Climate sensitivity low, alarmist sensitivity high

Reactions are coming in worldwide worldwide to figure 1.4 of the IPCC AR4 draft report. and the revelation that climate sensitivity is lower by aerosol analysis than the IPCC officially projects. Hotheads are blowing gaskets because the hot air just went out of their cause. William Connolley (with an e) gets the “blown head gasket award” for this round, see below.

First some op-eds:

Washington Times:  EDITORIAL: Chilling climate-change news

New leak shows predictions of planetary warming have been overstated.

Forbes: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts Are Performing Very, Very Badly

Investors Business Daily: Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.’s Claims

PowerLine: Climate Alarmism: The Beginning of the End?

Climate scientist Richard Betts thanks Nic Lewis for “constructive contribution” to climate sensitivity debate. http://t.co/TU02i5rf

http://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/281706335320555521

Media Matters: WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud (citing the duds dudes at “Skeptical Science”)

The Telegraph, Delingpole: Global Warming? Not a snowball’s chance in hell

Tom Nelson points out this fun exchange between Matt Ridley and William Connolley (with an e) via James Delingpole:

Twitter / JamesDelingpole: Climate troll and banned …

Climate troll and banned Wikipedia tinkerer William Connolley bursts a sphincter at Worstall’s place http://timworstall.com/2012/12/19/is-climate-change-really-a-damp-squib/ …

One of my favorite parts in Connolley’s string of angry, generally stupid comments is this one, where he trashes the IPCC

[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.

Is climate change really a damp squib?

[Matt Ridley’s sane, measured response] …I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.

I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.

Over at Tamino’s place, Tamino is his usual self, calling other people and their conclusions “fake” while oblivious to his own use of a fake name.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/#more-6082

Next, Tamino will call Nature itself “fake” for not cooperating at the correct pace. He seems to conveniently forget all the adjustments (all upwards) that been applied to the surface temperature record this past decade. No matter, as long as the adjustments fit his conclusion. /sarc

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Brad R

“[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin.”
But, doesn’t the IPCC keep saying, “trust us, we have 2500 expert reviewers”?

pdtillman

Heh. Thanks for the updates, Anthony. The Connolley fulminations are particularly choice — as is Matt Ridley’s response.
Good to see Nic Lewis’s work getting some well-deserved recognition!
Peter D. Tillman
Professional geologist, amateur climatologist

A splendid exchange and Connolley really does himself no credit at all. He should have quit when he wasn’t so far behind!

Phyllograptus

There is evidence based decision making & decision based evidence making. Guess which none the IPCC has been using

andrew

Nature isn’t co-operating. Gaia is a denaia!

Justthinkin

Well.When the wheels start coming off the bus,somebody has to scream louder and harder(note….doesn’t mean they are actually sane in what they are shouting)

Crispin in Yogyakarta

I can hear the buttons loudly popping off the vestures that cloak the scientists of climate all the way to Central Java.
If anyone wanted to know what the end of climatism sounds like, this is it: a steamy stream of bile poured on those who point out that most inconvenient of truths, the jig is up.

pokerguy

This has been a wonderful few days to be a skeptic. This thing is beginning to crumble, and quicker than I’d expected. Hats off to all the climate warriors, including Anthony Watts.
It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below.

RMB

Its dead simple, surface tension blocks heat. The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean.

Kev-in-Uk

pokerguy says:
December 20, 2012 at 7:57 am
..It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below…
Totally agree – but those jumping ship will have a long swim – they have distanced themselves from the ‘ship of science’ by a long way as the vast majority of their many peer reviewed publictions will verify!! As I see it, they not only have to jump ship and swim like buggery to catch up, they will have to expunge their science ‘records’ too! Something I don’t think many will find it easy to do.

Scarface

I’m beginning to understand why the IPCC was not invited at the last climate change conference in Doha. They start to undermine the alarmists!

DirkH

Hoping for the end of some careers of people who should never have been given any academic title at all.
But then again, that’s like hoping certain EU governments would reduce their spending once their nation is broke.

Mike Bryant

I just read Mr. Connolley’s bloviating. I find it amusing that this man, who claims to hold a doctorate, does not understand the difference between “its” and “it’s”. It wouldn’t be an issue to me, but for his ugly arrogance and corrections of the spelling and grammar of others.
Connolley is sorely lacking in attention to detail, a hallmark of science.

dr

Well said, pokerguy. I wonder whether what will eventually kill this, is a growing realisation amongst scientists that are not climatologists, that CAGW has been overstated, and therefore that funding has been diverted from other scientific disciplines, arguably more worthy of the funding than climate science. This isn’t just a fraud against citizens, it impacts other government science too. I can imagine that many national science bodies could have huge swathes of their membership enraged at the climate fraud. I don’t know when this will happen, but I think most scientists must have realised by now that climatology is unusually controversial and unusually polarised. Surely this must get them curious to learn the facts? I believe that the overwhelming majority of scientifically literate people will realise that CAGW is overstated / a fraud if they take a few hours or maybe a day or two to examine the data. I think that when the end comes it will be an accelerating collapse. The reason I say this, is that it is hard for me to imagine that the perpertrators will be able to say “oh sorry, we made a mistake” and just walk away. Politicians are going to want someone to blame, and scientists will want to have got out before the politicians realise what is going on. Also, what happens when high profile scientists who today usually support CAGW want either to switch sides, or refuse to comment on CAGW claiming that its not their discipline. People will see scientists they trust either changing their views or being cagey and this will upset the masses, putting more pressure on the politicians. Some people and businesses have done very well out of this, and I think that the citizenry will expect that they face some sort of punishment.

Carter

FAO RMB
‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?

RMB

Its all about the angle of the sun. The sun’s rays enter the ocean at 90degs at the tropics, max heat. At the poles the rays go in at an oblique or shallow angle,min heat.

jim2

So William Connolley (with an e) does not have a degree in climate science either. Few “climate scientists do, but they howl if a skeptic doesn’t have that degree.
REPLY: They howl no matter what, look how much abuse the children at SkS have heaped upon Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Roy Spencer. No, credentials don’t matter to them if you don’t agree. – Anthony

Neil Jordan

The bus still has some wheels. Ex-California Governor Schwarzenegger just received an award from the UN:
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/12/19/busy-year-for-schwarzenegger-capped-with-big-environmental-award/
“Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has had a busy 2012 — a movie, a book, the launch of his USC think tank.
“Now comes the latest — a plum award for his advocacy work on climate change.
“Schwarzenegger will receive the award Wednesday from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York for his work on the issue with his non-profit organization, R20: Regions of Climate Action.
[…]
“The California governor put the state in the environmental forefront when he signed the 2006 landmark bill, AB-32, which mandated that the state curb greenhouse gas emissions. And he has continued to pound the issue – even with a packed schedule that included this year the launch of a new USC think tank and the launch of his book, “Total Recall.””

eyesonu

It looks like the “Believer’s” brain corks are popping as if it’s the end of the world as they know it. I believe they are correct on that account. Perhaps there will be psychiatric help available for them, that is, if the world doesn’t end tomorrow!
I’ll wait until New Years day before I pop a cork! Champagne, of course.

beesaman

Putting models and proxies on a higher footing than actual observations was never going to be a winner in the long run…

margaret berger

Those young earnest believers who are saving the planet will allow the parasites to milk this farce longer as they will be lost without a noble cause.

Baa Humbug

The GHE hypothesis says the atmosphere isn’t heated by direct insolation (shortwave), only upwelling longwave from the surface heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the surface some more.
I must try filling my swimming pool with buckets of water. Where do I get water for my bucket? Why from the swimming pool of course.

Mike Lewis

Meanwhile, in the midst of all the “global warming”, dozens of people have died in Russia due to extreme AGW (anti-global warming). Billions of dollars wasted on pseudo-science that could have been used to actually save people. Heaven help us..

jorgekafkazar

RMB says: “Its dead simple, surface tension blocks heat. The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean.”
Do you have any proof of this premise, other than your frequent assertions? Calculations? References? Experiments? Anything?

RMB

The proposition that the “team” is peddalling is that a gas called co2 gets heated by the sun and coming in contact with the surface of the ocean causes increased evaporation and heat storage in the ocean. I wondered if this actually happened so I applied the heat from a paint stripping heat gun to thr surface of water in a bucket. The gun operates at 450degsC. After 5mins I got the impression that the water was not heating so I checked, the water was stone cold. If I applied that heat to your hand for 5mins you would be in intensive care. Try it for yourself. There is one caveat and that is that if you keep at it you will get a small amount into the water because the fan forcing simulates heat and slightly breaks down the surface tension allowing slight heating but miniscule. Remember that surface tension is strong enough to support the weight of a paper clip and heat itself has no weight. thats why hot air balloons fly. If you are still not convinced get two basins of water except that the second basin has an object such as a baking dish floatijng on the surface breaking down the surface tension. Now apply the heat to both basins for 15mins. The result I got was, uncovered water a rise of 6degsF, covered basin, a rise of 48degsF. Thats good enough for me, surface tension blocks heat. But I’m not a scientist and if I was I’d deny it.

Peter Miller

WWII equivalent, it is probably now around November 1942 – “The End of the Beginning.”.
The bad guys won most of the first easy battles, now it is the turn of the good guys to win.
It’s not going to be easy, but the bad guys will fight tooth and nail against being made honest. They will fight with distorted data, cherry picking, fallacious facts, fantasy models, and sneering derision.
The bad guys’ rsources are a huge multiple of those of the good guys, but the latter fight with real facts and actual observations, their opponents’ inconvenient Achilles Heel.

RockyRoad

Maybe the Mayan calendar was predicting the end of this anthropogenic global warming claptrap. That’s one catastrophy I will certainly enjoy!

theduke

You gotta love Matt Ridley’s tweet:
“Connolley must be a sceptic double agent, paid by Monckton and Big Koch surely? ”
The thread at Tim Worstall’s is a hoot. Connolley has succumbed completely to hysteria and definitively proven he should never again be taken seriously in matters concerning climate.

Juan Slayton

Conclusion from reading the Post comments: David Appell is on ChristmasWinter break and has nothing to occupy his time.
: > )

R2D2

@Carter says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am
FAO RMB
‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?
Because of the sun?

RMB

Its all about the angle of the sun. Only radiation passes energy into the ocean so radiation going in at 90degs as at the tropics puts far more energy into the ocean than at the arctic where the sun’s rats enter at an oblique angle.

RockyRoad

Carter says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am

FAO RMB
‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?

Um, last time I looked, Carter, being “colder” means less heat, not more. It just might have something to do with its location on this planet with respect to the sun.

mpainter

See what Alec Rawls has done, with an able assist from Anthony Watts.

Theo Goodwin

Maybe the Mayan Calendar actually refers to the IPCC and the CAGW narrative.

jim2

It’s good to see the warmists squirm.

Carter

FAO RBM
I’m with jorgekafkazar on this
‘Do you have any proof of this premise, other than your frequent assertions? Calculations? References? Experiments? Anything?’

RMB

I sent a reply to jorgekafkazar.

It is not over until there are no more studies that say “it is worse than we thought”, there are no more studies that attempt to blame our way of life on something, and there is no longer any political advocacy in science. You already see the transition beginning from “global warming” to “ocean acidification”. The reason may change, but the goal stays the same. It is not over until the goal is removed.

Carter

FAO RockyRoad
‘Um, last time I looked, Carter, being “colder” means less heat, not more. It just might have something to do with its location on this planet with RESPECT TO THE SUN’ Hmm, well is that not the same? Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?

Peter C

Kev-in-Uk says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:07 am
pokerguy says:
December 20, 2012 at 7:57 am
..It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below…
Totally agree – but those jumping ship will have a long swim – they have distanced themselves from the ‘ship of science’ by a long way as the vast majority of their many peer reviewed publications will verify!! As I see it, they not only have to jump ship and swim like buggery to catch up, they will have to expunge their science ‘records’ too! Something I don’t think many will find it easy to do.
Not easy to do at all. The true believers will never admit they were wrong, whatever the evidence, or in this case the lack of, and will go to their deathbed arguing that it is all just around the corner still. Those not quite at the heart of the madness will delay as long as possible but will eventually heap blame on ‘other’ people who provided them with wrong information, undermining their own work in the process as well as loudly keening that they never said it was all catastrophic, they only said it MIGHT be and they have have changed their view in the light of the evidence which they had never said was incontrovertible or overwhelming (even if they did).
It is also well to remember that the majority of ‘climate science’ is of the type, given CAGW is certain what will be the effect on ….. etc.

mpaul

Wow, the Media Matters piece is just down right dishonest. Its full of straw man arguments. For example, Nick says aerosols have much less of a cooling effect than previously thought. Media Matters then runs out to one of their pet scientists, gives him a biscuit and has him say, “it is very clear [they] have a cooling impact,” adding, “I don’t know of any reputable scientist that would dispute that”. Well, no one ever said they didn’t have a cooling effect. Nick’s point was that their observed cooling effect is much lower than their modeled cooling effect.

slow to follow

Theo Goodwin – that’s made me chuckle!! 🙂

Man Bearpig

If Mann is an expert reviewer hasn’t Connelley just called him ‘cretin’? Doesn’t Mann sue people that call him names? Or is he selective about who he sues?

Mike Smith

Most religious debates are interminable; you just can’t prove or disprove the existence of God (or whatever deity).
But the theory that man-made CO2 is destroying the planet is going to truly be a matter of “settled science” and quite soon.
The warmists are getting desperate and I fear things are going to get very ugly indeed.

Temperatures go up and down on whatever scale one looks, it is down to nature and driven by the solar and Earth’s properties as shown here
See NASA-JPL link within.

highflight56433

Must be the Mayan calendar is intended for the IPCC et. al.

RockyRoad

Connolley comment:
“Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin.”
Cretin? Well, let’s look at the definition of “cretin”:
French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys…
Wasn’t it up in those Alpine valleys where the Hockey Stick was born? I do wish Connolley would quit denigrating the most notable example of someone who continually says “trust me” but fails in all else, especially when it comes to being open and transparent regarding his “science”.

john robertson

FOA? Freaking All Over? Some one never escaped the language of bureaucratese.
Christmas comes early this year. The dam burst in 2009, the dirt has all eroded and now the flood begins to move.
Academia imitating nature?
Fooling lots of people once or twice is a sweet short term victory, unfortunately there is always fallout.
The politicians when put to the question will respond
.”I trusted my policy advisors from the bureaucracy” The bureaucrat, “I trusted the best scientists”
The scientists,”I,….I.. IEEEE.” The super computer tricked us?
Guess who gets thrown to the wolves first? And the wolves gather, poverty, destruction, distrust and decay bring them out.
Its our nature to have scapegoats for our group insanity and I am fully in support of my nature on this fraud.
Scams this vile and pernicious demand retribution.
Bad time to be wrapped in the trappings of climatology.

mpainter

Carter says: December 20, 2012 at 9:24 am
=======================================
Water is opaque to infrared i.e., greenhouse gas radiation. See the absorbency spectrum of water. SST is totally unaffected by the greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature is determined by insolation in the short wave spectrum i.e., visible light. This is one of the earth-sized holes in AGW theory.

Louis

I got a kick out of reading the comments on Media Matters. Every time an argument against global warming is made, someone using the name vhw2867 replies with a simple “no” or “not” in reply. I couldn’t help thinking of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc)

TomRude

In Canada, our usual Environment Canada AGW propagandist David Phillips keeps selecting his 2012 weather news of the year with some dubious statistics…
http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=0B8D6A90-1
By the time one finishes reading his report, one can wonder why we even are heating our homes in balmy Canada… LOL

John West

mpaul says:
”observed cooling effect is much lower than their modeled cooling effect.”
Let’s not forget that WHY they needed a large cooling effect from aerosols was to explain the lack of warming without including solar variation since they’ve repeated asserted only TSI matters and its variance is too small to account for the lack of warming.
It all goes back to only considering TSI variation of solar output in their models (both computer and mental).
News flash to climate scientists: The area under the curve of the solar output spectrum (TSI) is not the only variation in solar output that influences Earth’s climate. Variations in the position and shape of the curve (i.e.: more or less UV) matters as well.

Ah but remember, in politics and religion the end always justifies the means.