

  20. This begs the question…If everybody is trying to jump from the IPCC sinking ship why are quite a few skeptics here willing to jump on as reviewers?

  21. I guess there are plenty of enthusiastic youngsters waiting in the wings to take over his job and get a bit of travelling and planet-saving done before settling down to do their PhDs. It has to be one of the best gap-year(s) opportunities around. As long as, of course, they are incapable of independent thought. Those that are might well find better things to do with their time.

  22. “Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change. It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

    Anyone on either side of the debate must surely see this statement for what it is: a mere platitude. And a lame one at that. Dutifully announcing within earshot of his paymasters that he definitely, without a single, solitary doubt, has faith that the Emperor has new clothes. So now sceptics are “climate-science deniers?” Dishonest, and quite disgusting language. In fact, just what we’ve come to expect from the lamestream.

  23. “I am all for scientific reviews and assessments, and I think the multi-model comparisons reviewed by the IPCC have been especially useful.”

    Right, got it.

    And the tipping point? Gone? No more to be seen?

    Well, I guess if the world’s end is coming, one can just as well have fun.
    Much better than comparing curves from a computer and writing reports on it.

  24. Maybe more scientists will want to put some distance between themselves and the IPCC. However, a number of influential people have a close relationship with government supported “clean” energy programs which use incentives, subsidies and mandates to make them work. They will not care what excuses are used to justify the flow of taxpayer money from the government’s coffers to their own, just as long as the money flows. Sustainability is waiting in the wings when the current scam loses its appeal..

  25. I thought it was blindingly clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices, you get the result you want.

  26. Shocker – Carbon price more about “finance” than “the environment”:

    N.B. *****”This is less a discussion about the environment and more about finance,” said Kumar.

    20 Dec: Deutsche Welle: EU responds to slump in carbon price
    Author: Zulfikar Abbany
    Editor: Nathan Witkop
    European carbon prices jumped 30 percent almost immediately after the vote…
    “Government’s have only just started to realize how much money they are losing,” said Sanjeev Kumar, senior associate at the environmental think tank E3G, in an interview with Deutsche Welle.
    “Germany, the UK, and to a lesser extent Sweden, France and Italy have all been losing money,” he said.
    E3G was one of 15 companies and lobby groups, including Dong Energy, Alstom, and Shell, that issued a joint statement at the weekend calling for intervention in the ETS.
    If the plan passes the second vote next year, 15 percent of carbon allowances, around 1.4 billion, will be withheld starting in 2013.
    “I wouldn’t be surprised if the figure is raised to 2.5 billion relatively soon,” said Kumar, “it’s only a matter of time.”…

    *****”This is less a discussion about the environment and more about finance,” said Kumar…

    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15615242,00.html

  27. He’s saying that the science is settled, so there’s no need for the science to be described again. He’s declared victory and is going home.

  28. BBC leaves out India and all the other Countries opposing this unilateral, EU-only tax – an absurdity given all airlines fly in and out of everywhere, thereby cancelling out each other’s emissions in the long run:

    21 Dec: BBC: Business bites: Trade row fears over EU airline carbon emissions tax
    EU plans to levy a emissions tax on airlines are valid, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled…
    Opposed by Chinese and American carriers, it has already sparked tit-for-tat legislation in the US and is likely to provoke further sanctions…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16289618

    21 Dec: EU Observer: China joins legal battle against EU aviation tax
    The four carriers – Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Hainan Airlines – have the backing of the country’s air transport association, which claims the new carbon emission rules will cost Chinese airlines some €95 million.
    The association asked all Chinese carriers not to take part in the EU carbon trading scheme, not to submit carbon emission monitoring plans or to negotiate with the EU on a bilateral basis…

    Some airlines, such as America’s cargo giant UPS, are already thinking about re-routing flights in order to side-step the scheme and cut costs, reports the Wall Street Journal. The move is likely to end up creating more carbon emissions.
    Mitch Nichols, president of UPS Airlines, told the newspaper that the company may look at redirecting flights between its hubs in Hong Kong and Cologne, Germany, by going through Mumbai. That will cut the cost of the tax by about a quarter because UPS would only be charged for the distance flown between Cologne and Mumbai. But the distance flown will increase by 1,100 miles, upping the emissions…

    In a statement on Tuesday (20 December), the Association of European Airlines expressed fears of an imminent trade war should the plan go ahead. “Even if the ECJ (EU court) decides that the EU (emissions trading scheme) conforms with EU law, this will not resolve non-European countries’ vehement hostility,” it said.
    EU climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard has refused to back down, however.
    *****”It is not just an idea, it is EU law,” she told Financial Times Deutschland, stressing that the commission will not give in to pressure from the US or elsewhere.

    http://euobserver.com/884/114700

    *****it’s not only a very bad idea, but a very bad law, Connie.

  29. Caldeira must have discovered that the ‘brown shirts’ eventually came to a bad end.
    (Wait ’til he discovers Trotsky).

  30. kbray in california on December 21, 2011 at 2:07 pm said:
    When ships start sinking, every living thing on board tries to jump off to save themselves…”

    Is it true it’s the rats that are the first to leave a sinking ship?

  31. Fitzcarraldo says:
    December 21, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    “”This begs the question…If everybody is trying to jump from the IPCC sinking ship why are quite a few skeptics here willing to jump on as reviewers?””

    And here is my donation;
    To overload the ship for a quicker sinking.

  32. cjames says:
    December 21, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    I first came to believe Ken Caldeira was having doubts about some of the IPCC positions when I saw this video of him entitled “Does increased evaporation lead to global cooling?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWsZJq_LQA
    In the video he states that yes it does, putting him in opposition to the view of the IPCC.

    CJames, an inportant post, as everthing prior to this was speculation. If he really has doubts about the IPCC and CAGW, but refuses to say so in public, then I cannot respect his statement, despite understanding his economic reality.

  33. Being situated in academia (I teach and carry out research In a large UK university) this all strikes me as very odd. What we have here is an academic walking away from the World’s largest funded gravy train. Very odd! Maybe another job is calling, one that needs him to create a certain distance from certain people and groups?

  34. Schitzree on December 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm said:
    “…he just has more important things to do… like anything else.”

    What’s more important than saving the world from irreversible global warming catastrophe????????

  35. What? Get Ken Caldeira Back here!!, I demand answers from him and his colleagues as to why they have advised my political representatives in my country to introduce a climate change Levey on it citizens, that has had a terrible effect causing ongoing fuel/energy poverty among our poorest and most vulnerable throughout some of the harshest winters in our countries recorded history, and within 24 months time this “introduction climate change Levey” will be a full blown financial penalty, a price on everything that will have huge consequences.

    Drag that “rat” back to the sinking ship, All accountability has not been accounted for, lives have been lost and hardship brought to so many on the back of bad advice, Ken Caldeira’s resignation should not be accepted, How dare he call others “deniers” while he tries to weasel his way out of this.
    A Cowardly B*s***d if I ever did see one, get back to your post and defend your position.

    What a sickening display!!

  36. He’s saying that the science is settled, so there’s no need for the science to be described again. He’s declared victory and is going home.

    Sorta like Iraq. Cash in your chips while they’re… just go home and sleep it off.

  37. Luther Wu says:
    December 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    Caldeira must have discovered that the ‘brown shirts’ eventually came to a bad end.
    (Wait ’til he discovers Trotsky).

    Baby Kim’s looking for scientists.

  38. “He participated in the UK Royal Society geoengineering panel in 2009 and ocean acidification panel in 2005″

    Without a basic understanding of carbonates

    PHD in what – politics?

  39. “…it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…”

    It’s very clear to the bureaucrats!

  40. Sparks says:
    December 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    “A Cowardly B*s***d if I ever did see one, get back to your post and defend your position.
    What a sickening display!!”

    That’s what journalists and scientists do; they never admit having been wrong; they just stop being wrong. Did you think CAGW comes with a money-back guarantee?

  41. Maybe his German (she sounds like that) Postdoc explained the hydrological cycle to him.
    Julia Pongratz:

    (Guess she doesn’t plan to become a Globalist UNFCCC con artist.)

  42. His bio page says:

    Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries.”

    Seriously.

  43. Quotations from Chairman Ken:

    Carbon dioxide is the right villain, insofar as inanimate objects can be villains.

    We need to eliminate CO2 emissions — about this there is no question in my mind. …

    Ok, Ken. Stop breathing.

    In 2007, Caldeira said “When the s– really hits the fan–when huge droughts in the Midwestern breadbasket are collapsing our agriculture system, ice sheets are melting, sea levels are rising, and we’re getting hit by Katrina-scale hurricanes–

    “When”?

  44. All the back slapping and endorsements was to distract them from his pockets bulging with computer tapes as he ambled out the door….

    Nah. Too easy.

  45. Great, if a scientist sees the TIMES OF CHANGE and joins WUWT! We are ahead
    of our times and we will see more and more LAs, CLAs and Chairs change sides….
    No nasty comments please…. we should welcome everybody with open arms until
    only the little AGW dwarfs will obstinately remain on the other side. as the dinosaurs of
    global warming…….folks, joy to the
    world and welcome everybody who has come to his senses…..JS

  46. This reminds me of something I pondered a few months ago. When all this AGW nonsense is shown to be mostly BS (I actually believe in an anthropogenic contribution to climate change, I just don’t believe anyone will ever be able to tease out the signal), what are we going to do with legions of “climate scientists” when the funding for “climate science” dwindles?

    We’re talking about a boatload of otherwise useless biologists, “environmental studies” graduates and Ph.D. “climatologists” (who are neither meteorologists nor atmospheric physicists). I mean, there are just so many useless government jobs (and hopefully fewer in the future). What are we going to do with these folks? They have no other useful skills.

  47. In 2010, Caldeira was elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
    No doubt he’ll soon be resigning that position as well and for the same reasons?

  48. “Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change. ”

    The contrived consensus created by dishonest scientists shows the whole claim to be based on a fraudulent premise. Prove the claim, there was no consensus.

  49. I see that he still endorses the party line.

    It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

    So even though he still believes in the “cause” he realizes the jig is up.

    I wonder if he really believes that we face climate-a-geddon.

    If he did would he pull his shoulder from the wheel? What about the “children”? The poor heat stroked children!

    I suspect this is more a face saving gesture to placate his warmist comrades than a sincere expression of solidarity.

    One more rat deserting a sinking ship.

  50. I said in my presentation at the Heartland Conference in Washington last summer that the IPCC achieved its goal. Caldeira’s resignation and comments confirm this and underline the almost total control a small group had of the IPCC. They produced a predetermined scientific outcome, which was the real “settled science”. The job is done because CO2 reduction continues to drive the political and economic process. Canada quit Kyoto, but they didn’t quit their commitment to reducing CO2.

  51. cjames

    Excellent link there. Caldeira seems to have landed himself in the Roy Spencer camp. Who would have guessed that an IPCC coordinating author could ever believe in negative feedback from evaporation and cloud feedback.

    So the question is: did he jump freely or did he walk a plank at swordpoint?

  52. A question I have always had is: how much are these IPCC team leaders and lead authors paid?
    I assume he found a better paying sinecure?

  53. DirkH says:
    December 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    “Did you think CAGW comes with a money-back guarantee?”
    The idea of political science verses observational Science would not suggest a money-back guarantee. although playing with political science will cost a lot, first to entertain and then to accredit consensus, therefor alleviating all fact from public perception. Getting money Back? No!
    :)

  54. I think the British have a term, “Poppenjay”. It refers to a “twit”, who has been assessed by the Crown to be not quite able to handle the demands of being the “Lord of the Manor”. Yet, because of the “Royalty” system, he can’t be fired…or “done away with”. SO, he’s put on a stipend, and allowed to wear the “trappings” of Royalty (certain dress the commoners were by LAW not allowed to wear, reserved for the Royals, don’t you know!)…and go into the local Pubs an Theaters and be address as “your Lordship”. Although I wouldn’t qualify this individual as completely a “twit”, I would say that he now falls back to wearing his “Royal Robes” (I’m a PHD, I’m a ‘scientist’, I do IMPORTANT work, I’m sure I do!) and strutting about Stanford, being address as “Your Lordship”.

    Good, keep him on his stipend and out of the way of anyone doing things of REAL value for mankind.

  55. ” Ed Reid says:December 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    The credibility of anyone who uses the term “climate-science deniers” instantly drops to zero in my book. Caldiera’s just hit zero. Oh well! ”

    ++1 ^

    As soon as I hear that “d” word I write the person off as a coward.

  56. I know Ken. Ken is a friend of mine. I know the breadth of work he is involved in and don’t doubt for a minute that he made a personal calculation on the opportunities he has, and the IPCC fell below more interesting funded work. Unlike some, Ken produces good science. While we don’t agree on the sufficiency and utility of the climate models, we do agree on the scientific challenges that fall within the scope of environmental science, many if not most of which are not strongly related to alarmism about CO2.

    If he is walking away from the IPCC in a manner that does not create animosity within his peer group, I don’t find that offensive. At least he is finding better things to do and should be judged in that light.
    David Schnare

  57. Shocker – some of the fraudulent carbon cowboys get jail-time:

    21 Dec: Reuters: UPDATE 1-German court finds six guilty in CO2 fraud trial
    Guilty verdict in six cases, jail sentences for six men
    Men took part in VAT fraud in EU carbon market
    Deutsche Bank says uncovered no wrongdoing by its staff
    By Vera Eckert and Kathrin Jones
    Additional reporting by Nina Chestney, Editing by Anthony Barker
    A German court on Wednesday sentenced six men to jail terms of between three years and seven years and 10 months in a trial involving evasion of taxes on carbon permits.
    Judge Martin Bach said the men, aged between 27 and 66, were guilty of having participated in a conspiracy to evade around 300 million euros ($393 million) in value-added tax (VAT) between August 2009 and April 2010…
    The way Germany’s flagship lender, Deutsche Bank, conducted emissions trading with some of those that have been convicted had left the door open for tax evasion, he added.
    Deutsche Bank said on Wednesday that independent legal experts had so far found no wrongdoing on the part of the bank’s employees…
    European police agency Europol estimates widespread VAT fraud cost EU member states an estimated 5 billion euros in lost tax revenue…

    A separate trial in Britain is set to start next February, after seven suspects charged with carousel fraud pleaded not guilty in October.
    The EU scheme has suffered a series of scandals since its launch in 2005, including permit theft, the recycling of carbon credits and hacking of carbon accounts.
    To combat further fraud, the EU Commission proposed in October that spot carbon permits should be classified as financial instruments, but this still has to be approved by the EU Parliament and council of EU member states before it becomes law.
    “The carbon market remains weak. More fraud or similar episodes would be quite detrimental,” said Matteo Mazzoni, carbon analyst at Nomisma Energia.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/germany-carbon-fraud-idUSL6E7NL44O20111221

  58. Did anyone read the comments at the NYT DotEarth link?

    Asteroid Miner, “RealClimate has a much better approach to this whole issue.3 major revolutions in physics are compared…

    Copernican [sun centric]
    Einsteinian [relativistic gravity]
    Global Warming [GW]

    All 3 revolutions involved violent threats to the revolutionaries. All 3 took large amounts of time to overcome the opposition. All 3 got a lot of arguments from the same kind of people who deny GW on Dotearth.

    The difference is that GW has a deadline and what dies at the deadline is the human race. [Ancient history: "deadline" was a line that a crusader could not cross without a high risk of death.]“

    Unreal.

  59. “My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution”

    Translation:- I have made my money and there is no point for me to actually work for my living anymore so I am off to play at what I most enjoy.

    Anyone else care to add a translation?

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • Why be hard and grudging to those who jump the wrong steamer? Lets receive them
      well and much more will follow soon… the AGW front starts to crumble…..FINE. Also
      as it is said: Scientific articles are being retrieved back by their climate authors.by high scores…
      Another sigh that the AGW steamer has plenty of holes already….
      Even in Germany after 1945: The mean Nazis received an American “CLEAN”-certificate,
      took off their uniforms, learned to say “Good Day” again, put on tie and suit and were
      great Democrats ever thereafter….

  60. pat says:
    December 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    I am surprised more is not being made of this development in the MSM upon which, in my opinion, the whole credibility of the EU ETS depends. And possibly the whole European economy and even the entire global warming scam.

    The A4A (formerly the Air Transport Association) has made a statement:

    http://www.airlines.org/Pages/news_12-21-2011.aspx

    Officially the next move for American Airlines is to proceed to the British High Court and to comply under protest. But meanwhile Hillary Clinton has warned the EU to halt its plans to include the US airlines in the EU ETS “or face appropriate action”.

    http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=1413

    There is no doubt that other world airlines such as China’s and India’s will also take “appropriate” retaliatory action which could unleash major reprisals on European Airlines operating outside of Europe or some other destructive trade embargos which would affect the already fragile European economy.

    Durban may have ended predictably but 2012 is certainly going to start with a major environmental conflict and it is going to be fascinating to see how it ends.

  61. owns the company which is doing the same work with less people….

    sooooooo… conflict in interests… and he is getting out…

    are we growing a conscious here or what?

  62. Rats and sinking ships come from the wrong metaphor. Perhaps Dr Caldeira has read about the lady from Riga, who went for a ride on a tiger.He seems to be an actual scientist, i.e. someone who can be led by data, even data which contradicts cherished beliefs. When riding a tiger, make sure that you’re not the one left behind pulling at the reins while everyone else scuttles into the bushes.

    The game will be reaching its end when politicians start hopping off their furry feline steed. Sure as eggs it’ll be scientists who are left to be gobbled up. But not Dr Caldeira.

    JF

  63. Poptech says:
    December 21, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Hubris Unbound! See climate scientists, so-called, leap the tallest buildings, stop a speeding locomotive, apply for grants…

    Climate science is a baby in the birth canal. To compare a mainstream climate scientist to Kepler, Galileo, or Einstein is like comparing the first physician to use whiskey on his patients with a modern day anesthetist.

    Isn’t Dotearth Revkin? If so, he has gone lunatic. NYT went lunatic long ago.

  64. Sounds a lot like a furry rodent carefully combing his hair before departing stage right………..

    How many wheels are left on this cart anyway???

    Cheers, Kevin.

  65. Poptech,

    ARE YOU KIDDING, the NYTimes as a source of real information, good god, take off your blinders and look around………….

    the NYTimes PRAISED STALIN, yes, that RAT B——D STALIN, and they (the NYTimes) told us how GOOD things where in the Ukraine (the breadbasket of that part of the world, quite like Kansas has been and still is).

    GOOD GOD MAN PUT DOWN THE KOOLAID and pick up a glass of water, or Coors, or Jim Beam, or anything other than the koolaid………….

  66. The Inter-Academy Council concluded in their Investigation of the IPCC:

    “• The IAC pointed out that there is no formal process or criteria for selecting Lead Authors, and
    cautioned that “The absence of a transparent author selection process or well-defined criteria for
    author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment.” (p. 18). They alluded to the problem again later when they observed “Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a
    full range of thoughtful views are considered.” (p. 20)
    • They also called upon the IPCC to develop policies governing conflict of interest, including
    intellectual conflicts of interest in which Lead Authors are in a position of reviewing their own
    work, or have revealed through speeches, public statements or writings that they hold “fixed
    positions” (pp. 46-47).”

    http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf

    As the IPCC did not implement their advice. It would be up to governments and organizations with obvious conflict of interest, such as Greenpeace / WWF / Munich Re, to withdraw employees which were nominated as Lead Authors.

  67. “Lord Adair Turner announced today that he will step down as chairman of the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) from spring next year…,

    Lord Turner has been chairman of the CCC since its launch in 2008 and played a central role as the independent body emerged as a high-profile advisor and watchdog for the government’s low carbon agenda.

    “Chairing the CCC for the first four years of its existence has been a pleasure and an honour,” Lord Turner said in a statement. “The CCC has a vital role in ensuring that the UK commits to and sticks to a feasible path towards a low carbon economy, making a fair contribution to reducing global emissions and reducing the dangers of harmful climate change.”

    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2134109/lord-turner-step-chair-climate-committee

  68. News probably related to my previous post:

    “The government’s flagship programme to transform the energy efficiency of 14 million homes in the next decade will fail and only reach only two to three million households, according to an unprecedented attack from the government’s own climate advisers.

    The warning comes from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which on Tuesday for the first time published an open letter criticising government policy. It follows soaring energy bills and the news that one in four homes are now in fuel poverty.”

    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2134082/green-deal-fail-governments-climate-advisers-warn

    Lots of problems for the UK climate-crisis industry.

  69. “It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

    ============

    With this quote from Caldeira, the use of “denier” clearly shows where he stands. He’s a ‘Team’ player and saw the writing on the wall and is jumping ship. The presteige of being a lead author of one of the chapters written by an International Panel on Climate Change was not enough to keep him aboard? Is there panic among the crew?

    If, as it appears to be, the climate continues into the cooling phase of the 60 year cycle, will we see a mass exodus of the ‘believers’ to suddenly claim a revelation to become ‘climate realists’ (skeptics)? This could be interesting to watch.

  70. @max hugoson

    ‘I think the British have a term, “Poppenjay”. It refers to a “twit”, who has been assessed by the Crown to be not quite able to handle the demands of being the “Lord of the Manor”. Yet, because of the “Royalty” system, he can’t be fired…or “done away with”. SO, he’s put on a stipend, and allowed to wear the “trappings” of Royalty (certain dress the commoners were by LAW not allowed to wear, reserved for the Royals, don’t you know!)…and go into the local Pubs an Theaters and be address as “your Lordship” ‘

    We do have a word ‘popinjay’. It means a dandy or a fop.

    The rest of your discussion about lords of the manor, stipends, being addressed as ‘your lordship’ etc is mostly drivel based on too much Hollywood and too little actual history.

    But the grain of truth is that there were largely ignored ‘sumptuary’ laws to regulate people’s dress in much of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Of course these applied to the early American colonies as well…where they were equally largely ignored.

    If you wish to bash us Brits, suggest you choose firmer grounds than this.

  71. The UNFCCC is a political convention that politically establish that global warming, climate change, climate disturbance etc is human driven by human made CO2 and that we have to radical change our way of living to prevent disaster in the future.
    The climate models input are basically UNFCCC conform. IPCC was established in the UN system under UNEP. So IPCC is also producing mostly UNFCCC conform reports.

    It’s mostly “science” based on politics. So if you are a scientist it’s mostly a waste of your time.

  72. And so it ends.

    Slowly fading into the back-ground as – one by one – people and governments withdraw from activities and policies until the AGW-scare becomes a half-forgotten memory.

    Before the Copenhagen COP two years ago I predicted that Conference would be the begining of the end for the AGW-scare. And so it has proved to be.

    The Cancun COP stalled. The Durban COP was a total farce. One country (Canada) has already stated it has abandoned the Kyoto Process.The worst fears (e.g. spread of malaria) are being recanted. Even the journal ‘Nature’ has started to publish papers which do not support the scare. And resignations from involved people have started (e.g. the Chairman of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change and an IPCC Lead Author).

    Meanwhile, those with a history of support for the AGW-scare continue to proclaim they were right to support the scare and they still support it. Some of them proclaim their support as they resign from involvement.

    The scare is dead. Long live the scare (until it has been forgotten).

    Richard

  73. Dr. Dave says:
    December 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm
    …………”We’re talking about a boatload of otherwise useless biologists, “environmental studies” graduates and Ph.D. “climatologists” (who are neither meteorologists nor atmospheric physicists). I mean, there are just so many useless government jobs (and hopefully fewer in the future). What are we going to do with these folks? They have no other useful skills.”

    Biofuels?

  74. Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries”.

    Are there others at the institution whose job is “to make trivial scientific discoveries”?

  75. HAHAHA!!! His note in parentheses sounded like “No, no. Everyhting’s fine. The ship is not sinking at all. You guys stay. Everything is fine. Yes, yes, I’ll stay in contact. But I really must be on my way.” /RUNS AWAY!

  76. Well, there are a number of ways of viewing this.
    1) He’s a committed “Warmist”, the rest of the group are in the same camp, so there’s no need for him to stay to ensure that nothing off-message gets through the process of censorship.
    2) He’s having doubts, but doesn’t want to rock the boat and thus threaten his departmental income stream & invites to places warm for meetings.
    Now, which one of these options do I have least respect for?
    Difficult.

  77. DirkH says:
    December 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Excellent video Dirk – but when you actually listen to watch she says – it’s what most skeptics have been saying for years! i.e. increased moisture equals increased clouds equals increased albedo equals lower temps – still based on a model though!!
    Can we now quote that back at the warmista!

    Back on topic – it looks like this guy has definately ‘backed’ away from the IPCC stance – his statement is rather lame and seems to indicate a general malaise. I’m still waiting for Jones to come clean…………are you there Phil???

  78. Like all the others above have already intimated, it’s all CYA code-speak.

    Recently, I’ve begun to wonder what a post-CAGW world will be like? Yes brothers and sisters, it will come to pass that the URL’s of these rabid charlatan CAGW web sites will all report back with a new message – 404.

  79. The idea of only staying on a team because it is going in the wrong direction; whilst conversely leaving the team if it is going in the right direction, is to me inherently contradictory.

    But let us give the man the benefit of the doubt and assume his reasons given are genuine. In which case his resignation is merely part of the normal process of natural wastage of any project.

    However, it would be interesting if Anthony kept a little archive of prominent scientists or functionaries who depart “The Cause”. Dates; numbers; seniority are all data which can be plotted on a graph. I have a feeling that this might herald a trickle that becomes a flood over the next couple of years. Al gored has reminded us that Lord Adair Turner has just left his position, so that’s two on the same post.

  80. It seems to me that this isn’t a case of a scientist fleeing the non-scientific IPCC but rather a true believer that thinks the debate truly is over and therefor no longer in need of scientists.

  81. Dr. Dave says:
    December 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    What are we going to do with these folks? They have no other useful skills.

    Hey, I’m sure there are plenty of openings in the new ACORN for those dudes.

  82. Latimer:

    “If you wish to bash us Brits, suggest you choose firmer grounds than this.”

    Interesting take on what I said. First of all, it was NOT intended as a “bash”. The system of isolating “twits” in the Royal line was a very good idea. (Alas, we have no such ability in the “Colonies”.)

    Secondly, a good “Lord of the Manor” was a BENEFIT to the Crown and the local population. Nothing wrong with that. Interesting that Lord Monckton has verified his regal boni-fides, but because of rule changes, has no “voting” position in the peerage. So the system of restraining the influence of the royals still exists. (But in the case of Lord M., his personal drive triumphs over that. What color WAS his parachute?)

  83. SS troops removed their badges and tried to disguise themselves as ordinary troops, at the end of the war. Just saying.

  84. Poptech says:
    December 21, 2011 at 8:39 pm
    “Did anyone read the comments at the NYT DotEarth link?

    Asteroid Miner, “RealClimate has a much better approach to this whole issue.3 major revolutions in physics are compared…

    Copernican [sun centric]
    Einsteinian [relativistic gravity]
    Global Warming [GW]
    [...]”

    The typical humility of CAGW practicioners. CAGW gives them the opportunity to define themselves as the most important people on the planet. Interesting weakness.

  85. Is this what happens when the Team have a kneesup in Durban and get to talking about those passworded emails still out there?

  86. Rats leaving a sinking ship. Caldiera ought to be lashed to a mast and made to go down with the ship. He might not be the captain but he voluntarily helped build, launch, and guide this vessel so he’s culpable and his punishment ought to be staying aboard until the bitter end. The benefit of continuing IPCC reports is that they have to backpedal further in each iteration due to reality inconveniently falsifying proclamations and prognostications contained in previous reports.

  87. Maybe they unleashed the super computers and cracked the password to FOIA2011.zip and he know’s what’s coming.

  88. It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

    This was the same theme of the BBC doyen, Cox, when asked about global warming on one of their programs.

    Note: he is not saying “yes it’s a fact” he is putting the answer elsewhere; The consensus says it.

  89. Shocker? Shoker????
    You know, but still don’t realise, what the purpose of the IPCC is. It was created with the purpose of promoting an Agenda. Now, it seems that new science tends to contradict rather than support the position of AGWers, and it is sound sience that cannot be ignored. So publishing an extensive review of the science is now counter productive to their Agenda. This is, therefore, the moment AGWers should start to want to get rid of the IPCC. No surprise at all.

  90. Maybe his German (she sounds like that) Postdoc explained the hydrological cycle to him.

    A very interesting post. I wonder if Caldiera is changing his stance because he suddenly realized that his own research has just proven that the climate sensitivity is much smaller than has been claimed by e.g. Hansen et al.

    She speaks of “irrigation” or “reforestation” as mechanisms that keep (relatively small) areas of the land wet. Water is then evaporated from this wet land (or from the pores of trees during respiration) and yes, it carries away at least the latent heat of vaporization as it does so, locally cooling the surfaces.

    This water vapor — water containing heat that was picked up from the ground — then is transported up. H_2O molecules are lighter than O_2, N_2 and CO_2 molecules and — unlike CO_2 that tends to blanket the ground because it is literally “heavier (more dense) than air” — diffuses generally upward, especially when it is warmer than the ambient air, which, at least initially, it is.

    Air in the lower atmosphere cools fairly predictably with height. As the water vapor transfers some of its surplus heat to the surrounding air (heating it), pressure instabilities are created that cause updrafts that carry the warmer wetter air up not through diffusion, but via active transport that rather quickly lifts it up to much cooler air. Water is a polar molecule and strongly interacts with just about everything, and as it encounters ever cooler air (and constantly transfers some of the heat it picked up on the ground to it) it locally adsorbs to e.g. neutral air molecules, creating a more dense (if short lived) complex that gradually experiences no net lift. Air molecules continue to carry the heat on up, however, warming air that is ever less dense very slightly.

    As the density of water in atmospheric layers continues to increase and the water itself cools, it becomes unstable. It doesn’t bond well to (strongly covalently bonded) O_2 and N_2, although even those molecules experience short range dipole-induced dipole attraction, enough to actually help hold water molecules apart, but it forms relatively strong and long lasting bonds to nearly anything else, especially molecules with any sort of ionic or polar character. Neutral air molecules act as a dielectric to reduce the strength of the surrounding dipolar field of the solitary water molecules (which already drops off relatively quickly with distance), but bare ions exert a very strong force of attraction over a comparatively long range. Sunlight itself provides a continuous source of ions in the upper atmosphere. Various pollutants, particles of dust (including the continuous rain of microscopic meteoric dust that is constantly drifting down from overhead), ozone produced by sunlight, density waves caused by the passage of aircraft and yes, ionizing cosmic radiation that produces e.g. pair production cascades shotgun style as very high energy massive particles strike air molecules and are suddenly slowed down — all of these things nucleate water droplets in the unstable supersaturated air.

    This generally happens where the droplets formed are not water droplets — they are cold enough to immediately become ice. Although the air may not be saturated for the formation of liquid droplets, it is often supersaturated for the formation of ice. Ice itself is a fascinating substance, because water is so very interesting and structured. The growth process tends to favor the creation of sharp points on the surface, and sharp points augment the local field strength, which cause those points to more strongly attract the surrounding water molecules and hence grow, becoming sharper still (and spawning new sharp points in a fractal but structured way as the underlying ice fleck grows). This is known as the Bergeron process after its original discoverer, and is one of the primary ways that clouds grow. “Seeding” clouds consists of dumping nucleation points into not-quite saturated air so that the air becomes supersaturated with respect to them and relatively rapid nucleation and growth cascades to form clouds.

    Clouds do indeed have a high albedo. On the sunny side of the Earth, they contribute to net cooling by reflecting visible light, shading the surface and air underneath. Cloudy days are generally markedly cooler than clear days, all things being equal. On the dark side, they often contribute to net heating by reflecting infrared (and visible) back down. Cloudy nights are generally warmer than clear nights, all things being equal. It should be carefully noted, however, that the daytime reflection of energy involves a lot more net energy, energy that does not ever make it to the Earth, where the trapping of heat at night both requires there to be heat delivered during the day to trap and blocks only one of many cooling mechanisms.

    Overall, clouds have a cooling effect on global climate, period — if the Earth were completely enshrouded in clouds (perhaps because of an oceanic strike of a small asteroid that dumped a few hundred cubic miles of water vapor and nucleating directly into the stratosphere) it would produce catastrophic cooling. See, for example, the hypothesized “nuclear winter” that could follow a global thermonuclear war, note the coincidence between the onset of above-ground nuclear testing (that put substantial amounts of radioactive dust into the upper atmosphere) and the cooling period from 1945 to 1970. Yes, only a hypothesis, but again, nobody doubts that clouds are net cooling so uniformly increasing cloud cover on average decreases global temperatures. It is why the CAGW enthusiasts hate and fear the GCR hypothesis and any other evidence of enhanced cloud related cooling driven by anything at all.

    The mechanism described above has one more very important and, as far as I can tell, ignored mechanism for cooling present in it. The process as described has the net effect of taking heat from the Earth’s surface, where it was primarily (on average) received from the Sun and transporting it upward some 20-40 km into the atmosphere! As clouds form out of supersaturated air, they warm the surround air by depositing the heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion (as the molecules freeze directly onto the ice crystals in a cloud). One can actually see this warming air and transport of heat in action in the infrared photographs of e.g. hurricanes and storms. Heat is actively picked up from warm, wet oceans, rapidly transported upward, rapidly given up to surrounding cool air, warming the air and cooling the water, which then falls down again.

    And the warmer air it leaves behind? It goes up. The troposphere is characterized by warmer on the bottom, cooler at the top, with heat transport dominated by vertical turbulent mixing. At the top — the tropopause — the dominant heat transfer mechanism switches from being convective to being radiative with good lateral mixing (horizontal winds) but with relatively little vertical mixing. Warmer molecules diffuse (relatively slowly) upwards, resulting in a stratified thermal profile with cooler air on the bottom, warmer air on top — this is the stratosphere. Stratospheric cooling is dominated by radiation, and heat trapping there is indeed dominated by greenhouse gases, including water. Stratospheric water is considered to be a wild card in the global greenhouse effect, even by NOAA:

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

    To quote the lead paragraph in this story: “A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.” Or it might help to explain why they may well have fallen.

    This is the second way that surface evaporation and subsequent cloud formation impacts global temperature, and it may prove to be a truly significant (and incorrectly modelled) contributor to global temperatures. Stratospheric water vapor is still unstable — a variety of processes remove it and it has to constantly be replenished from below. It is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases — much stronger even as a vapor than CO2, and much stronger (as noted) as clouds, e.g. cumulus (troposphere) or cirrus (tropopause). The 1980’s were, apparently, a high point in stratospheric water vapor, and this water vapor may have been the, or at least a, primary factor in the anomalous warming. NOAA itself recognizes this. Since 2000, water vapor in the upper stratosphere has decreased by around 10%, and I would wager that it is not yet equilibrated because I would bet good money that the state of the Sun is a major factor in the mechanisms that transport water vapor into the stratosphere.

    Here it is in a nutshell. Increased cloud formation in the troposphere, wherever it occurs, leads to decreased water vapor in the stratosphere. Once the water is bound up in ice and/or water, it simply isn’t generally available for transfer into the stratosphere. This creates feedback and climate sensitivity with the wrong sign for catastrophic global warming, because increased sea surface temperatures increase evaporative cooling rates of the surface, which in turn causes more rapid transfer of more heat vertically via convection (especially at tropical latitudes where the thermal differential is the greatest). Even without solar modulation of the cloud formation process, this leads to increased net cooling by transferring more heat up above the troposphere where there is a smaller amount of atmosphere left to reflect its heat back down. However, it also carries water vapor with it to the stratosphere, and effectively thickens the stratospheric blanket, slowing the radiative loss of (primarily) upper tropospheric air.

    Any modulation of the cloud formation process in the troposphere, however, can reverse the sign of this feedback. Warm SSTs that lead to more tropospheric clouds, especially at tropical latitudes, also lead to less water vapor (on average) at the tropopause and reduced active transport into the stratosphere. This in turn can increase the cooling rate of the tropopause by reducing a primary component of the stratospheric greenhouse. This drops the temperature of the upper troposphere, which favors even more rapid cloud formation, which further reduces the stratospheric greenhouse. As long as the factor modulating increased cloud nucleation is active, there are several feedback loops enabled that all lead to active net cooling until a new equilibrium is reached.

    The timescale for this reduction is of great interest. Stratospheric mixing and transport through the layers is slow. E.g. CO2 levels in the stratosphere lag changes in the troposphere by as much as a decade, and the transport mechanisms themselves are strongly modulated by decadal oscillations such as ENSO, PDO, NAO that have a chaotic character and which strongly affect things like where, when and why clouds are formed in the first place. There is further “random” variation in the form of e.g. volcanic aerosols. All of these things produce decadal trends in global temperature (in particular SSTs and the distribution of SST anomalies) that are potentially strongly coupled to stratospheric mixing and water transport. Based strictly on the known timescales of these oscillations (which may not be strictly periodic) one would expect lag times of 10-30 years between the point where e.g. cloud nucleation rates changed and the effect of those changed rates impacts things like stratospheric water vapor content and mean dayside albedo.

    This is more than long enough to avoid confounding a solar-cloud modulation hypothesis, and may in small measure explain why observed global temperature variation is as strongly coupled to the lengths of solar cycles as to their strengths. It is very probable that there are resonances in the decadal oscillations, resonances with long, and different, periods. Even small shifts in the period of solar cycles may shift the feedback drivers from net positive, general warming, to net negative, general cooling as it drives cooling mechanisms in resonance and warming mechanisms out of resonance. In resonance problems it isn’t the strength of a driver that is of primary importance — it is how close you are to the resonance!

    This is, truly, the evil of the infamous hockey stick. Global temperature is interesting and complex. It goes up, it goes down, by order of ten degrees C on timescales on the order of 1000-10,000 y., by amounts on the order of degrees C on timescales on the order of 100-1000 y, by tenths of a degree C on timescales on the order of 1-10y. This is clearly demonstrated in an overwhelming number of studies over timescales out to millions of years ago. There are 100,000 y quasi-periodicities. Things on geological time scales such as continental drift play an important role. Alleging that average global temperature would be flat if it weren’t for CO2 is absurd; it is contradicted by enormous amounts of long term proxy data and temperature reconstructions.

    Alleging this when we have a 33 year baseline of actual reliable global temperatures and a similar baseline (plus perhaps a decade or two) of borderline sound physical science and data addressing the issue is naive. Hence the NOAA article (largely ignored, I’m certain, in the latest IPCC fiasco) which doesn’t seem to have been anticipated in GCMs, and hence is an actual error in the models that has now more or less conclusively been demonstrated. Are there other errors in those models? Of course there are. This is hardly settled science, or NOAA couldn’t have “just” discovered that stratospheric H2O is being strongly modulated by some process that is completely ignored in GCMs and that is at least capable of completely overriding the expected CO2 signal in the short run.

    Asserting that the science is settled in an issue like this where a lot of money is on the line is not just naive or absurd, it is criminal. It is also openly inviting Nature (the reality, not the journal) to step in and bitch-slap you upside the head and demonstrate just how wrong “settled” science can be, especially in what is arguably the most complex open thermal system we have ever studied, or maybe the second most complex one — second only to the Sun. And of course the Sun is the other wild card in the global climate equation, isn’t it?

    I would never assume that all the people who are doing or have done climate research are either venal, political, biased or stupid. Some may well be, and Climategate has gone a long way to reveal to the world at least one relatively closed subset of people that probably are one or more of these things. Scientists who do indeed have an open mind, and who may well have been convinced by prior arguments for CAGW have the right and privilege to at any time change their mind based on new data and results. Indeed, as negative evidence is accumulated and gradually mounts up, any good scientist should, slowly, decrease their degree of believe in CAGW and increase their degree of belief in alternative hypotheses, especially ones that can also explain the observational data of the past and better explain the present and the future as it is unveiled by the passing of time.

    It is not at all implausible that Caldiera is just such a good scientist. It seems that his own work is starting to show some of the cracks in the CAGW hypothesis. The idea that increased surface evaporation leads through GCMs to increased net global cooling all by itself casts doubt on the egregious end of the assertions for climate sensitivity, and I’m quite certain that whether or not he has formally estimated its impact he intuitively recognizes that it almost certainly adds to the already substantial evidence that the higher “catastrophic” values are excluded by existing data and observations. This doesn’t mean that AGW is entirely wrong — he is quite correct that it is dead certain that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed something to the average global temperature. What it may mean is that the “C” is no longer a concern.

    What it may also mean — what the NOAA observation means — what the strong correlation between solar state and global temperature over century to millennial time scales means — is that suddenly the magnitude of the CO2-connected AGW has once again become a seriously open question.

    The problem that the IPCC faces is very simple. From the very beginning nobody sane has denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that increased CO2 very likely results in (on average) an increase in global temperature relative to some baseline. What has been doubtful throughout that entire interval and is doubtful today is the climate sensitivity, because it is a single parameter that hides a huge amount of chaotic dynamics in a complex, open system with multiple time scales and reduces it to an enormously (over)simplified term in a differential equation. People attempt to estimate it, people attempt to measure it, people attempt to model climate using it and compare the results to observed temperatures. The uncertainty associated with this process is clear from the fact that even the proponents of CAGW don’t claim to know the sensitivity to within a factor of two or three. They want to establish lower bounds, but those bounds are clearly not well-justified from a statistical point of view given the range of possible variation.

    Observation, especially reliable observations made with modern instrumentation over decadal time scales, restricts the permissible range of the climate sensitivity. We’ve seen a number of posts on this issue on WUWT already. Existing observations already make it extremely unlikely that the higher “catastrophic” values for this parameter are correct, as if they were one cannot explain the last decade of stable to cooling temperatures (or, as Bob Tisdale is fond of pointing out in great detail, the fact that abrupt warming followed by stable temperatures, with e.g. ENSO correlations to the abrupt warmings, is rather the rule and very difficult to explain with a CO2 driven model with very high sensitivity).

    Caldiera has very likely come to realize this, whether or not he has yet gotten to where he believes it sufficiently to state it in print. His own work, as noted carefully above, makes it likely that the upper reaonable bound will get lowered again over the next two or three years, even if the GCR and other explanations for solar modulation of cloud nucleation are not further supported by observation and experiment as they may well be. At the same time, his own work makes the lower ranges, the ranges where e.g. Roy Spencer asserts that it should be, more likely, again even without solar modulation. Solar modulation would simply be a dagger that instantly closes the topic and results in a threefold decrease in the temperature anomaly we can manage with AG CO2 forcing coupled with a natural variation that is 3 to 10 times more important as a determinant of the actual global mean temperature.

    I do think that viewing this as a “rat leaving a sinking ship” does a disservice to the entire debate. Instead of expressing bitterness, it is much more appropriate to recognize that a scientist has the right to an opinion, that the opinion is probably not completely ill-founded (mistaken or not) and that a good scientist has the right to change their mind as new evidence emerges that confounds their earlier beliefs. His resignation might be nothing more than his personal acknowledgement that the “C” in CAGW is finished, and that the actual AGW anomaly is suddenly an open question once again.

    Yes, you probably think that it is, or should have been, open all along. I probably agree with you. But let’s give credit to a man who is willing to change his mind as evidence weakens belief, and accord him some respect.

    Respect is, most unfortunately, a feature that is sadly lacking in the entire debate.

    rgb

  91. Robert Brown says: (and constantly transfers some of the heat it picked up on the ground to it)

    Review the word ‘adiabatic’. No heat is transferred at all until it reaches cloud altitude and condenses to release its latent heat of evaporation that it collected on the ground.

    As for CAGW reverting to AGW, there still isn’t even settled evidence that CO2 in such a small amount within a mixture contributes any additional ‘greenhouse’ effect at all. Some papers (such as this one using mean free path analysis), are hinting at the opposite, that it might actually have a slight cooling affect if anything.

    If that turns out to be true then we’ve wasted tens maybe hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars while shackling our economy for absolutely no good reason at all, (unless you think foisting socialism on everyone is a good reason…). So then how much will the ‘good intentions’ of those who dragged the rest of us along the primrose path actually be worth?

  92. olsthro says:
    December 21, 2011 at 3:11 pm
    “It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.”

    Really? What could be more important than to save the planet from pending disaster? (Sarc)

    I see the “sarc” tag, but I feel the seriousness of the statement is worth repeating.

    If one really believes in the CAGW concept, what better use of their time than to help bring that concept and possible reactions to it that might save as many people as possible?

  93. @Robert Brown (rgb)

    You need some refresher courses in basic physical science. Water vapor, or any volume of rising gas, doesn’t give up energy to its surroundings as it rises. It simply expands. This creates more room between the molecules. Stick a thermometer in those roomier conditions and there are few collisions between the air molecules and the mass of the thermometer and by that mechanism a lower temperature is obtained.

    Fercrisakes you’re a physics professor? That hardly seems possible.

  94. Hmmm…. Some seem to want to give Caldeira the benefit of the doubt, hoping against hope that a leopard can indeed change his spots. But, his own words argue against that naive hope.
    He believes there is a “high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change.” He also believes that “despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.” Those are not the words of someone starting to show cracks in his Belief system. He also states:
    “if the IPCC is to be extremely useful, it must re-invent itself, so that it efficiently supplies decision-makers with the most important and reliable scientific information while placing a minimum of additional burden on the scientific community.” So, the IPCC needs to act more as a supplier of “information” to decision-makers, that “information”, of course, being that of the “basic science of human-induced climate change.” He also believes his “scientific” peers at the IPCC are fully capable of doing that. Well, of course they are. A trained monkey could simply regurgitate the same nonsense they have been all along. Finally, he says:
    “An important question is: How can the IPCC be made into a more efficient and effective vehicle for scientific communication? It would be good to have this discussion before the AR6 train leaves the station.”
    For the True Believers, it always comes down to “the communication”, aka propaganda. And for the IPCC to become more effective, it needs to become a better mouthpiece for that propaganda.

  95. @RGB

    “transporting it upward some 20-40 km into the atmosphere! As clouds form out of supersaturated air, they warm the surround air by depositing the heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion”

    You dropped a decimal point there. Virtually all the action in giving up heat is over by 4000 meters. Adiabatic lapse rate is about 1C per 100 meters so by 4000 meters it has given up 40C which means most air, most of the time, is below freezing at that altitude. Latent heat of vaporization is roughly 7x latent heat of fusion so even if it isn’t ice by then it’s surely condensed and has given up the lion’s share of its latent heat upon condensation. Very few thunderheads punch through into the stratosphere, by the way, which begins at about 10 kilometers.

  96. Robert Brown says:
    December 22, 2011 at 8:55 am

    ===========

    Sir, that post / comment deserves much greater recognition / exposure with regards to the overall knowledge / debate. I can’t find anything that I would disagree with upon the first reading. I will read it numerous times.

    Anthony and MODS, please consider Robert Brown’s thoughts / comment as a leading post. It should be moved to the forefront of WUWT review and not to be buried / hidden as it appears as a comment. I feel there is a lot here.

    Robert, thank you. You will keep me awake over the holidays.

  97. @RGB

    Sorry to take serial shots but your response was VERY long and I keep hoping I won’t spot more errors.

    “To quote the lead paragraph in this story: “A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science.”

    That’s dubious. 90% of almost zero is still almost zero. 99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere is contained in the troposphere which ends at about six miles high. Let’s go through some basic numbers. 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor (actually I’d contest that because I believe most of it is due to liquid water in the ocean which, just like a greenhouse gas, is transparent to visible light and opaque to far infrared) but let’s say 90% is due to water vapor. 99% of the water vapor is below an altitude of 6 miles. Total greenhouse warming is reputedly 33C. So water vapor in toto accounts for 30C of GHW 99% of the vapor is in the troposphere so 1% of 30C is the maximum effect that stratospheric water vapor can have. That would be 0.3C. Then because it only decreased by 10% that would be 0.03C. So basically only 0.03C of greenhouse warming was lost by a 10% reduction in stratosphere water vapor.

    Meanwhile global average temperature supposedly rose about 0.7C between 1980 and 2000. So for stratospheric water vapor to account for a full-on stop of global warming since 2000 it would have to have 20 times the effect it does. Even if it only accounted for 25% of the slowdown that’s still about 5 times more than its reasonable potential.

    Or is the effect of stratospheric water vapor “amplified” in some manner? I’d love to hear what’s got to be some entertaining departure from logic and physics that must be part of THAT story. So until further notice my position is going to be that a 10% more stratospheric water vapor can’t account for more than 5% of the warming that took place between 1980 and 2000. Nice try but no cigar.

  98. eyesonu says:
    December 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    “Sir, that post / comment deserves much greater recognition / exposure with regards to the overall knowledge / debate. I can’t find anything that I would disagree with upon the first reading. I will read it numerous times.”

    Sir, that missive had more holes in it than swiss cheese. However, it’s certainly not unusual on this blog for original research done off-the-cuff without any peer review whatsoever by qualified reviewers to be promoted to headline articles. So I don’t see why not. Brown and Eschanbach can compete with each other to see who is the more ignorant in the natural sciences. I’m going with Eschanbach because Brown is an idiot savante way outside his only area of expertise but Willis is missing the savante part.

  99. As I stated in an earlier post / comment I believe that the physics of this (Robert Brown’s comment) should be moved to the forefront of WUWT for review for all to see. It will pass or fail.

    As far as Caldeira is concerned, I think he is jumping ship. Let him respond in writing on WUWT and then we will know where he stands. As far as the IPCC is concerned, it.is …….. and cannot be redeamed. The trust is gone and they may with the blessings of Cadleira simply move in another direction for 30 years and claim that new evidence (suggests, shows, points to, reveals, etc.) that CO2 is causing CAGC (catastrophic anthropagenic global cooling) so we must have massive taxes on energy, Same song and dance, but to a different tune.

    I would not trust Caldiera or the IPCC, but let Caldeira have his say. If, in many years, he can gain trust then it will be welcome. Time will tell. The clock is ticking so make a move. Ship jumping should only occur once in a lifetime in one’s life. Make a stand on principle and not on govt .grants. The truth will set you free.

    Let Robert Brown get the exposure of light. At my first look he seems to make sense with the physics. Light on the subject will cure any virus.

  100. kim says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:28 am

    “He’ll get respect, rgb, when he admits he’s changed his mind. As it is, he slinks.”

    Yes he slinks but I don’t think a confession at this point is going to earn him any respect. At best it would put him in a position where he might earn some respect should he advance science in the future. As it stands now he retarded science and is lying about it. If he recants the lie he’s still a liar and a retarder of science. Only by building a track record of honesty and advancing the art may he gain a measure of respect. ‘Fessing up is the place to begin the process however.

  101. If Caldiera is interested in more productive uses of his time I would suggest taking a long vacation from climate science and perhaps starting a greenhouse growing hydroponic strarberries where he can, through practical experience, learn about the greenhouse effect and the positive botanical consequences of elevated CO2. Or maybe panning for gold in the Yukon or crab fishing in the Bering Sea. Or wearing an orange jumpsuit and picking up trash alongside the road. Virtually anything would be a more productive use of his time.

  102. Bruce Cobb says:
    December 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    “Hmmm…. Some seem to want to give Caldeira the benefit of the doubt, hoping against hope that a leopard can indeed change his spots. But, his own words argue against that naive hope.
    He believes there is a “high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change.” He also believes that “despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.” Those are not the words of someone starting to show cracks in his Belief system. ”

    Those are the words of someone who wants to continue working as an atmospheric physicist. The only climate scientists who can afford to recant are those that are tenured or those that are retired. Or those that are independently wealthy or those that for some other reason aren’t worried about a career dereailed through being blackballed by “the team” for turning traitor against “the cause” .

    I don’t really blame the guy. I’d probably do the same thing in his shoes although I did quit a job repairing televisions while working my way through college because the shop rules were designed to maximize repair costs instead of minimizing them and I felt bad about being part of that. I got a job fixing industrial electronic control systems instead in order to pay rent and tuition.

  103. eyesonu says:
    December 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    “Let Robert Brown get the exposure of light. At my first look he seems to make sense with the physics. Light on the subject will cure any virus.”

    If he seems to make sense it’s because you don’t know buzzwords from buzzard droppings.

    He made at least two glaring errors that a precocious fifth grader would have corrected. One is the notion that there is any significant latent heat released by water vapor at altitudes between 20,000 and 40,000 meters and the other is that a volume of warm air rising warms the air around it as it cools down. These are just ridiculously wrong.

  104. I was wrong about the series of annual Climategate releases I predicted in another thread–at least 40 if each contains 5,000 emails from the “stash” of 220,000.

    A better tact would be for FOIA to release a fresh Climategate set of emails each quarter, which should be enough time to assimilate the contents of each. With four Climategate releases a year, it would keep everybody busy (the “climate realist analysts” on one side and the “warmistas” on the other scattering for cover and denying the truth) for oh, about 10 years or so.

    The non-realist side of the issue would be in an uproar for these 10 years; how delicious that would be.

    (Oh, how I like that term “non-realists” is descrbing “Warmistas” (a term I don’t really care for since it hasn’t ‘s been a while since it has been warming). So let these “climate scientists” call those who are trying to accurately apply science to the topic anything they like, but “Nonrealists” is my new, accurate term for them.)

  105. (corrected)
    I was wrong about the series of annual Climategate releases I predicted in another thread–at least 40 if each contains 5,000 emails from the “stash” of 220,000.

    A better tact would be for FOIA to release a fresh Climategate set of emails each quarter, which should be enough time to assimilate the contents of each. With four Climategate releases a year, it would keep everybody busy (the “climate realist analysts” on one side and the “warmistas” on the other scattering for cover and denying the truth) for oh, about 10 years or so.

    The non-realist side of the issue would be in an uproar for these 10 years; how delicious that would be.

    (Oh, how I like that term “non-realists” is descrbing “Warmistas” (a term I don’t really care for since it hasn’t been warming for quite some time). So let these “climate scientists” call those who are trying to accurately apply science to the topic anything they like, but “Nonrealists” is my new, accurate term for them.)

  106. Dave Springer says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    ==================

    Dave, if a smack down were due, I just wanted it done at the top of a leading post and not hidden at the end of one a couple of days old preceding the longest holiday period of the year.

    I haven’t reread Robert Browns post yet and probably would not have the knowledge to contest any errors but a WUWT review most certainly would.

    Thanks for the reply.

    “buzzwords from buzzard droppings”? Got it! :-)

  107. I just finished a reread of Robert Brown’s post / comment. I stand by my previous comments. A couple of areas that were a little ‘grey to me’ but may reflect more on me than the content.

    @ Robert Brown, where is: “His own work, as noted carefully above … ” quoted in your post that I could review?

  108. @ Rocky Road

    Higher ranking officers of the CAGW Brigade:
    Frauds / Liers / Criminals / Propagandists / MSM / Climate Scientists / Academics / Fools?

    Lower order ranking:
    Believers / Nonrealists / Alarmists / Warmista / Sheeple / Eco-fanatics / Extremists / Fools?

  109. Dave Springer – you are the savant of graceless, mean-spirited, insult. Good thing for you the age of dueling is past. This is a blog! It’s perfectly all right to headline research that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Even off-the-cuff research. You arrogant twit. Go peer-review yourself.

  110. Dave,
    I understand the concept of adiabatic cooling. But I’ve not seen data on alterations to the conventional adiabatic calculations as affected by upper level horizontal shear (which obviously affects mixing) and the relative abundance of these situations, i.e. (for one) do ocean temperatures affect wind speed causing an increase/decrease in wind shear?

  111. @ Robert Brown, where is: “His own work, as noted carefully above … ” quoted in your post that I could review?

    Where are you?

    Please respond.

  112. Mike M – if you were part of the 95% percent here who thought Caldeira was jumping ship, switching sides, covering his ass, etc., etc – then, yes, you are an idiot. Caldeira’s views on the science of climate change should be well known by now. His thoughts on skeptics are also well known. They haven’t changed. As he said in response to the furor on sites such as this over the past few days:

    … I was surprised when the last remnants of the climate-science denial team erupted with glee in the blogosphere at my remarks on the IPCC made on Dot Earth earlier this week.

    These silly uninformed theories betray a complete and utter disdain for facts – because the facts are easy to find.

  113. With an as yet undetermined appendage Caldiera writes:

    “My guess is that most of the key points that scientists will feel important to communicate five or ten years from now will be largely the same as what scientists would like to communicate right now. Therefore, future editions of this book could consist of relatively minor updating, pointing to important new literature and important new scientific discoveries.”

    No Ken, future editions will carry on the tradition of backpedalling from the mistaken predictions of previous editions. That’s why we look so forward to them and were so disappointed that you won’t be sticking around to do your share of inglorious dissembling.

    The cool think though is, Ken, that the internet never forgets. This will haunt you to your grave.

  114. William Abbott says:
    December 23, 2011 at 4:02 am

    “Dave Springer – you are the savant of graceless, mean-spirited, insult. Good thing for you the age of dueling is past. This is a blog! It’s perfectly all right to headline research that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Even off-the-cuff research. You arrogant twit. Go peer-review yourself.”

    I always love it when someone frowns upon insults and then does his best to make one.

    ROFLMAO@U

  115. William Abbott says:
    December 23, 2011 at 4:02 am

    “Dave Springer – you are the savant of graceless, mean-spirited, insult.”

    I’m from New York. It’s what we do. [shrug]

  116. eyesonu says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    “Dave, if a smack down were due, I just wanted it done at the top of a leading post and not hidden at the end of one a couple of days old preceding the longest holiday period of the year.”

    Leading with your chin isn’t usually a good idea. The place for mistakes is in the trash bin not the front page. The front page should be for well vetted material.

  117. Kevin O’Neill says:
    December 24, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Caldeira’s views on the science of climate change should be well known by now. His thoughts on skeptics are also well known. They haven’t changed. As he said in response to the furor on sites such as this over the past few days:

    … I was surprised when the last remnants of the climate-science denial team erupted with glee in the blogosphere at my remarks on the IPCC made on Dot Earth earlier this week.

    ========================

    He is really worse than we thought!

    Thanks for the tip.

  118. Dave Springer says:
    December 25, 2011 at 8:14 am
    eyesonu says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    “Dave, if a smack down were due, I just wanted it done at the top of a leading post and not hidden at the end of one a couple of days old preceding the longest holiday period of the year.”

    Leading with your chin isn’t usually a good idea. The place for mistakes is in the trash bin not the front page. The front page should be for well vetted material.

    =====================

    It would be well vetted here.

  119. Partial quote from Caldeira:

    “… I was surprised when the last remnants of the ‘climate-science denial team’ erupted with glee in the blogosphere at my remarks on the IPCC made on Dot Earth earlier this week.”

    =========================

    Would those last remnants of the ‘climate-science denial team’ be Mann, Jones, etc. etc.?

    Are you trying to tell us something?

  120. I should not have placed the (‘ ‘) that I used in emphasizing ‘climate-science denial team’ into Caldeira’s quote. My bad. Maybe I should take the time to learn WordPress formating. It however did not change the content. Sorry.

  121. @ Robert Brown

    I have just finished reading and studying your post yet again. It makes a lot of sense to me and you have done an excellent job of presenting a lot of complexities relating to the most complex medium of all, the atmosphere.

    Thank you for your contribution.

  122. @ Robert Brown

    Would hurricanes / cyclones be the primary driving force to carry water vapor into the stratosphere? I can think of no other process that would carry heat in such quantity and with such upward force as to reach the stratosphere involving the mechanisms you presented.

    Could the water vapor in the upper layer of the stratosphere also cause a cooling, relative to the atmosphere below, by blocking a portion of the sunlight from penetrating to the atmosphere or earth below? With the heating of this upper layer, that would seem to imply that this would be a prime area for energy / heat to be radiated back to space. (Pardon me for using common language here as I just want to get the gist of it all and not get lost in the arguments involving longwave and short wave of varying frequencies that often seems to dominate the topics here).

Comments are closed.