“I don’t think they were very pleased. I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.”
Society to review climate message
By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
There is debate over “feedback” effects on the climate
The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.
The society’s ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document.
The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September.
It is chaired by physicist John Pethica, vice-president of the Royal Society.
Its deliberations are reviewed by two critical sub-groups, each believed to comprise seven members.
Each of these groups contains a number of society Fellows who are doubtful in some way about the received view of the risks of rising CO2 levels.
One panel member told me: “The timetable is very tough – one draft has already been rejected as completely inadequate.”
The review member said it might not be possible for the document to be agreed at all. “This is a very serious challenge to the way the society operates,” I was told. “In the past we have been able to give advice to governments as a society without having to seek consensus of all the members.
“There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will inevitably be people who disagree about anything – and my fear is that the society may become paralysed on this issue.”
Another review member told me: “The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised. It’s not clear to me how we are going to get precise agreement on the wording – we are scientists and we’re being asked to do a job of public communication that is more like journalism.”
But both members said they agreed that some of the previous communications of the organisation in the past were poorly judged.
Question everything
A Royal Society pamphlet Climate Change Controversies is the main focus of the criticism. A version of it is on the organisation’s website. It was written in response to attacks on mainstream science which the Royal Society considered scurrilous.
It reads: “This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change…”
One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: “This appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. But in science everything is there to be questioned – that should be the very essence of the Royal Society. Some of us were very upset about that.
“I can understand why this has happened – there is so much politically and economically riding on climate science that the society would find it very hard to say ‘well, we are still fairly sure that greenhouse gases are changing the climate’ but the politicians simply wouldn’t accept that level of honest doubt.”
Another society protester said he wanted to be called a climate agnostic rather than a sceptic. He said he wanted the society’s website to “do more to question the accuracy of the science on climate feedbacks” (in which a warming world is believed to make itself warmer still through natural processes).
“We sent an e-mail round our friends, mainly in physical sciences,” he said.
“Then when we had got 43 names we approached the council in January asking for the website entry on climate to be re-written. I don’t think they were very pleased. I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.
“But we won the day, and the work is underway to re-write it. I am very hopeful that we will find a form of words on which we can agree.
“I know it looks like a tiny fraction of the total membership (1,314) but remember we only emailed our friends – we didn’t raise a general petition.”
much more here at the BBC
h/t to WUWT reader “Sandy in Derby”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Royal Society motto used to be “Nullius in verba”.
“Take nobody’s word for it”.
It’s not on their website now. But what a superb summary of the scientific method, based on their founding principles.
Let’s hope they drop political action for scientific truth, whatever the outcome.
geo : unless there is a third-party shown to have been misleading them. Once someone becomes that third party (could it be the IPCC with another large error?) then you will see a lot more people backing away, or at least watering down, statements.
Well it is a good thing that they are going to do a review; but I wouldn’t hold out much hope for any reversal of their position; that would be simply too cataclysmic to countenance.
But there is good reason to review the “feedbacks” question. In some instances what is described as a feedback is nothing more than a physical system which is in transition from one state to another state, as a result of some perturbation or other; and since the transition can take some time (thermal times constants generally being large); then we get to watch intermediate unstable states pass by from one stationary state to a different one. There really isn’t any “feedback” going on at all.
Then there is this cloud gospel that evidently all climatologers embrace:-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SV04AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=climate+basics+cloud+winter&source=bl&ots=LYvSPYNdu6&sig=xXSqGhPXIVBI6sCQj2UVi5TYj5s&hl=en&ei=iVkVSuHgNOPOjAfpkrn4DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
A quick glance at the cloud fraction graph shows that at zero cloud fraction it doesn’t matter what altitude the clouds are not at; the surface temperature does not change with the amount of no cloud.
But for any amount of cloud cover greater than zero; there is one altitude; the magic cloud altitude; where the surface temperature does not change at all with the fraction of cloud cover from 0 to 100 %.
Then for any amount of non zero cloud cover percent; if you move that cloud to a lower altitude, the surface temperature falls and presumably the lower you move it, the more the temperature falls.
But if you move that cloud from the magic altitude to a higher altitude; then the surface gets hotter; and apparently the higher you move the cloud; the hotter the surface gets.
So this has generated the legend of low clouds causing negative feedback cooling while high clouds cause positive feedback heating of the surface. That is the standard gospel.
Well of course that defies both common sense and everyday observation. If you are standing out in the sun with a cloud near the sun direction at any altitude; and that cloud then moves across in front of the sun; then observation says that it ALWAYS cools down in the shadow zone. And common sense says that since the sun is a near point source (0.5 deg divergence) the shadow size is pretty much constant at the same size as the cloud regardless of how high the cloud is. Well the higher the cloud is; the wider the penumbral shadow perimeter gets; whereas at lower altitudes the shadow edge gets sharper (for a given cloud).
So we are asked to believe that if you run that cloud up and down in altitude it will get hotter and hotter the higher you move the cloud (in the shadow zone). So if you had a cloud say 1 squ km in area and that cloud reflected say 50% of the sunlight hitting the top of it; and then absorbed say 50% of the remaining sunlight that enters the cloud (we could call it a IPCC-1-50-50 cloud for Intergovernmental Propaganda Concensus Cloud) and it would have a sunlight transmittance of 25%; so presumably instead of getting a maximum ground irradiance of about 1000 W/m^2 (in the hottest places) we would only get 250 W/m^2 in that shadow zone.
Now that cloud is going to block the same amount of light in the shadow regardless of its height, so we should measure 250 W/m^2 in that zone; for all cloud heights.
But the LWIR thermal emission from the ground in that shadow zone, is of course going to be reduced by the cooling; but more importantly that surface thermal emission is going to be at least Lambertian dispersed, into a complete hemisphere. The cloud however subtends a diminisheing solid angle, as the altitude increases; and therefore the amount of thermal emission from the shadow zone that gets intercepted by the cloud goes down as the cloud altitude increases.
Now the rest of the ground outside the shadow zone, of course continues in its cloud free state; so its temperature is unaffected by the cloud; as far as solar blockage; BUT the cloud does block a small amount of the LWIR emitted from each surface element outside the shadow zone; which in this example is most of the surface.
So the cloud now intercepts a small fraction of the LWIR surface emission from everywhere outide the shadow zone; and of course at a different oblique angle for each location; so one might need to integrate all of those small contributions to get the total for the rest of the surface outside the shadow zone.
Actually you can eliminate the need for integration by just acknowledging that the problem is identical to the reverse problem where the cloud is emitting downward radiation in a Lambertian (probably) distribution pattern; and that emission will spread over the surface in exactly the same distribution as the elemental contributions from each surface element. The further away from the cloud a position is, (laterally) the smaller is the IR from the cloud at that point and also the contribution intercepted by the cloud from that location.
So actually we can just use the Lambertian Cosine distribution from a diffuse (small) source to figure out the ground emitted LWIR intercepted by the cloud; and then partially re-radiated downward to the ground. We will find that the higher the cloud is the smaller this interception is; so more of the LWIR from the surface escapes around the cloud.
Well somewhere along the line; as we look at that biblical cloud picture cited above; we will suddenly discover that it is phony; because that is not a graph of cloud cover at varying altitudes as first appears; because each of those cloud cover percent lines is actually for a totally different cloud. They are not keep ing the cloud constant as they change its altitude; they are changing the cloud as they go, and the higher they put the cloud the less dense they make the cloud thereby changing both its albedo reflectance, and it bulk absorptance. The highest cloud, and the lowest cloud are totally different clouds.
What a crock that is; if you want to know the effect of altitude on the warming effect of a cloud; you can’t go changing the cloud itself at the same time as you change the altitude.
So I would hope, that these Royal Society folks get with the program, and re-evaluate some of these biblical utterances about the effect of cloud cover. Then we shall see if clouds can cause positive feedback or not; they still result in the surface cooling inside the shadow zone; and the bigger that shadow zone cloud gets the bigger the cooler area gets; until the cloud finally is covering the entire visible sky (from that location); and I don’t see how it ever switches from being colder in the shadow zone to becoming hotter in the shadow zone; no matter how large an area the cloud covers; and I have never experienced any cloud at any height that warmed up the surface in the shadow zone, when it passes in front of the sun; it ALWAYS cools; no matter what.
So have at it Royal Society; it seems like some of the sacred cows need to be butchered.
I do not see any significant organisations of “skeptics” (nor funding) beyong the holding of an accasional meeting and the provision, gratis, of a half dozen websites that have become significant through their excellence.
The claim that the “skeptic” group is well organisised is simply not true. It is a fragmentation of concerned individuals. Fortunately, some of them are better at times with math and science and concepts than some IPCC contributors.
Well Steve; you just need to stop getting up at 4:30 AM. There isn’t any solar insolation to speak of at that time; so nothing much to measure.
I’d sleep in a bit if Iwas you; well to be honest; I’m usually awake by 3AM or so; and have to turn the radio on to find out what the flaming Gummint has done to us since last night.
But I try to avoid getting up till my w ife clears out to go teach her little childrens.
Well that is unless I have to get out my sandbox and stick and do some sand scratchings; on some idea that probably woke me up anyway.
Anthony: “Americans Are Becoming Global Warming Skeptics” – US News and World Report http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/05/26/americans-are-becoming-global-warming-skeptics.html
Paralysed? What they mean is that the citizens might not allow them to proceed with their schemes. That’s a bad attitude on the part of the citizens, who should be slapped down, I say.
brc says:
May 27, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Yessir, you are correct. But that also assumes they are willling to throw IPCC under the bus at this point of history. At best, at this point I give the Scottish verdict –“unproven”.
I am very surprised that from “skeptics” they may use insurgents.
After all Global Warming became Climate Change which can encompass anything.
netdr says:
The real problem for the climate alarmists is feedback.
Exactly! The Royal Society didn’t expect the
Spanish Inquisitionfeedback from other honourable members such as this!I certainly hope that some integrity, sense and detachment from political funding, will finally overcome those who control Western scientific societies before they lose all popular support. Their support for the rigid political line of AGW is making them look like Soviet Lysenko Lackies.
Wait a freaking minute, ladies and gentlemen!
“The science of climate change”??????
Is this some new discipline?
“Changeology” perhaps?
When did it cease being just an area of study and get its own “ology”?
. . . wow . . .
I wonder which university will have the first Department of Changeology.
There are no public service ads promoting the skeptic position, no PR agencies working for us forwarding packaged stories to the press (the other side is doing a superb job of that), no handy umbrella site for bloggers, etc., etc. (For more, see my “Notes from Skull Island” on this site last month somewhere.)
Or maybe Warmologists.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mexico-cannot-wait-to-follow-us-lead-on-climate-change-president/article1583574/
————
There is a full court press of alarmism online… This is not coincidental.
This is what we are being fed up here in Canada… And the alarmists are full force on this thread…
Nuff said. Write ’em off.
sky says:
In other words, “I wonder how many Society members are equipped to misunderstand things in the same way that I do?” My guess is that fortunately very few of them are!
The problem is positive feedback. But since the CO2 concentration has been much higher than today, and there was no positive feedback turning earth into Venus, then why isn’t the problem solved … there is no positive feedback.
Sometimes boundary conditions are self testing.
My, my, what a year can do. This may be one of those tipping point for which we have all been waiting.
Don’t get me wrong though, as long as the EPA still continues to move on its regulatory path and as long as Britain (or Europe or Australia, or Canada) retains their current carbon legislation, it is still an uphill battle where we cannot relent if we hope to win. After all, there’s still a lot of momentum behind this insane policy.
SimonH says:
Count me a Climate Atheist! You haven’t reckoned on the PC rewriting of language. “Climate change” is defined as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” So, quite literally, until the very last sliver of time of that 4 BILLION year history, there has been NO CLIMATE CHANGE WHATSOEVER (no humans, you see…). You see, this is a very underhanded game being played. Get people to think words mean one thing, whilst secretly they mean something else and then a false message can be “honestly” stated by those in the know. A few more thoughts about this: http://peacelegacy.org/articles/rose-rose-really
George E Smith says:
Actually, you are misusing the terminology somewhat: The standard picture is that an increase in low clouds will generally cause cooling in net and an increase in high clouds will generally cause warming in net. However, it is not always straightforward how cloudiness will change in a warming world. (There is more evaporation but only such that relative humidity is expected to remain approximately constant.) Hence, whether low clouds cause a positive or negative feedback depends on whether they decrease or increase, respectively in a warming world. And, similarly whether high clouds cause a positive or negative feedback depends on whether they increase or decrease, respectively in a warming world.
Not if you happen to be on the half of the planet that is experiencing the phenomenon that we call “night”. If you don’t believe that high clouds tend to have a stronger warming effect than cooling effect, you might want to take up this with Richard Lindzen, whose “iris hypothesis” (now pretty well debunked) was based on the notion that a warming tropics would lead to a decrease in high clouds which would then cause a negative feedback. (“Much like the iris in a human eye contracts to allow less light to pass through the pupil in a brightly lit environment, Lindzen suggests that the area covered by high cirrus clouds contracts to allow more heat to escape into outer space from a very warm environment.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/ )
You might want to warn Lindzen that your analysis says that in fact this decrease in high clouds would be a positive feedback. Or, alternatively, you might entertain the notion that those people who have thought about this more deeply than you have…and have looked at empirical data from satellite measurements and so forth…actually have things basically correct in regards to how changes in low or high clouds affect the temperature. (I think that the more difficult question is honestly how the low and high clouds do in fact change with temperature.)
tarpon says:
When climate scientists talk about net positive feedback, they mean that the net feedbacks are positive other than the “trivial feedback term” of about -0.26 K per W/m^2 that is provided by the Steffan-Boltzmann Equation (i.e., when something like the earth heats up, it radiates more). As long as the “net positive feedbacks” are smaller in magnitude than this, what one gets is a magnification of the (~1 C per CO2 doubling) warming computed using the direct radiative effect of the CO2 and applying the S-B equation alone.
So, no, on the sense that climate scientists talk of net positive feedback, the fact that we haven’t had a runaway does not show that the feedbacks are negative. In fact, most of the computations of the climate sensitivity derived from paleoclimate data suggest a sensitivity in the same range as the climate models predict.
Some false dilemmas being posed there. If they can’t agree the answer is to say so very clearly what they disagree about. Certainly a document can be arrived at even if it does not include what certain individuals very much want it to include.
***********
Joel Shore says:
May 27, 2010 at 7:00 pm
sky says:
I wonder how many Society members are equipped to understand that critical distinction and come to the realization that the much-venerated climate models posit a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.
In other words, “I wonder how many Society members are equipped to misunderstand things in the same way that I do?” My guess is that fortunately very few of them are!
*************
Looks like at least some of them are smart enough to realize some of the science is dodgy. Remember, science isn’t done by consensus.
“Then when we had got 43 names we approached the council in January asking for the website entry on climate to be re-written. I don’t think they were very pleased. I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.”
“I don’t think they were very pleased.”
To put it mildly! LOL. And I’m sure Prince Charles is not amused either. Last I heard from him was some dire Al Gore style prediction.
“I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.”
Well, there’s never been a scientific scam this large before in history either.
Did the Royal Society fall for the Piltdown Man?
Time to rename AGW Humpty Dumpty.
The correct way of doing science, or any other logical exercise, it to form a hypotheses and try to disprove it.
You make a testable prediction and say to yourself if X is true is true then Y must also true. You then observe if Y is true.
Example: Einstein predicted that if mass warped space light would be bent around the sun and a particular star would be visible during an eclipse.
Climate alarmists reverse the procedure and try to prove their hypotheses is true.
Example: Mike Mann and his hockey stick.
By standing logic on it’s ear anything can be proved. The scientist must be his own most thorough critic.
The only predictions climate alarmists make are in the form of models which are always too high after a few years. They somehow convinced themselves that it is easier to predict 100 years than 20 years. Which they have proven they can not do.
They only fool the faithful.