BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a 'hockey team' scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC

UPDATE: Annan now suggests the IPCC “is in a bit of a pickle”, see below.

UPDATE2: Title has been changed to reflect Annan’s new essay, suggesting lying for political purposes inside the IPCC. Also added some updates about Aldrin et al and other notes for accuracy. See below.

Readers may recall there has been a bit of a hullabaloo at Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth of the New York Times over the press release I first carried at WUWT, saying that I had “seized on it”.

Purveyors of climate doubt have seized on a news release from the Research Council of Norway with this provocative title: “Global warming less extreme than feared?”

I beg to differ with Andy’s characterization, as I simply repeated the press release verbatim without any embellishments. My only contribution was the title: Yet another study shows lower climate sensitivity.  It turns out to the surprise of many that the subject of the press release was not peer reviewed, but based on previous cumulative work by the Norwegian Research Council. That revelation set Andy off again, in a good way with this: When Publicity Precedes Peer Review in Climate Science (Part One), and I followed up with this story demonstrating a lack of and a need for standards in climate science press releases by the worlds largest purveyor of Science PR, Eurekalert: Eurekalert’s lack of press release standards – a systemic problem with science and the media

It turns out that all of this discussion was tremendously fortuitous.

Surprisingly, although the press release was not about a new peer reviewed paper (Update: it appears to be a rehash and translation of a release about Aldrin et al from October), it has caused at least one scientist to consider it. Last night I was cc’d an exceptional email from Andrew Revkin  forwarding an email (Update: Andy says of a comment from Dot Earth) quoting climate scientist James Annan, who one could call a member of the “hockey team” based on his strong past opinions related to AGW and paleoclimatology.

Andrew Revkin published the email today at the  NYT Dot Earth blog as a comment in that thread, so now I am free to reproduce it here where I was not last night.

Below is the comment left by Andy, quoting Annan’s email, bolding added:

The climate scientist James Annan sent these thoughts by email:

‘Well, the press release is a bit strange, because it sounds like it is talking about the Aldrin et al paper which was published some time ago, to no great fanfare. I don’t know if they have a further update to that.

Anyway, there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’

And this is what many have been saying now and for some time, that the climate sensitivity has been overestimated. Kudos to Annan for realizing the likelihood of a lower climate sensitivity.

The leader of the “hockey team”, Dr. Michael Mann will likely pan it, but that’s “Mikey, he hates everything”. I do wonder though, if he’ll start calling James Annan a “denier” as he has done in other instances where some scientist suggests a lower climate sensitivity?

UPDATE: over at Annans’ blog, now there is this new essay expounding on the issue titled: A sensitive matter, and this paragraph in it caught my eye because it speaks to a recent “leak” done here at WUWT:

But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

Readers may recall this now famous graph from the IPCC leak, animated and annotated by Dr. Ira Glickstein in this essay here:

IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).
IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).

Yes, the IPCC is “in a bit of a pickle” to say the least, since as Annan said in his comment/email to Revkin:

…combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

UPDATE 2: Annan also speaks about lying as a political motivator within the IPCC, I’ve repeated this extraordinary paragraph in full. Bold mine.

Note for the avoidance of any doubt I am not quoting directly from the unquotable IPCC draft, but only repeating my own comment on it. However, those who have read the second draft of Chapter 12 will realise why I previously said I thought the report was improved 🙂 Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat, let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication. The paper I refer to as a “small private opinion poll” is of course the Zickfeld et al PNAS paper. The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”. It’s essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “la la la I can’t hear you”.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
451 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimmy Haigh
February 1, 2013 10:32 am

James Annan disappoints. -gavin.

Aldous
February 1, 2013 10:32 am

10 bucks sez Annan catches ton of flack from peers a la “WATTS IS QUOTING YOU!” “YOU JUST GAVE THE DENIERS A GIFT SOUND BYTE!!!” and Annan subsequently issues public statement angrily clarifying “seriousness” of the issue and that global action still immediately required

Jimbo
February 1, 2013 10:33 am

You forgot to bold:

“….combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade,….”

JC
February 1, 2013 10:39 am

Annan doesn’t seem to be suggesting that CS is < 2, but rather that it isn't above 4.5. I'd bet he still thinks it hovers around 3.
I'm more interested in this bit:
"Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data."
That's fraud. That's blatant fraud. Conspiracy theory my @$$.

S. Geiger
February 1, 2013 10:43 am

“‘I do wonder though, if he’ll start calling James Annan a “denier” as he has done in other instances where some scientist suggests a lower climate sensitivity?”
Can you please provide reference for this statement (i.e, who did Mann call a ‘denier’ for opinions on lower sensitivity?) I don’t doubt it, but I am curious as to who he was calling out.

February 1, 2013 10:48 am

‘Anyway, there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’
###
Lukewarmer.

Mike Bryant
February 1, 2013 10:56 am

Mr. Mosher,
I’ve always respected you, please clarify your post… I have no idea what you’re saying.
Thanks,
Mike

February 1, 2013 10:58 am

Anthony:
Thankyou for this news.
James Annan admits that
“A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.”
Good, he is halfway there. Hopefully he will ‘pull’ others with him.
Richard

Peter Miller
February 1, 2013 11:00 am

The Global Warming Industry’s gravy train just got another squeaky wheel.
Enough squeaks and hopefully it will seize up and fall off its tracks.

Layman Lurker
February 1, 2013 11:02 am

Anthony, I would argue the point with you that James is a member of the “hockey team”. He is certainly not a skeptic but has shown that he is willing to argue publicly against the consensus.

Wamron
February 1, 2013 11:03 am

“….combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade,….”
What is instructive to observe, ever more often recently, is the dissapointed tone with which the AGW faction respond to every bit of good news about the climate. They really do not give a fig for the climate. They just use it as a device for their other ends.

February 1, 2013 11:07 am

Anthony–
Your mention of Mann reminded me that these climate “scientists” are working most closely with research universities like PSU and Boulder that are simultaneously taking the lead on using their colleges of education and psych and sociology departments to change the focus of K-12 more to social and emotional learning and behavioral interventions that apply to all students.
Given the expressed goal to change beliefs to accept the models via schools no matter what the temperature trends, it’s hardly coincidental that PennState is pushing Patterning Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) for All Students while Boulder is pushing Positive Behavioral Intervention Systems for All Students.
Both Boulder and Penn State are determined to change the students since they cannot control the weather or the climate. Not that they recognize the difference much anymore.

John Russell
February 1, 2013 11:14 am

Well, I think any discussion on here about ECS even approaching 2°C is a major step forward. Is lukewarmism the new normal? Actually that’s major progress.

Sean
February 1, 2013 11:18 am

The IPCC places climate sensitivity somewhere between 1.5-4.5C.
James Annan’s own study gives a value of around 3C for climate sensitivity.
That still makes him alarmist in my book.

February 1, 2013 11:26 am

We have a serious problem in that nearly an entire field of science depends on this issue for its revenue. How many people were in the field of “climate science” in 1965 vs. 2005? Now compare that to the number of people in other areas such as geology. This issue has created a huge amount of money and the issue itself is what has driven many to enter this field of science over the past 20 years. If this issue “goes away”, so does the foundation for their chosen career. So this is a very personal and very emotional issue to many.
There are also a lot of influential scientists, politicians, and various other personalities who have put their personal credibility on the line by making statements on the absolute certainty of this issue. It is going to be very difficult for them to admit they were wrong as people in high profile public positions tend to be more narcissistic than the general population. They believe they are smarter, they believe they are better informed, and they believe their own judgement to be better than that of the average person. For them to say that those whom they called “Neanderthals” were actually correct is going to be nearly impossible for them to pull off. The best we can hope for is something along the lines of “I made the best call I could with the information we had at the time” or something.
But it is even bigger than all of that. This issue causes a great synergy where a political group uses the issue to get buy-in for spending billions of dollars for their political objectives. Environmental groups use the issue to get buy in to spend billions of dollars for their objectives. People champion the issue and themselves are launched to celebrity status. And finally we have the people whose careers were built on the issue and maybe those careers would be at stake if it turns out the world needs fewer “climate scientists”. So we are going to have a great circling of the wagons with the celebrities and the politicians and the “scientists” all working together to keep the issue that any changes in climate are due to human actions by people in industrialized countries. Where would Andy Revkin be today without this issue? Even his career and credibility rest on this issue. Of course he is going to keep this issue alive. There is too much water now under the bridge to go trying to pump it all back.
The first indication that any argument is without merit is the appeal to consensus. We are supposed to believe something is true simply because a majority of influential people believe it is true. When the proponents of ANYTHING trot that logical fallacy out as their primary defense, then you know it is likely false and they have little else on which to stand other than speculation.

Latimer Alder
February 1, 2013 11:28 am

Expect renewed focus on ‘ocean pH decrease’ as the cause du jour.
But before biting this particular hook, make sure that you ask to see all the confirmatory observational data from all around the world that shows the effect.

Doug
February 1, 2013 11:34 am

Good for James Annan.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
― John Maynard Keynes

February 1, 2013 11:39 am

John Russell says:
February 1, 2013 at 11:14 am
Well, I think any discussion on here about ECS even approaching 2°C is a major step forward. Is lukewarmism the new normal? Actually that’s major progress.

The problem seems to me to be that they take temperatures from 1980 to 2000, compare that to CO2 increase and come up with a climate sensitivity number. Then when they add 2000-2010 to their equations, the climate become less “sensitive”. They they have always had the means to do this. They could have gone back to 1910 to 2000 compared temperature change to CO2 increase and would have found less climate sensitivity. They intentionally picked a portion of the temperature record where the slope of the curve was close to the slope of CO2 increase and decided that there was a cause / effect relationship. They could have noticed that the change in temperature from 1910 to 1940 (using unadjusted data) was nearly identical to the the change in temperature from 1975 to 2005 and the curve of CO2 change was quite different during the two periods. Now they are being forced to reckon with the lack of recent change while they are going back into the databases and altering them to remove the previous rise. I have little doubt that 20 years from now we will see in the databases that warming never stopped after 2000. The hiatus in warming will simply be adjusted away as if it never happened. I would say these people are charlatans but that would be kind. They are stealing from our children and grandchildren and putting the money in their own pockets.

Betapug
February 1, 2013 11:40 am

“…stubborn refusal…to warm”? Sounds like correction is called for.

Admin
February 1, 2013 11:42 am

Annan has demonstrated integrity and openness previously, giving McIntyre credit where it was obviously due.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/05/oops.html

Stephen Richards
February 1, 2013 11:45 am

He is still sticking to a sensitivity of 2 to 4 whichis still much higher than noted elsewhere.

JC
February 1, 2013 11:47 am

“Doug says:
February 1, 2013 at 11:34 am
Good for James Annan.
‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’
― John Maynard Keynes”
Never quote Keynes… ever. The sooner he is buried in the history books the better. What an idiot.
Also, glad to see Anthony picked up on what I commented about earlier. That’s the real story here.

wikeroy
February 1, 2013 11:57 am

0.1 degree here, 0.1 degree there…..for us Norwegians the only consequence will be that they change the name of some tax. Yesterday there was a tax per horsepower on your car, then they changed the name to CO2 tax. What it will be tomorrow? NOx-tax? Window tax? Beard-tax?

Latimer Alder
February 1, 2013 11:58 am

It is good to see that Nobel Prize Winner Svante Arrhenius’s work of 1907 looks likely to be proved right (sensitivity =~2K).
It is often a good idea to listen to practical people and their observations rather than rely on theoreticians and their unverified models.
The chemists ‘show me’ test is a much neglected tool in ‘climatology’. ‘Models predict’ is a very weak argument compared with ‘experiments and observations show’.
Arrhenius was a fine chemist.

Jean
February 1, 2013 12:00 pm

JC, if not fraud, it certainly indicates that those surveys of opinion shuld have little or no role in a science conversation. For years I have shut down anyone who drags out that silly, “but, 99% of scientists agree …”, crap.

JC
February 1, 2013 12:15 pm

“JC, if not fraud, it certainly indicates that those surveys of opinion shuld (sic) have little or no role in a science conversation. For years I have shut down anyone who drags out that silly, ‘but, 99% of scientists agree …’, crap.”
— Nope. Fraud is fraud. Repercussions should result, but they won’t.

Phil
February 1, 2013 12:25 pm

Another look at all of the adjustments done for decades to temperature data is warranted.

Francis
February 1, 2013 12:31 pm

What does he mean by “Lindzen strategy in reverse”? I mean, what is “Lindzen strategy”?

apachewhoknows
February 1, 2013 12:31 pm

Connections:
Al Gore can read, he may be an ass, but, he knows the jig is up that is why he took the oil ticks money.He knows the CO2 well of cash has caved in. So he starts to cash out.

JC
February 1, 2013 12:33 pm

I still think even Nic Lewis’ estimate is too high and that negative net feedbacks can’t be ruled out with high confidence.

Big D in TX
February 1, 2013 12:38 pm

I am ready for The Nuremberg Trials: Climate Change Edition.
Anyone who knowingly perpetrated lies to world governments is highly culpable.
Anyone who did so also willfully (as opposed to under orders or by association, e.g. ‘consensus’) demands a heavier sentence still.
I fear far too many involved will slowly “come out” with reserved back-walking statements such as this to cover their butts when consequences will finally fall.

Bob
February 1, 2013 12:40 pm

Steve Mosher, you need to go to the next step. Now that you’ve characterized Annan as a “Luke”, do you feel we should mitigate for CO2 emissions or promote it as a boon to the undeveloped countries. Which way do you lean, Sir.

RHS
February 1, 2013 12:45 pm

For a moment, actually the brief instant before I read the article, I thought, wow, Kofi Annan was pointing out flaws/problems with the UN. It was a fun brief instant, lousy reality…

February 1, 2013 12:46 pm

It’s all coming out. I’m sure the team won’t like to hear in the public arena that there has been more cheating and exaggeration admitted to. Oh my, where will it end?
As for those relying on the distaster meme for their jobs and their money – this ship has been sinking for a while now. They’ve known it’s been rotten and they’ve had years to get out safely – people do change careers – but they chose to stay. Choice is still there, but time is running out. They need to think about getting out now or going down with the ship. I don’t care which. The point is they have a choice, it might not be a choice that they like, but it is a choice. Lets see how “wise” they are. Quite a few who don’t jump will be left carrying the can, because the big boys will be over the hills and far away. Who’s going to do jail-time? That’s what they should be asking themselves.

pottereaton
February 1, 2013 12:51 pm

As was noted at Bishop Hill, don’t confuse James Annan with Caspar Amman, the Texas Sharpshooter

Ed
February 1, 2013 12:54 pm

“it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data.”
That’s easily rectified – they’ll just “adjust” the observational data.

Mac the Knife
February 1, 2013 12:59 pm

Ahhh, the forces of Chaos are at it again!
Missed it by THAT much, Chief!
http://youtu.be/oPwrodxghrw
My personal favorite…
http://youtu.be/gvZinTjPtyY

Editor
February 1, 2013 1:01 pm

The quote: “Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
The question: Are there minutes of that meeting?

Jim Clarke
February 1, 2013 1:01 pm

Slowly…very slowly…folks in the warmest camp are gradually coming in line with everything that the skeptics have been saying for over a decade, not only about the science, but about the politicization of the science.
For some reason…this is making me nervous.

Frank K.
February 1, 2013 1:03 pm

WHOA!
“Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat , let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication.”
Definition of PROLETARIAT
1: the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live
2: the lowest social or economic class of a community
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proletariat
It appears the worker-bees in the CAGW dictatorship are revolting against their Marxist leaders…

John F. Hultquist
February 1, 2013 1:06 pm

Many years ago my high school math teacher set us to “squaring the circle” and “trisecting an angle” – two of the three classical problems. Thus, when James Annan writes . . .
they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be
. . . I doff my hat in this man’s direction.

Jenn Oates
February 1, 2013 1:08 pm

wikeroy says: 0.1 degree here, 0.1 degree there…..for us Norwegians the only consequence will be that they change the name of some tax. Yesterday there was a tax per horsepower on your car, then they changed the name to CO2 tax. What it will be tomorrow? NOx-tax? Window tax? Beard-tax?
I was rather shocked to find that a trip on the Flytoget from Oslo Sentralstasjon to Gardermoen cost me nearly US $40, even though I was being environmentally conscious by taking the train rather than driving. God only knows how much of that was taxes.

Birdieshooter
February 1, 2013 1:09 pm

How could a soap opera be any better. Never have I wanted to see what will happen in such an intriguing drama. I cant wait until 2014 when more and more cracks in the armor will have shown up.

February 1, 2013 1:09 pm

Mike Bryant says:
February 1, 2013 at 10:56 am (Edit)
Mr. Mosher,
I’ve always respected you, please clarify your post… I have np idea what you’re saying.
Thanks,
Mike
###############
Ok,
back in 2007 or 2008 we did a poll on Climate audit asking the question
How much of the warming we see today is due to GHG.
There was a distinct group of us that said ‘some, but not all ” heck even Willis said 30%
We called ourselves Lukewarmers.
Over the years a few of us have worked to define what we mean by Lukewarmer and what defines the position.
1. Acceptance of radiative physics.
2. Acceptance of a lower bound to sensitivity. basically the no feedback estimate is 1.2C per
doubling. We think that the true sensitivity will be above 1.
3. over/under line. The over under line is 3C. That is, if offered a bet that the climate sensitivity
is either ‘between 1 and 3 or over 3, we take the under bet.
ballpark:
less than 1.2 5%
1.2 to 3. 50%
3 to 4.5 45%
4.5+ 5%
So if you believe that GHG can warm the planet and not cool it, and you think that the mean estimate of the IPCC of 3.2 is more likely high than low, then you are a lukewarmer. But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.
Note: lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record, its probably correct to within .2C
we also dont have to slam models, or invent kook theories about the sun. everything we
believe is well within the consensus and we think that you can change the consensus from
inside the tent rather than attacking everything and everyone. Focus on sensitivity, work
to refine that. You see there is a debate in climate science, its a debate about sensitivity.
When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents)
then you will see changes.

Theo Goodwin
February 1, 2013 1:10 pm

Philip Finck says:
February 1, 2013 at 10:56 am
“James Annan is to be commended. He has looked at more recent peer reviewed literature, assessed it on its merit, and offered a revised personal opinion on the climate sensitivity issue.”
Maybe just a quibble, but if he assessed it on its merits then he offered more than a personal opinion. He offered the best that his science has to offer.

Theo Goodwin
February 1, 2013 1:16 pm

Read Ben Pile’s comments on “The Edge of the Academy” at bishophill.squarespace.com. It seems that re-education is the cutting edge of “science communication.”

Theo Goodwin
February 1, 2013 1:19 pm

Oops! My comment above was in response to Robin:
Robin says:
February 1, 2013 at 11:07 am

February 1, 2013 1:26 pm

Anthony:
Your UPDATE 2 reports that Annan has said

Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data.

“published quantitative analyses of observational data”?
It seems appropriate to again draw attention to these determinations based on “quantitative analyses of observational data”.
They each indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
If climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects because climate variability is much larger.
Richard

MikeG
February 1, 2013 1:28 pm

“Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.”
Not sure how you read this, but I read it as: Now that it’s “within our reach”, let’s go “all in”

Rud Istvan
February 1, 2013 1:29 pm

Annan: “A value (slightly) below two is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible…”
Which is what his most recent paper showed, although did not mention it at all. Annan et. al. Climate Change 104: 423-436 (2011). I pointed this out in 2012 in The Arts of Truth. Nice to see him now acknowledging the main message of his own recent work.
Perhaps the fact that the IPCC is ignoring his paper and his comments brought him the the realization that “pal poling” and pal review eventually get it so wrong one has to make difficult choices about remaining a member in good standing of the clique. He made the right choice to come down on the side of observational evidence and his own unspoken conclusions.

Steve Garcia
February 1, 2013 1:32 pm

Annan to Revkin:

…combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

Richard Feynman would roll his eyes at any need to even voice such an obvious conclusion.
On the scientific method (http://tiny.cc/hrhurw), Feynman had this to say in his lectures:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process:
First we Guess it [laughter].
Then we Compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, to see if this guess was right, we see what it would imply.
And then we Compare the computation results to Nature – or we say compare to experiment or experience – compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.
In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment: It’s wrong.
That’s all there is to it.

When the computations based on the Guess do not match up with reality/Nature/experiment/experience, what is the scientific conclusion?. . .
C’mon now, Mikey, say it together with the rest of us. . . . That’s right, it’s WRONG.
This last decade has been one of increasing schadenfruede for us lonely misguided skeptics, who have been waiting for the other shoe to drop – them admitting their Guess (CAGW) is wrong. It is amazing some of us haven’t peed in our pants from the anticipation. It has been a long, slow, almost agonizing watch, as computations based on The Guess have increasingly diverged from what the Guess predicted. Yes, the OTHER divergence problem, and this one “Mike’s Nature trick” couldn’t hide. As in all divergences from predictions (computations), divergence equals WRONG.
It is beginning to be altogether obvious that the global increase in the 1990s was a coincidence – one that brought temporary glee (and much grant moneys and influence) to the Guessers of the 1980s – but nothing more. After the tipping point of Climategate people have been slowly abandoning the Good Ship Lollipop, and we are still in the middle of climate science going back to being the scientific backwater it always had been. Now it appears that even the crew is beginning to don life jackets.
The other shoe hasn’t dropped yet, but is that the Fat Lady I hear warming up? When does Elvis Mann leave the building, that is what I want to know. Will it be when he loses the lawsuit and we get to see what he is hiding (besides the decline)?
Steve Garcia

George Steiner
February 1, 2013 1:34 pm

So is CO2 still back radiating?

February 1, 2013 1:35 pm

Steven Mosher:
At February 1, 2013 at 1:09 pm you list a series of issues which you accept including the surface temperature record and climate models.
Then you assert

When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents) then you will see changes.

Sorry, but no can do. Errors need to be accepted as existing if they are to be corrected.
I also refuse to accept basic errors of astrology as a method “to see changes”.
Richard

Darren Potter
February 1, 2013 1:41 pm

“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Are we looking at a crack in the dam? Leaky statement that could implicate a few Hockey Stick players with knowingly committing government fraud, crimes against humanity? Resulting in them turning State’s evidence with plea bargains, leading to even more of GW Alarmists going down.

cassandraclub
February 1, 2013 1:41 pm

The 95% consensus of climate scientists is breaking up.
Almost down below the 50%

Wamron
February 1, 2013 1:41 pm

“There are also a lot of influential scientists, politicians, and various other personalities who have put their personal credibility on the line by making statements on the absolute certainty of this issue. ”
My own personal focus in regards such “personalities” is the tiresome, privileged “comedian” Marcus Brigstocke. And his colleague Rob Newman. These two non-scientist Home Counties liberal arts graduates have made money selling AGW and thrusting it down the throat of the public at every opportunity. BTW, mentioning Brigstock alongside Newman isnt meant as a credit to the former. Its a deliberate insult to the latter.

Richard G
February 1, 2013 1:42 pm

Anthony, please do *Not* feel apologetic or defensive for “seizing” upon the truth. The truth will prevail.
If it makes them feel apoplectic so much the better.
Keep up the great work. you and your moderators are doing a masterful job.

February 1, 2013 1:43 pm

Theo-just saw your comment and I will.
crosspatch–it’s worse than just who is in climate science now. It has become a degree program where the social sciences dominate the hard sciences and the desire is to create a single unified science. Of course that also requires taking the free choice out of human behavior. Which is why education, both K-12 and higher ed, is so important. What little content there is apaprt from social interaction is mostly about fostering false beliefs. And with the NSF also pushing cyberlearning there will be no text books to monitor what is being pushed. I have just seen the grants and the new science frameworks and it’s all Constructivism. That means all hard science is to be experiential not a body of knowledge.
The nAS docs I have seen have the profs and administrators seeking out the “most talented” students to urge them to go into climate science. With nice fellowships starting as undergrads. The whole idea in K-12 has always been to use out of scale salaries to corrupt. Willing to push anything the money is there. If you are selling what you know or can do, no bonus scales for you.

Darren Potter
February 1, 2013 1:47 pm

Wamron says: “What is instructive to observe, ever more often recently, is the dissapointed tone with which the AGW faction respond to every bit of good news about the climate. ”
A point their faces need to be rubbed in, as in BOLD headlines.
The “stubborn refusal of the planet to warm …” should also make interesting fodder for start of questioning on a witness stand.

James Ard
February 1, 2013 1:51 pm

Positive forcings is counterintuitive. If that was the case, Earth’s history would have been an unlivable mess of giant climate fluctuations. Much more likely is negative forcing if any forcing at all.

John F. Hultquist
February 1, 2013 1:53 pm

Francis says:
February 1, 2013 at 12:31 pm
What does he mean by “Lindzen strategy in reverse”? I mean, what is “Lindzen strategy”?

Assume the value of sensitivity has a peak and two tails, one high, one low.
essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values
He means he (Annan) believes Lindzen is picking from the “low” tail and the other side is firmly lodged in the “high” end of the tail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Bryant says:
February 1, 2013 at 10:56 am
Mr. Mosher,
I have np (sic) idea what you’re saying.

[Reply: I fixed the original -ModE]
Steven wrote
###
Lukewarmer

But don’t expect him to come back and explain. However, “lukewarmers” seem to believe that climate change is happening and humans are responsible and, therefore, some things can be done now, including significant restraints on CO2 release. Some think “adaptive” strategies will be sufficient without drastically reducing use of energy. For example, stop building houses on beaches. Skeptics do not believe there is a looming catastrophe. Follow up on this and many believe the world has serious problems – providing clean drinking water and low cost energy to folks, among others – and that such problems ought to be addressed directly, not by severe damage to the current means of accomplishing these things. Then there are the ‘catastrophists’ – not relevant here.
Mr. Mosher has just said (after the quote) that the person is not a skeptic of catastrophic anthropological global warming but more in the ‘lukewarm’ camp.
Recognize that it is always dangerous to impute meaning to comments where meaning is not clear. By doing so we might get a clarification. Or maybe not!

John F. Hultquist
February 1, 2013 2:01 pm

Steven Mosher,
I apologize. Thanks for the explanation and the numbers. I was unaware of the CA poll you mention, the choice of name, or the “over the years” attempt to define the term.

mogamboguru
February 1, 2013 2:03 pm

Walls Come Tumbling Down – The Style Council
You don’t have
To take this crap
You don’t have
To sit back and relax
You can actually try changin’ it
I know we’ve always been taught to rely
Upon those in authority
But you never know until you try
How things just might be
If we came together so strongly
Are you gonna try to make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Yes they do, yes they do, yes they do
The competition is
A color TV
We’re on still pause
With a video machine
That keep you slave to the H P
Until the unity is threatened by
Those who have and who have not
Those who are with and those who are without
And dangle jobs, like a donkey’s carrot
Until you don’t know where you are
Are you gonna get some realize
The class was real and not mythologized
And like Jericho
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
We’re tuning to fight it, well united, well united
Are you gonna be threatened by?
The public enemies, No 10
Those who play the power game
They take the profits, you take the blame
When they tell you there’s no rise in pay
Are you gonna try an’ make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
Yes they do
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Walls Come Tumbling Down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/the-style-council/walls-come-tumbling-down-4bd6af4a.html

February 1, 2013 2:03 pm

Steven Mosher,
I would agree with most of what you say about lukewarming as a concept, but it slightly surprises me that you see the no-feedback sensitivity as a natural lower bound. As far as I can see, accepting radiative physics only requires one to believe that the climate sensitivity is strictly positive (i.e., greater than zero). One might of course have additional grounds for placing the lower limit somewhat higher up, but these would come from more complex considerations, not from fairly elementary physics.

mogamboguru
February 1, 2013 2:05 pm

“Walls Come Tumbling Down” – The Style Council
You don’t have
To take this crap
You don’t have
To sit back and relax
You can actually try changin’ it
I know we’ve always been taught to rely
Upon those in authority
But you never know until you try
How things just might be
If we came together so strongly
Are you gonna try to make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Yes they do, yes they do, yes they do
The competition is
A color TV
We’re on still pause
With a video machine
That keep you slave to the H P
Until the unity is threatened by
Those who have and who have not
Those who are with and those who are without
And dangle jobs, like a donkey’s carrot
Until you don’t know where you are
Are you gonna get some realize
The class was real and not mythologized
And like Jericho
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
We’re tuning to fight it, well united, well united
Are you gonna be threatened by?
The public enemies, No 10
Those who play the power game
They take the profits, you take the blame
When they tell you there’s no rise in pay
Are you gonna try an’ make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
Yes they do
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/the-style-council/walls-come-tumbling-down-4bd6af4a.html

mogamboguru
February 1, 2013 2:06 pm

Can’t comment. What’s up?

Matthew R Marler
February 1, 2013 2:08 pm

As others have said, most interesting quotes from Annan. My favorite: I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

mogamboguru
February 1, 2013 2:08 pm

Okay, now I can:
“Walls Come Tumbling Down” – The Style Council
You don’t have
To take this crap
You don’t have
To sit back and relax
You can actually try changin’ it
I know we’ve always been taught to rely
Upon those in authority
But you never know until you try
How things just might be
If we came together so strongly
Are you gonna try to make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Yes they do, yes they do, yes they do
The competition is
A color TV
We’re on still pause
With a video machine
That keep you slave to the H P
Until the unity is threatened by
Those who have and who have not
Those who are with and those who are without
And dangle jobs, like a donkey’s carrot
Until you don’t know where you are
Are you gonna get some realize
The class was real and not mythologized
And like Jericho
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
We’re tuning to fight it, well united, well united
Are you gonna be threatened by?
The public enemies, No 10
Those who play the power game
They take the profits, you take the blame
When they tell you there’s no rise in pay
Are you gonna try an’ make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
Yes they do
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/the-style-council/walls-come-tumbling-down-4bd6af4a.html

Mike
February 1, 2013 2:08 pm

I’m sure the rapid response behavioral adjustment team are en route to Annan’s home as we speak. Annan will be returned to “climate abnormal” by mid week.
In other news, the rapid climate response team are busy putting the cookie back together.

james griffin
February 1, 2013 2:08 pm

Gang plank being prepared for the rats to jump ship…..sensitivity closing in on 1C. When the rats make it to the shore line Dick Lindzen will be there to greet them…haha…told you so.

mogamboguru
February 1, 2013 2:14 pm

http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/the-style-council/walls-come-tumbling-down-4bd6af4a.html
Comments won’t accept the full text. So please look it up yourself at the source mentioned above.

JC
February 1, 2013 2:21 pm

Mosh: “we also dont (sic) have to slam models… everything we believe is well within the consensus… Focus on sensitivity, work to refine that.”
Slamming models is perfectly justified when they cannot properly measure anthropogenic forcings (black carbon, aerosols), account for past natural variability, or accurately simulate feedback effects (clouds, precipitation patterns, etc.).
The 2005 IPCC report pegged the total anthropogenic component at somewhere between 0.5 and 2.5 Watts per square meter, if memory serves me correctly. That’s a retardedly wide range and tells us rather little when combined with the atrociously modeled underlying natural factors.
My assumption is that the role of nature will continue to come to the forefront as the debate progresses, especially the magnitude of natural carbon sinks having been massively underestimated.

Matthew R Marler
February 1, 2013 2:23 pm

Steven Mosher: But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.
Which comments are “crazy refusals over radiative physics”? Plenty of people write about non-radiative heat transfer processes, and the non-equilibrium, non-steady state, non-stationarity of the overall system than make inferences from simple radiative models suspect. Don’t even lukewarmers have to drop the (crazy ?) refusals to acknowledge these limitations of the science?

Michael Jankowski
February 1, 2013 2:32 pm

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
-Stephen Schneider

rogerknights
February 1, 2013 2:38 pm

I visited Annan’s website about two or three years ago. It didn’t seem fanatical.
He’s in Japan. He’s made some publicized climate bets and lamented the lack of a mechanism whereby bets between the two sides of this issue could be facilitated. There was a long thread on the topic at RC (I think), which I printed out.

RockyRoad
February 1, 2013 2:41 pm

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:09 pm


When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents)
then you will see changes. (my bold)

Ok, Mr. Mosher, but are you absolutely sure that all of the additional CO2 is from humans and not some natural response to a warming earth?
Are you sure you’ve got it right?
Are you so sure that you’re willing to seriously curtail CO2 emissions from humans? Are these the “changes” you think we’ll see?
Are you willing to say that CO2 offers no discernible (and offsetting) benefits to the biosphere?
You call people “Lukewarmers” when you haven’t defined the most critical aspect, and that is one of liability. Thorough research would convince everybody of the benefits of CO2, but it is extremely difficult to see a negative impact of a warming earth, regardless of the cause.
So please, provide scientific evidence that humans are causing destructive warming (where they didn’t cause the LIA in the first place) and show where such warming is harmful rather than beneficial.
(OF course, I’ve asked you to provide answers to a number of questions in the past and I’m not holding my breath waiting for a response this time, for you never do respond with anything substantive. You’d benefit greatly from the presentation Bob Tisdale posted earlier today. It clearly shows there’s no discernible warming due to CO2. Sorry to break it to ya, but the challenge remains.)

3x2
February 1, 2013 2:43 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:01 pm
The quote: “Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
The question: Are there minutes of that meeting?

Somehow I really doubt it – ” If only Holland knew how the process really worked!!”
( http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6187 )

rogerknights
February 1, 2013 2:49 pm

“Hearing footsteps,” Lewandowski?

rgbatduke
February 1, 2013 2:53 pm

Annan doesn’t seem to be suggesting that CS is < 2, but rather that it isn't above 4.5. I'd bet he still thinks it hovers around 3.
Actually, what he says (if you read it) is that the data is suggesting that it is less than 2. It’s not completely unreasonable for people to have a bit of inertia in their former opinions (and to cover their asses, and to hedge their bets) and not jump all the way from prior belief to exactly what the data says (Bayesian thinking supports this). But there is no doubt that the higher values are now very unlikely, as I and many others have been saying for some years now in this forum. Regardless of your prior beliefs, not to alter them given contradictory data (in some smooth way) is to abandon reason.
From what I’ve heard, AR5 was going to drop its central estimates of sensitivity to just under 3 — 2.7 or 2.8. However, I think that there is enough pressure and data that it might go down by more to the 2 to 2.5 range. I don’t expect that they will go all the way to sub-2 in one jump, but the fact that it is going down at all is a sign that there are, in fact, plenty of honest scientists involved in the process (as well as some openly dishonest ones).
The evidence itself (IMO, for what that is worth) supports a central estimate of 1.2 to 1.4 C by the end of the century, 0.2 to 0.3 of which has already happened. But the error bars are still large enough that they include anything from 1-2 C lower temperatures to 3 C warmer. We simply don’t know enough to do any better.
rgb

Theo Goodwin
February 1, 2013 2:57 pm

feet2thefire says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Excellent choice of quotation from Feynman. Notice that laws imply observations. Very few in climate science recognize that a successful climate science must imply the climate phenomena that they explain.

john robertson
February 1, 2013 2:59 pm

February 1st and rats are lining up.
2013 is very entertaining so far, I expect some major rat outs this year, Al Gore has rubbed the faithfuls face in it, David Suzuki has interesting demands for female students and the Obama has glommed onto Global Warming with perfect timing.
The EPA is attracting serious scrutiny at last and the overt power grab thro regulation is going to hit more of the faithful in the wallet.
As the gaps become undisguisable, the team will be racing to rat their comrades out.

More Soylent Green!
February 1, 2013 3:10 pm
DirkH
February 1, 2013 3:12 pm

“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Michael Jankowski has already quoted Steven Schneider at February 1, 2013 at 2:32 pm .
I’ve always seen Schneider as the organizing force behind the CO2AGW consensus / IPCC push for global transormationo / exploitation of taxpayers. I guess during his lifetime the most dangerous place on Earth was between him and a TV camera.
He was part of the Our Endangered Atmosphere conference in 1975 where he, Holdren, Lovelock and Mead chose the Arrhenius hypothesis as optimal vehicle for their future ventures.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
Compared to Schneider, Hansen and Mann are just water carriers. And without Schneider, they can’t coordinate well enough anymore to get their bogus story straight, and defections like Annan happen. Or the defection of Lovelock himself, having earned enough money, he chooses to be honest instead of efficient now.

DirkH
February 1, 2013 3:20 pm

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:09 pm
“So if you believe that GHG can warm the planet and not cool it, and you think that the mean estimate of the IPCC of 3.2 is more likely high than low, then you are a lukewarmer. But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics. ”
GHG’s absorb and re-emit IR photons; basically scattering it. As radiative exchange is a quick process, many such exchanges happen in minutes. It doesn’t matter much whether a photon from the Earth’s surface goes to space instantly or is scattered a few times.
The absorption bands of CO2 at 4.3 micrometer corresponds to a color temperature of 600 K. The band at 15 micrometer to a color temperature of 200 K.
Most objects on Earth including mammals radiate predominantly around 300 K – where CO2 absorbs absolutely nothing. Only water vapor aborbs and re-emits in that band; and the postulated positive water vapor feedback remains elusive in reality like the Loch Ness monster.

Philip Shehan
February 1, 2013 3:29 pm

[oh, shut up with your whining – mod]

markx
February 1, 2013 3:32 pm

Steven Mosher says: February 1, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Ok, …..back in 2007 or 2008 we did a poll on Climate audit asking the question
How much of the warming we see today is due to GHG.There was a distinct group of us that said ‘some, but not all ” heck even Willis said 30%……We called ourselves Lukewarmers.
Over the years a few of us have worked to define what we mean by Lukewarmer and what defines the position.
1. Acceptance of radiative physics.
2. Acceptance of a lower bound to sensitivity. basically the no feedback estimate is 1.2C per
doubling. We think that the true sensitivity will be above 1.
So if you believe that GHG can warm the planet and not cool it, and you think that the mean estimate of the IPCC of 3.2 is more likely high than low, then you are a lukewarmer. But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.
Note: lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record, its probably correct to within .2C
we also don’t have to slam models, …….”

Having said all that, Steven, you still must recognise that even in this you were ‘taking a punt’.
ie while the facts of radiative physics will change for no man or his beliefs, those who chose to focus fully on the “radiative physics effects” of CO2 while knowing little about the effects of aerosols, clouds and water vapour were simply displaying a similar sort of “closed mind devoutness” ….
The METHODS of use of the models SHOULD be criticized…. making extreme projections by tweaking variables and ignoring unknown feedback effects with models as sensitive and complex as this, then publishing hugely detailed and complex papers in the peer reviewed literature knowing that few one can counter such esoteric complexity …
Many who respond in here have a “more correct” view than does Steven Mosher… among the notables are Willis, with his intriguing looks at a ‘self regulating ‘ world, and rgbatduke, with his clear essays on how little data we have collected to date.

geo
February 1, 2013 3:39 pm

Wow. That’s a big deal. This guy has published with Mann, Jones, Trenberth, and Schmidt. This is a major break in the wall of “the science is settled” orthodoxy.

Rex
February 1, 2013 3:50 pm

> Mosher :
> lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record,
> its probably correct to within .2C
I disagree with the claimed accuracy of the surface record.
The network of temperature stations is being treated as if
it were a survey, whereas in fact it is a dog’s breakfast, and
being asked to fulfill a role for which it was never intended.
Claims for accuracy are much like the claims by pollsters and
those undertaking consumer surveys, where a sample of 1,000
is usually described as being accurate to with +- 3.4% at the 50%
level of incidence, and at the 95% confidence level. Such claims
are garbage, as they report a purely statistical error based on a
an ideal methodology. The ‘survey error’ (as distinct from the
‘statistical error’) may be 2-4 times higher, depending on how well
or badly the survey has been carried out.
( the 3.4 quoted is from memory! )

geo
February 1, 2013 3:52 pm

I think most skeptics are “lukewarmers”, even if they don’t use the term about themself. I’ve never heard Anthony or Steve McI say anything that would exclude them from the lukewarmer camp, and much that would imply they are in that camp whether they use the term about themself or not.

cui bono
February 1, 2013 3:52 pm

Anthony, I note that you refused to publish Annan’s email until it was in the public domain, even though it is embarrassing to the alarmists. What a contrast with Gleick who not only published but invented documents for publication. You are, indeed, an honourable man in an age which could do with many more. Well done, mate!
Everyone quotes Feynman. I’m reminded of Huxley’s “The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact”. Except in this case, the idea that the whole climate can be described by an undergraduate physics theory, and the abuses to which that idea has been put, is the ugliness. The fact that it’s being shown to be wrong is truly beautiful.
Can anyone point me to a graph of climate sensitivity estimates over time. For example, 2007 Smith and Jones min (95%) 1.2; most prob 1.9; max 2.8 (95%). I’ve got the Wiki article of estimates, but I don’t know if it’s been Connolley’d. And the IPCC is clearly not reliable, as Annan is saying. It’s just that if you chart them it might look nicely like a upside-down hockey stick!
PS1: Damn ‘stubborn’ planet! Warm, damn you, warm!
PS2: Has anyone yet mentioned “Walls Come Tumbling Down” by The Style Council? 🙂

February 1, 2013 4:12 pm

“Oh dear oh dear oh dear …”. Charles, the Waterman’s Arms, Barnes. RIP you old rogue.
Pointman

Rosco
February 1, 2013 4:12 pm

How about this ?
The fundamentals of the “settled science” are just wrong.
Calculating the temeprature of one quarter of the solar radiation adjusted for albedo is basically meaningless other than correct geometry.
Neglecting day and night is stupid.
Denying that the Moon’s surface radiating unhindered to space cools at a far slower rate than the Earth’s surfaces subject to conductive/convective cooling is stupid.
Suggesting that the atmosphere insulates us from the “ocld” depths of outer space is insane when we are relatively close to a moderate star which continuously emits powerful radiation – the space at Earth’s orbit cannot be considered “cold” by any stretch of the imagination.
Climate science is wrong – my opinion but one I’ve have read up on and come to my reasoned conclusion.

u.k.(us)
February 1, 2013 4:23 pm

She sure seems to dish it out with delight, at times.

Darren
February 1, 2013 4:41 pm

what is meant by Lindzen strategy in reverse?

Mark Bofill
February 1, 2013 5:02 pm

I’m sure I’m going to regret asking, but what is it with the default hostility everybody seems to hold towards Steven Mosher? I never seem to catch him saying anything particularly outrageous and I’ve been quietly puzzled about this for quite some time now. I mean, is he a bad guy in everyone’s eyes because of BEST, is that what it is? I’ve heard him defend adjustments to temperature records, often stating that you could take the adjustments out and still get the same answer, is it about this? I get that he can be annoying as hell, is that what it’s about? I ask mostly because he impressed the heck out of me by deducing Gleick’s involvement in the Heartland business, after which I started paying attention to his posts, and I’ve failed to see since what it is about the guy that gets everybody so riled up.
Just asking, if it’s all the same to anyone who wants to clue me in, I’d just like to add that I’m asking honestly, no particular need in my eyes to hand me my own decapitated head in your answer.

February 1, 2013 5:05 pm

geo says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm (Edit)
I think most skeptics are “lukewarmers”, even if they don’t use the term about themself. I’ve never heard Anthony or Steve McI say anything that would exclude them from the lukewarmer camp, and much that would imply they are in that camp whether they use the term about themself or not.
####################
1. they would need to clarify a couple things.
A) position on radiative physics. Anthony has agreed somewhat, steve im less clear on.
B) clarify there position on the lower bound of sensitivity.
I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.
Its pretty easy. Just say : radiative physics is correct ( roy spenser and john christy and dick lindzen are correct, that science is sound ) and say.. Its possible that sensitvity to doubling is greater than 1. Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.

Bill Illis
February 1, 2013 5:07 pm

Climate sensitivity is often expressed in a distribution function (long-tailed) like this one.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/fig2.jpg
But this long-tail distribution is not based on actual data. It is just garbage guestimates.
The actual CO2 sensitivity throughout history going back 545 million years looks like this. This is the real distribution.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1391/co2sensitivitylast545my.png
What it shows is that there are two dominant factors – Earth’s Albedo and GHGs.
Earth’s Albedo can dominate over certain periods and the CO2 sensitivity appears to anything between +40.0C per doubling to -40.0C per doubling in these periods. In other words, irrelevant.
And there may be periods when not much Albedo change is occuring and 1.5C per CO2 doubling seems to be the dominant factor.
For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone can produce a long-tailed distribution when the actual data does not support this at all. Even the modern period of temps and CO2 support 1.5C or less let alone the paleoclimate throughout history. One would have to be just making up one’s facts as one goes along to come up with a long-tailed distribution. Well, there is your answer isn’t.
Throw out the fake data and start using the actual type.

February 1, 2013 5:11 pm

” Rex says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm (Edit)
> Mosher :
> lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record,
> its probably correct to within .2C
I disagree with the claimed accuracy of the surface record.
The network of temperature stations is being treated as if
it were a survey, whereas in fact it is a dog’s breakfast, and
being asked to fulfill a role for which it was never intended.
##################
Well, its pretty easy to test. I take a random sample of around 300 stations. I construct an estimate for the temperature at other locations. i used my sample of 500 to predict the other locations.
Guess what? damn, those estimates of out of sample cases are always bang on.
Wanna know something even better. So, you might think you’re right. I used to think that too. But, I pulled out my feynman, tested your idea and had to give your idea up.
go figure.

Mike Smith
February 1, 2013 5:14 pm

I think the sensitivity issue is starting to gain some traction even in the MSM.
However, they still don’t get the implications of it. i.e. If the sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC and other alarmists claim, the entire CO2 bugaboo evaporates. When will they start to connect the dots?

February 1, 2013 5:15 pm

DirkH.
You have the process all wrong. The effect works by raising the ERL. Dont believe me, it was DOD research prior to AGW that settled that issue. Take it up with Christy or Spenser or Lindzen and explain to them why they are wrong about radiative physics. or write a paper an collect your nobel prize.

February 1, 2013 5:16 pm

Mark Bofill,
Maybe it’s because of comments like this:
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”

February 1, 2013 5:20 pm

” Ok, Mr. Mosher, but are you absolutely sure that all of the additional CO2 is from humans and not some natural response to a warming earth?
Are you sure you’ve got it right?
######################
Since science only deals in the likely and unlikely there is no proof in science and hence no certainty. Adding GHGs to the atmosphere is more likely to warm the planet than cool it. there is no science suggesting otherwise. Regardless of the source of all the extra C02, the real question is
1. is it safe to continue our geoengineering project of adding more c02?
2. How safe?
3. how do you know?

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2013 5:27 pm

@More Soylent Green:
You made my day 😉
@Rex:
I found a 1/10 C warming in just one bit of bad code in ONE subroutine of GIStemp. The notion that they ‘have it right’ to 0.2 C (while Airport Heat Island dominate, MMTS ‘wrong way’ correction was done, and UHI is often backwards) is a ludicrous idea.
@Geo:
I’m a skeptic and NOT a ‘lukewarmer’. Why is simple:
The whole radiative model depends on the notion that there is a radiative zone between the stratosphere and the troposphere. That the tropopause is a mass flow static zone and only radiation crosses it (thus all the discussion of ‘back radiation’ across it).
That is spectacularly wrong.
At the tropopause, vertical mass flow slows dramatically, but does not stop. The bulk of the mass flow turns sideways and heads toward the cold pole(s). At the poles (more at one in winter – whichever end is having winter then) a dramatic ‘downwelling’ of stratospheric air mass happens. That means that a load of air must be entering the stratosphere in the middle of the earth somewhere. Taking heat flow with it. (It happens at cell boundaries and via wind turbulence effects from transverse winds). BTW, that “pause” at the tropopause? It’s a Cat 2 hurricane force wind sideways. Think that’s doing to have some turbulent mixing with the air on each side? (Stratospheric / tropospheric).
Then there is “overshoot” where any thunderstorm worth the name punches through the “pause” and dumps a load directly to the stratospheric base.
Basically, the ‘radiative model’ just assumes away a whole lot of real and demonstrable mass flow.
See this image of wind speed vs altitude and note the giant speed spike at the ‘pause’…
chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/wind-speed-alt-1090.gif
from:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
At the core, “Radiative thinking” is an error of omission of that fact, coupled with ignoring long cycle events that can be shown to have happened in history and look to be directly driven by lunar tidal mixing of the cold ocean depths to the surface (or not, during warming times)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/why-weather-has-a-60-year-lunar-beat/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/arctic-standstill-tropical-saros/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/lunar-cycles-more-than-one/
Once you figure in the longer cycles of lunar tidal mixing effects, and that the “radiative zone” isn’t radiative… well, there isn’t much left for CO2 to do other than radiate heat to space from the Stratosphere (which it does). Below the “pause” water is the dominant radiative gas, but it is convection that drives heat flow. AT the “pause” it’s a mix of some radiation (mostly upward from water) and some mass flow. Only above the “pause” is CO2 radiation interesting or significant. At that point it’s a net heat pump to space. See graph here:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg
So, IMHO, “lukewarmers” have already got the basic mechanism wrong so their belief in any given “physics” is irrelevant and the result they get will be wrong.
Other than that, no problem….

February 1, 2013 5:29 pm

” Matthew R Marler says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm (Edit)
Steven Mosher: But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.
Which comments are “crazy refusals over radiative physics”? Plenty of people write about non-radiative heat transfer processes, and the non-equilibrium, non-steady state, non-stationarity of the overall system than make inferences from simple radiative models suspect. Don’t even lukewarmers have to drop the (crazy ?) refusals to acknowledge these limitations of the science?
#################
1. You want examples read this thread. read the sky dragons.
2. The limitations of ‘the’ science?
Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work. We know from first principles, verified by testing, that doubling will get us to 1.2C. Now, you suggest that other less well known and less certain considerations might overturn what is A) tested physics and B) physics that us used to build working devices. I think the recognition of limitations rightly should be pressed upon those who promote the less well know rather than the more well known.

February 1, 2013 5:30 pm

Being wrong is 95% of a scientists job description after all.

geo
February 1, 2013 5:33 pm

Mosh wrote: 1. they would need to clarify a couple things.
A) position on radiative physics. Anthony has agreed somewhat, steve im less clear on.
B) clarify there position on the lower bound of sensitivity.
++++
Well, he who says A says B, so long as he understood what he said when he said A. Personally, I don’t have any problem with 1.2C +/- a reasonable error bar. And thank you for adding Spenser, Christy, and Lindzen to the list of skeptic “lukewarmers”, self-labelling or not.

carlbrannen
February 1, 2013 5:35 pm

One of the sociological facts of science is that certainty is highest the farther someone is from the heart of the controversey. [Google the “Golem series of books by Harry Collins who mostly studied scientists working on gravitational waves.] Another sociological fact is that it’s possible to keep supporting ideas that have been pretty much proven wrong.
So I’d expect to see only a few more defections but at least some from deep insiders. The people on the outskirts are still arguing that the only thing that warmed during the Medieval Climate Anomaly was Greenland and western Europe. The fact that climate is a matter of globally correlated weather patterns (and so is extremely complicated to predict) hasn’t diffused out yet.

February 1, 2013 5:36 pm

IIRC, Spencer, Lindzen and Christy all estimate sensitivity at < 1ºC per 2xCO2.

cui bono
February 1, 2013 5:36 pm

Mark Bofill says (February 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm)
I’m sure I’m going to regret asking, but what is it with the default hostility everybody seems to hold towards Steven Mosher?
——
None here. I’ve asked questions of Steven, and he’s always given full and courteous replies, despite his fierce reputation.
Steven Mosher says (February 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm)
Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.
——
Nope. I’d be happy with 1. That means climate sensitivity ~1.2C, doesn’t it? Any figure below 1.5C is perfectly acceptable to this sceptic.

rogerknights
February 1, 2013 5:36 pm

Judith Curry must be feeling vindicated. She, alone of the climate crew, jumped off the bandwagon while it still looked safe.

Paul O
February 1, 2013 5:38 pm

Mosh, I still don’t get why you think the lower bound for climate sensitivity has to be the 1.2K “no-feedbacks” value. Accepting the logic of radiative physics does not speak to the question of whether net feedbacks will be negative or positive, the answer to which will have a meaningful impact on the lower bound, right?
Observations to date seem to point to net feedbacks being negative over many differing timescales. Just saying….

February 1, 2013 5:40 pm

Big D in TX says:
February 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm

I am ready for The Nuremberg Trials: Climate Change Edition.
Anyone who knowingly perpetrated lies to world governments is highly culpable.
Anyone who did so also willfully (as opposed to under orders or by association, e.g. ‘consensus’) demands a heavier sentence still.

How about having to participate as a subject in an EPA fine particulate matter experiment?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/23/major-landmark-lawsuit-filed-against-the-epa-for-immoral-human-experimentation/

geo
February 1, 2013 5:44 pm

Ahh, sensitivity. Sorry, Mosh is including the feedbacks there, so I get the distinction now. So in the Mosher definition of “lukewarmer” you’re allowed to posit some negative feedback, but a relatively modest amount (less than 17%).

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2013 6:00 pm

Bofill:
Watch closely and you will see the occasional Barb Flinging at skeptics. ( I’ve taken a few, especially in a posting here on GHCN v1 vs v3 modifications where I was accused of things ranging from stupidity to lying – though in somewhat dressed up terms.)
Don’t get me wrong, I have no hate for Mosher. He genuinely believes his positions and is willing to test things. Just stuck in a paradigm he is unwilling to exit. (Radiative physics dominates). In person, he’s a nice guy. (Had dinner once). Generally a person I’d trust with my car keys.
Oh, and he isn’t willing to question things enough. I think it is FINE to question “established radiative physics”. Mostly I’ve yet to find anything wrong with it (despite a few odd bits). However, that questioning causes Mosher to toss rocks… It was just that questioning that finally lead me to the point that the tropo”pause” isn’t a pause and it isn’t a radiative process there. It was clear to me that “something was wrong with the radiative model” and I started part by part. In the end, found that the ‘wrong bit’ wasn’t IR photons so much as mass flow. Steven doesn’t ask the question as “that is settled’… I’m willing to wander through some “wrong speculation” to find what’s right.
@Mosher:
” Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.”
About as far as possible from reality. First off, you can’t know what “most” anyone think at all. Second, given the dozens of alternative POV questions, comments, articles, and speculations over the years, it’s pretty darned clear that there is NO “settled science” on the skeptic side.
Please stop “making stuff up”…
I am quite sure that the AGW radiative thesis is wrong, and I’ve looked at many possible ways things might really be working. While I think I’ve finally got the big bits worked out ( lunar tidal for about 1/2 to 3/4, long term cyclical, tropo’pause’ mixing) I’m also quite certain that it is not possible to disambiguate the “lunar tidal” from “solar / UV mediated” from “solar GCR mediated” nor ascribe how much is ‘other’ cyclicalities involving loopy vs straight ( meridional vs zonal) jet stream; as they all come together when they come.
Hardly “settled” and more a “project of ongoing discovery”.
However the last 16 years pretty much blow the radiative thesis… ( I’d held out some expectation for a little leftover for it, but that’s looking like a big zero now).
Per your three questions:
1) Yes. 200 – 300 ppm is near the lower bound for plant life. We’ve got issues this low.
2) Completely. At most it can help hold off the next glacial, starting “soon” in geological terms. At most it can put us smacking into the ‘hard lid’ of negative feedback at about 2 C higher than now evidenced in the last half dozen or more interglacials of this ice age. (Can you say “existence proof”?)
3) Prior geologic history. Plants evolved for about 1000 – 2000 ppm, and for most of geologic history earth has been well beyond that. Didn’t stop prior ice ages (prior to our present series of glacials, for example). The interglacials in this series hit a hard negative feedback at only slightly above present. The only “tipping point” that exists is to the downside.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/annoying-lead-time-graph/
We are past the ‘warming stability point’ and well into ‘unstable to cold’ on insolation 65N.

February 1, 2013 6:01 pm

” Bob says:
February 1, 2013 at 12:40 pm (Edit)
Steve Mosher, you need to go to the next step. Now that you’ve characterized Annan as a “Luke”, do you feel we should mitigate for CO2 emissions or promote it as a boon to the undeveloped countries. Which way do you lean, Sir.
##############################
First off I rarely talk about policy or politics because I think it distracts from the science. And it gets people thinking about motives and greed and really spoils a civilized exchange.
1. We are not prepared for the storms and weather of our grandparents. Regardless of the cause of Sandy, we should see that such storms are to be expected given the past. Perhaps things will get worse, but remember the evidence shows we are not prepared for the storms of the past much less the storms of the future.
2. Whatever global warming has in store for us in the next 30 years, there is nothing we can do on the mitigation side to change that. the science shows us that it is already baked into the system.
put another way, mitigation doesnt change anything for the next 30 years.
That argues for putting policies in place for a more resilient society and more resilient world. Change will come. we are not prepared for ‘normal’ weather, much less worse weather. We would do well to focus on making our society more resilient. Its stupid for example to encourage people to build and develop in areas likely to flood. regardless of why the sea level goes up and down,
subsidizing hollywood millionaires to live on malibu beach, is not building a resilient society.
Massive development in the path of hurricanes isnt very smart. Its even dumber if global warming changes hurricanes for the worst.
So, before you try to tackle the world wide problems of mitigation, start in your own backyard fixing the crazy stuff you already do. Lets take NYC.. have a look at their plan. they plan to move 1 million more people into an area that is ripe for a disaster. Sorry, that’s just stupid regardless of the truth of AGW. and if AGW is true its even more stupid.
Energy: The big problem is how to produce power for the 6Billion people who will have no power in 2050. That problem wont be solved by focusing on solutions that work for rich countries. Put another way, coal gas and nuclear and big grids dont work for the billions who live in poverty. its not about C02 its about trying to push centralized big iron solutions to countries were a different approach is needed. And you cannot scale big system down in size, balance of systems prevents that. To solve the problem of energy for the poor you need a solution that is engineered for the individual and mass produced.. as in build 6 billion of them.

Bob
February 1, 2013 6:02 pm

Mosher, ” You have the process all wrong. The effect works by raising the ERL. Dont believe me, it was DOD research prior to AGW that settled that issue. Take it up with Christy or Spenser or Lindzen and explain to them why they are wrong about radiative physics. or write a paper an collect your nobel prize.”
What drives some people crazy about you is your arrogant certainty, not about radiative physics, but your obsequious, compulsive, commitment to CO2 as the polyatomic atmospheric molecule that dominates the agreed radiative physics. Radiative physics aside, your certainty on sensitivity derives from models -not empiric data.

Joe Ryan
February 1, 2013 6:04 pm

“Lindzen in reverse”????
Is that sour grapes I’m seeing from Annan? That’s pretty bold given that LIndzen’s work batter matches reality.

u.k.(us)
February 1, 2013 6:07 pm

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm
…”Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.”…
===============
When you sell just enough secrets to keep things competitive, it’ll entice players.

February 1, 2013 6:17 pm

partial pressure dictates that adding CO2 will drive H2O out of the atmosphere. Since H2O is a stronger GHG than CO2, the CO2 sensitivity is at best 0.
the notion that you can add CO2 to the atmosphere and not immediately affect other gasses is a nonsense. Long before CO2 results in added warming, the reduced H2O will have prevented the warming.
this in no way disputes that CO2 is a GHG and can potentially warm the planet – all things remaining equal. What is disputed is that “all things will remain equal” if you add CO2 to the atmosphere.
If you add CO2, then the atmospheric pressure goes up and it is harder to evaporate water, so water vapor decreases, restoring the original pressure. This leads at best 0 warming as you add CO2.
Thus, the warming of the past 300 years is no different than the medieval warming, the roman warming, or the minoan warming. Nothing to do with CO2 then, nothing to do with CO2 now.

4 eyes
February 1, 2013 6:17 pm

We’re getting towards the end of the 4th act in a 5 act play. It won’t be long and we’ll be able leave the theatre and get back to our daily routines. It’s been a completting script.

February 1, 2013 6:19 pm

EM
You can question radiative physics all you want. You just wont be building a device that works.
If you want to build a satellite that measures the land surface temperature… you know those pretty pictures of UHI.. you want to build one of those.. You have to accept radiative physics.
Want to build a radar for the F-22? how far can it see? well, you have to pull out your radiative physics and see how gases interact with that particular wavelength. Wanna question the science?
sure go ahead. Dont expect to build something that works unless you accept the science.
Wanna build a plane that is invisible in the IR regime? that can fly over a stinger missile on the ground and not be seen? Well, darn it, your boss will tell you to use the physics developed for that. Radiative physics. Want to build a IR telescope.. that works.. oh well, you will need that radiative physics you want to question. Want to build a C02 detector? yup, you better accept radiative transfer theory. Want to figure out how far apart to put some cell towers? dang how far will that signal go? radiation transfer and propagation to the rescue.
Sitting on the porch getting all philosphical of course we can question it. What if it was wrong?
Thats a fun exercise. But monday morning when you show up to build shit that works, you pull out your radiative transfer codes. Why? cause they work and you get paid to build stuff that works.
Now if you talk to a lawyer like wilde who has never built a working thing in his life, well, he might tell you that radiative physics was bunk. meanwhile, the free world is defended by machines that rely on that science being correct. kinda scary if you dont believe that science.. maybe it was a commie plot back in the 50s when the air force figured a bunch of this stuff out.. ya.. a secret commie plot.

joeldshore
February 1, 2013 6:20 pm

There is nothing particularly new about what Annan is saying now…It is what he has been saying since about 2006: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html He believes that climate sensitivity is quite well-constrained and that claims that it is much greater or much less than 3 C are both worthy of ridicule. Some other scientists are doubtful that (particularly the upper boundary) is really as well-constrained as Annan believes it to be.
Unfortunately, 3 C…or even 2 C per CO2 doubling…is plenty high enough to mean that we are going to have to leave a lot of the fossil fuels in the ground (or sequester the emissions) if we don’t want to significantly alter the global climate and sea levels. It just means that fatalistic notions that it is already too late to do anything are probably just that…too fatalistic. (Even a sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 C would mean we are going to have to leave a lot of them in the ground, particularly as it seems that we will continue to find enough fossil fuels to really shoot CO2 to quite astronomical levels if we burn them all.)

February 1, 2013 6:22 pm

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm
…”Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.”…
==========
because CO2 theory assumes that you can add CO2 to the atmosphere without changing the pressure of the atmosphere. this is a nonsense. adding CO2 must increase the atmospheric pressure which will reduce the evaporation rate of water, which will reduce the amount of water in the atmosphere.

Latitude
February 1, 2013 6:26 pm

Mark Bofill says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm
I’m sure I’m going to regret asking, but what is it with the default hostility everybody seems to hold towards Steven Mosher?
==========================
Simple, in the next post after yours, he says that skeptics that don’t agree with him are ignorant
==========================
Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm
I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.
================================
mosh, the science is changing…..this very post is about the science changing
I’m a skeptic…..because the science has constantly changed

Mark Bofill
February 1, 2013 6:27 pm

Paul O says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Mosh, I still don’t get why you think the lower bound for climate sensitivity has to be the 1.2K “no-feedbacks” value. Accepting the logic of radiative physics does not speak to the question of whether net feedbacks will be negative or positive, the answer to which will have a meaningful impact on the lower bound, right?
———————————–
Thanks Paul O, that’s my position too. I think of myself as a skeptic rather than a lukewarmer because I don’t see a persuasive case either way on even the sign of the net feedbacks. Maybe I’m making a philosophical error but I don’t feel like I can honestly state I think we’ll see +1.2C when I don’t have the slightest clue whether or not feedbacks will swamp that number under or over.
Thanks D.B. Stealy, E.M. Smith, and cui bono for answering my earlier question. 🙂

Camburn
February 1, 2013 6:33 pm

Mosh:
Radiative physics works. The radiative physics show that CO2 will do approx 1.0C per initial doubling of CO2.
What the radiative physics does NOT take into account is all the other forcings, small and large, that control climate.
Take a look at the last 10,000 years as an example. Using Alley2000, which is about as good as any temp reconstruction so far, and then comparing CO2 levels from Dome C…….what is going wrong there?
Temp is slowly falling, yes, intermitent warm ups, but falling, and CO2 is rising. The slow rise of CO2 should have produced a lot of warming, since it is logarithmic. It didn’t.
CO2 is not the large boogy man. Something else is, and hopefully we figure it out soon.

EJ
February 1, 2013 6:40 pm

As I said after the release of the FOD that there is a hint of objectivity starting to emerge, and this recent event definately means it is gaining some momentum.
Interesting times. I love following this debate. I know I am not alone. After a decade, one might think I would get bored by now.
Thanks again to all you folk for all the hard work you all do. You know who you are!

Bill Illis
February 1, 2013 6:49 pm

Just because you can’t target an infra-red heat seeking missile in the IR spectrum that CO2 absorbs, doesn’t mean that CO2 has any impact on the temperature of the Earth at all. This is often described as the “physics”.
But the real physics is completely different than this simple rationale.
The speed of light, the molecular collision rate at 8 billion collisions per second, the fact that 98% of Earth’s IR emissions are at a different frequency than CO2’s spectrum, an untold trillions upon trillions of photons moving through an untold trillion different atmospheric molecules every millisecond means that one has to start at first principles and at a completely different level than a simple “CO2 absorbs IR at 10 um” basis.
It would be such a complicated problem, in fact, that it cannot be solved. The only viable option is to observe what really happens in the atmosphere instead. The theory is useless. We can only see what actually happens.

February 1, 2013 7:07 pm

Bill Illis is correctomundo, as usual:
“We can only see what actually happens.”
What is actually happening disagrees with AGW theory conjecture.

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2013 7:10 pm

Bofill:
As an example of the “barb factor”:
“EM
You can question radiative physics all you want. You just wont be building a device that works.”
Goes right to the “insult the person” with derision. Now I’m willing to accept that if Einstein might question Newton maybe it’s OK to question “well understood” physics. Highly unlikely either that I’ll find something, OR that I’m the next Einstein; but I think it fine to question. Maybe even 100 times.
OH, btw, all the “how far you can see” stuff? I’ve used exactly those military sensors as proof that IR travels through air just fine, thank you very much.
As I said:
” Mostly I’ve yet to find anything wrong with it (despite a few odd bits). However, that questioning causes Mosher to toss rocks… ”
So now you see it in practice…
and
“something was wrong with the radiative model
Mosher has trouble accepting that one can assert the “radiative model” is wrong since the radiative physics is right. He regularly confounds the model with physics. Often when I’ve look at “radiative things” I’m looking at both, looking for where something doesn’t fit right. This causes Mosher to have a fit as I’m not just accepting it all wholesale. He then goes on and on about the physics and leaves the model swallowed whole…
Short form: It’s more about the USE of the physics being wrong.
But at least you get to see some of the “sarc gone wild” with “insults to the person” in things like this:
“maybe it was a commie plot back in the 50s when the air force figured a bunch of this stuff out.. ya.. a secret commie plot.”
That, Mark, is a stellar example of “Mosher off the rails” that does not win him friends…
So, in summary:
I’m willing to do three very distinct things:
1) Question that there might be something wrong in the radiative physics
2) Question that there likely is something wrong in the radiative model and physics as applied.
3) Question that there is highly likely something wrong in the radiative mechanism assumed.
On #3, we have clear evidence that it’s wrong as the “pause” isn’t and mass flow happens.
On #2, we have clear evidence that it’s wrong as water radiates upward while CO2 only radiates significantly in the Stratosphere (see the graph above, it breaks our radiative quantity by altitude and gas type).
On #1, I’ve investigated a few things, had a few false starts, not found anything of merit. And have stated so “Mostly I’ve yet to find anything wrong with it “; so that’s what Mosher chooses as an “attack here” point with a diatribe about things that work which; by implication, I’m ignorant of or believe can’t work. The implied “You Idiot”. Despite being fully aware of them and being quite sure they work. ( I worked on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle… so I’ve been ‘aware’ of DOD toys for a while).
It’s that kind of “don’t confront the 2 things that matter, then warp and attack a third based on snark” that causes folks to bristle at him.
If he’d just address 1 & 2, and accept that 3 was a dead end, but OK to keep checking it, things would be fine. But he doesn’t.
Hope this little example has helped illuminate things for you.

Jeff Alberts
February 1, 2013 7:17 pm

quoting climate scientist James Annan, who one could call a member of the “hockey team” based on his strong past opinions related to AGW and paleoclimatology paleophrenology.

Fixed it for ya. 🙂

Werner Brozek
February 1, 2013 7:18 pm

ferd berple says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:22 pm
adding CO2 must increase the atmospheric pressure
Are you not ignoring the decrease in pressure due to fewer oxygen molecules?

DaveA
February 1, 2013 7:35 pm

If you’re not giving an indication of scale then you’re just guessing. This applies to statements like “if X increases then Y must decrease”. If I take the spare tyre out of my car it will weigh less and hence I will use less fuel. Will I notice that I notice that I’m getting more mileage from that?
Small additions of mass to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 will enhance it’s effect. It’s presently about 391 ppm (parts per million). Go work out how much atmospheric pressure increases if we add the additional mass to make it 800 ppm, then comment on evaporation.

RACookPE1978
Editor
February 1, 2013 7:35 pm

Jeff Alberts says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm

quoting climate scientist James Annan, who one could call a member of the “hockey team” based on his strong past opinions related to AGW and paleoclimatology paleophrenology.
Fixed it for ya. 🙂

quoting climate scientist James Annan, who one could call a member of the “hockey team” based on his strong past opinions related to AGW and paleoclimatology paleophrenology . phenomenometeorillogically.
Fixed the fixed it for ya. 8<)

Bill Illis
February 1, 2013 7:35 pm

I might also note that you cannot target an Infra-Red heat-seeking missile through a relatively thick cloud layer either.
And clouds only absorb about 30 W/m2 of IR emitted by the surrface.
And relatively thick clouds represent about 30% of atmospheric conditions versus CO2 at just 0.3%. And relatively thick clouds absorb about 100% of the IR emitted by the surface when present (check Modtran and turn on the low level clouds option which results in the atmosphere becoming a perfect blackbody spectrum).
So 0.3% of the atmosphere absorbing just 2% of the Earth’s IR emissions somehow create 3.7 W/m2 of reduced emissions when the concentration rises to 0.56%. In fact, according to Lacis of GISS, the 0.3% is responsible for 150 W/m2 of the greenhouse effect.
Yet low level clouds at 100% emission reduction when present 30% of the time provides just 30 W/m2.
The math doesn’t work in case you were wondering where I was going.

Lloyd Martin Hendaye
February 1, 2013 7:36 pm

Let’s give ‘er another six years or so, to (say) 2018, three decades after Senate air conditioning went ka-flooie. By then, cargo-cultists such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. will have joined Rene Blondlot, J.B. Rhine, Trofim Lysenko, Immanuel Velikovsky in a long line of bitter scientific frauds. The damage these Luddite sociopaths have inflicted is incalculable… we only hope they don’t get off scot-free.

Mark Bofill
February 1, 2013 7:39 pm

E.M.Smith says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Bofill:
As an example of the “barb factor”:
“EM
You can question radiative physics all you want. You just wont be building a device that works.”
Goes right to the “insult the person” with derision. Now I’m willing to accept that if Einstein might question Newton maybe it’s OK to question “well understood” physics. Highly unlikely either that I’ll find something, OR that I’m the next Einstein; but I think it fine to question. Maybe even 100 times.
———————————————————-
I understand what you’re saying. It also helps me see why I don’t notice so much; I didn’t read him that way, but then I’m told I’ve got an abrasive way of expressing myself as well (shocking, I know, but people really do tell me that 🙂 ) and that I’m usually offensive when I think I’m being funny. But I’m not here to try to defend, excuse, or justify anybody; I was just curious and I do appreciate your answer.
BTW – I couldn’t agree with you more about the value of questioning anything and everything, particularly the stuff most taken for granted.
Best regards.

davidmhoffer
February 1, 2013 7:39 pm

Steven Mosher;
Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.
As I have pointed out to you many times already, sensors, cell phones, and radar use the part of the radiated signal that does NOT get absorbed in the atmosphere. These things work precisely because we can directly measure them. We CANNOT directly measure what happens to the part of the radiated signal that does get absorbed. We are left to determine precisely what happens to the absorbed signal via indirect means that are orders of magnitude less accurate and that cannot even quantify all the possible paths that might be taken by a quanta of energy being absorbed and re-radiated billions of times between earth surface and TOA. The fact is that radar, cell phones, and so on are a simple point to point transmission. Suggesting that these are in any way, shape, or form, analogous to energy flux from earth surface to TOA is simply absurd.
We know from first principles, verified by testing, that doubling will get us to 1.2C.
Yes we do. In an atmospheric air column with constant water vapour concentration from top to bottom and no feedbacks. No such thing exists.

pokerguy
February 1, 2013 7:45 pm

Steve MOsher writes:
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”
What breathtaking arrogance. And yet, so utterly typical. I have no reason to doubt that you mean well, and I also appreciate you’re quite a smart fellow, The only inference left is that you suffer some sort of pathology. I have a brother with delusional disorder. He has an IQ of 145 and yet is also convinced that the FBI is following him. Sad.

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2013 7:46 pm

@Ferd Berple:
It’s more complicated (and interesting) than that!
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/fizzy-sky-ir-spectrum-is/
Folks have discovered “carbonic gas” in the air. Until recently it was believed to be impossible and dismissed out of hand. Yet it exists.
Nobody knows what the IR spectrum is for it.
So what happens to your IR transmission when the CO2 can simply form “carbonic gas” with water vapor?
Nobody knows….
So that whole “how water interacts with CO2” is in fact completely unknown. What we do know is that we’ve ignored carbonic gas, and that is wrong…
@Werner Brozek:
As the O2 combines with C and goes from 32 to 44 mol.wt. the density still goes up even if the moles gas stays the same.
Then there is that whole ‘carbonic gas’ problem 😉

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2013 7:52 pm

Bofill:
You are welcome. Generally I ‘give the benefit of the doubt’ and don’t let such petty barbs actually bother me. More just pointing out how it works.
(Oh, and notice that somehow Mosher made a ‘leap’ from “question the physics” to “not willing to use it”. That’s a false leap. I’m quite sure even Einstein was willing to USE Newtonian mechanics while knowing “it was wrong” outside the rest plane… So I’m quite willing to USE the radiative physics. Even while questioning it.)
At any rate, getting close to time for me to go do other things…

February 1, 2013 8:00 pm

Do we now address James Annan as “Luke Skywarmer”?

Chuck Nolan
February 1, 2013 8:03 pm

Darren Potter says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:41 pm
“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Are we looking at a crack in the dam? Leaky statement that could implicate a few Hockey Stick players with knowingly committing government fraud, crimes against humanity? Resulting in them turning State’s evidence with plea bargains, leading to even more of GW Alarmists going down.
——————-
Great plot but I’ll wait for the movie.
cn

rogerknights
February 1, 2013 8:16 pm

Mosher says:
Energy: The big problem is how to produce power for the 6Billion people who will have no power in 2050. That problem wont be solved by focusing on solutions that work for rich countries. Put another way, coal gas and nuclear and big grids dont work for the billions who live in poverty. its not about C02 its about trying to push centralized big iron solutions to countries were a different approach is needed. And you cannot scale big system down in size, balance of systems prevents that. To solve the problem of energy for the poor you need a solution that is engineered for the individual and mass produced.. as in build 6 billion of them.

“Centralized big iron solutions” have worked in one formerly poor country: China.
However, I would like to see rocket stoves distributed widely in the third world, to reduce environmental damage from wood smoke and forest cutting. Ditto for glass chimneys for oil-burning lamps.

davidmhoffer
February 1, 2013 8:18 pm

pokerguy says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Steve MOsher writes:
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”
What breathtaking arrogance.
>>>>>>>>>>
I object also to this characterization Mosher. As you no doubt are aware, I tend to react rather negatively when someone makes bizarre claims such as “back radiation” not existing, or the even more absurd “it exists but it doesn’t do anything when it reaches the surface”. These claims simply defy common sense versus easily understood examples such as the earth being warmer than the moon despite getting the same average insolation.
By your definition, I’m a lukewarmer. But I define myself as a skeptic. Not because I don’t understand or accept the physics though. When one defines themselves as a skeptic, one must ask the question; skeptical of what? I’m skeptical of the C in CAGW. I’m skeptical of the order of magnitude and sign of feedbacks. I’m even skeptical of the direct effects of doubling of CO2 because the value of 1.2 degrees per doubling is calculated against an air column in which water vapour concentration is uniform, no such air column exists, and I’m not convinced that the effect will be linear when extrapolated to surface temps (and I have sound physics upon which to justify that skepticism).

Phil
February 1, 2013 8:20 pm

From a comment I prepared a while back and didn’t post and for which I don’t have time to clean up. My apologies.

With respect to the referenced graph showing a forcing of about 3.39 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2, shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png), I would like to mention the following:
The measurement of long wave radiation is more difficult technically than themeasurement of solar radiation. For this reason, International Standards for themeasurement of long wave radiation have not been developed. http://www.eko-usa.com/products/am/MS-202_MF-11/index.html
Stoffel, et al. 2006 http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf16/extended_abs/stoffel_t.pdf
The calibration of ARM pyrgeometers continues to be a topic of intense research to achieve the goal of accurate field measurements that are traceable to a recognized reference standard. The original EPLAB factory calibrations were used for all initial ARM pyrgeometer deployments. Between 2002 and 2004, all SKYRAD, GNDRAD, Solar and Infrared Stations, and BRS pyrgeometers were calibrated using the then newly-developed National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Pyrgeometer Blackbody Calibration System. Recent results of data analyses by the Broadband Heating Rate Profile, including the Longwave Quality Measurement Experiment comparisons involving the Atmospheric Emitted Radiation Interferometer (AERI), indicated a significant and consistent pyrgeometer measurement bias of about -12 Wm-2 ± 5 Wm-2 under clear-sky conditions. By March 2006, the resulting BCR-01162, Remove Pyrgeometer Calibration Bias, returned all pyrgeometer calibration values for field measurements to the original EPLAB thermopile sensitivities and dome correction factors set to 4.0 as originally deployed until the pyrgeometer calibration issues could be resolved.
Figure 4 Test using 12 PIRs for a week showed departures from nominal longwave radiation of up to 30 Wm-2. New calibration procedure (Reda, et al. 2003) reduced that to 10Wm-2.
Figure 7 In 2006: “Measurements agree for all sky conditions to within +/- 5 Wm-2.”
Figure 9 In 2006: Outdoor comparison of 13 pyrgeometers at NOAA/Geophysical Monitoring Division in Boulder, Colorado for several days in February 2006 show maximum differences of 10 Wm-2.
Conclusions
Longwave irradiance data precision and accuracy depends on the method of calibration and the availability of a recognized measurement reference.
Reda, et al. 2006 http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf17/poster/P00118.pdf
Adjusting the ARM/NREL blackbody coefficients using the WISG, suggests a longwave irradiance uncertainty of ±2.5 W/m2 can be achieved under clear and cloudy sky
conditions, during daytime and nighttime, thus reducing the uncertainty by a factor of four compared to present/historical data collection methods.
Reda, et al. 2008 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/45867.pdf
NREL-BB improvements reduced ~12 W/m2 bias to (-1 to 3) W/m2 w.r.t. WISG
Reda, et al. 2010 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47756.pdf
NREL method achieves uncertainty of < 3 W/m2 for all sky conditions
Original calibration procedures: Albrecht & Cox 1976 http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS83Mjc5Nw==.pdf
Thus, it seems that the forcing of 3.39 Wm-2 would appear to be about the same size as the measurement error for using the new and improved calibration method and and about an order of magnitude smaller than historical measurement error (prior to 2006, or so). At first blush, one would be tempted to say that the forcing of 3.39 Wm-2 would statistically probably be indistinguishable from zero, but that depends on whether the Modtran calculations are based on actual measurements and on whether the two numbers are directly comparable. Clearly, if the instruments alone have an error of about 3 Wm-2, then the total measurement error would be larger, but how much larger I haven't tried to estimate.

Chuck Nolan
February 1, 2013 8:22 pm

The problem is they say she’s a witch.
We say she is not a witch.
But they say she’s a witch.
And even though we’ve proven there’s no such thing as witches they say she’s a witch.
They’re gonna burn her at the stake with our tax money.
And what could we do about it?
cn

Jimmy Haigh
February 1, 2013 8:30 pm

Lukewarmers. Still only half way to being correct…

Theo Goodwin
February 1, 2013 8:38 pm

davidmhoffer says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Yet another smashing, first rate post by davidmhoffer. He was responding to the following:
“Steven Mosher;
Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.”
It always saddens me to respond to Mosher on physics. Seriously, it makes me feel like I am punching a six year old. Time and again he has made it clear that he believes that the physics of AGW is sound because it is written down in a text somewhere when the text addresses none of the issues that challenge the AGW thesis, issues such as forcings, and addresses no important empirical claims about the environment whatsoever. Mosher clearly believes that because programmers and climate modelers have taken a course in physics or read a text that the physics in climate models and climate science generally must be sound. Such thinking betrays an ignorance of physics, computer models, and climate so profound that I cannot imagine how to explain it

u.k.(us)
February 1, 2013 8:42 pm

If anyone wants to see Charlie Rose, throw softballs/lead the interview with his guest (Al Gore),
here you go:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12758
“fawning” will have to suffice, seeing as this is a family blog.

February 1, 2013 9:00 pm

Mark Bofill says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm
I’m sure I’m going to regret asking, but what is it with the default hostility everybody seems to hold towards Steven Mosher? I never seem to catch him saying anything particularly outrageous and I’ve been quietly puzzled about this for quite some time now. I mean, is he a bad guy in everyone’s eyes because of BEST, is that what it is? I’ve heard him defend adjustments to temperature records, often stating that you could take the adjustments out and still get the same answer, is it about this? I get that he can be annoying as hell, is that what it’s about? I ask mostly because he impressed the heck out of me by deducing Gleick’s involvement in the Heartland business, after which I started paying attention to his posts, and I’ve failed to see since what it is about the guy that gets everybody so riled up.
Just asking, if it’s all the same to anyone who wants to clue me in, I’d just like to add that I’m asking honestly, no particular need in my eyes to hand me my own decapitated head in your answer.

I have no hostility towards English majors like Mosher. I do have a problem with those who take what he says seriously without knowing his background; Mosher’s educational background consists of BA’s in English Literature and Philosophy. His “scientific” background involves bringing MP3 players to market for Creative Labs as a marketing director.
It is no coincidence that an English major would be the one to deduce Gleick’s involvement in the Heartland scandal since it involved recognition of nuance in written language. How that translates into caring what he has to say on scientific issues I have no idea.
Mosher frequently posts nonsensical “riddle” like comments here and rarely responds to criticism. When pressed he usually disengages and runs away. His comment tone reflects a superiority complex, believing himself to be the true “rational thinker”. He also frequently throws Anthony and other skeptics under the bus at other websites.
I also suspect he was the one behind the fabricated Muller as a recovering skeptic meme in the NYT op-ed. Which was easily crushed. His commenting is largely manipulative and or trolling. Manipulation of skeptics is the goal of those associated with BEST and people like Judith Curry. They want to siphon off the huge number of people who became skeptical after climategate to their brand of “luke warmerism” just with no change in policy proposals. Unfortunately too many people are naturally inclined to “moderate” type arguments but only so long as you can stereo-type those who disagree with you as “fringe”, peer-pressure does the rest.

rogerknights
February 1, 2013 9:13 pm

PS: As for making society more resilient, I agree with that idea too. I think that multi-storey buildings in flood-prone areas should have emergency supplies stockpiled in a locked shed on the roof, that emergency generators should be required there, that barriers against water intrusion, and backup water pumps should be required of big office buildings in such areas, that a local-area communications infrastructure and procedure should be in place, within and between buildings, etc. I’ve described these in much more detail elsewhere, on a few Bloomberg threads.

February 1, 2013 9:31 pm

Poptech
Before Mosh worked in Marketing, he was writing code for aerospace simulators. I don’t know if it’s on his resume or not. He has written his own temperature index code before he joined the BEST team. Attempting to disparage his qualifications based on his college major is just ignorant. Argue with his points, his style, his sloppy extra line breaks, but there is nothing wrong with being self-taught in science or computer programming and to attempt to belittle him this way is less than petty, it is simply juvenile.

February 1, 2013 9:36 pm

Government is the reason behind the increase in population in flood prone regions. Without government subsidized flood insurance only those that could afford to have their homes flooded would take the risk as market based flood insurance premiums would do the rest. So long as government is in the flood insurance business you will see an increase in population in flood prone areas.
With that being said I do not feel it is justified to punish those who have been misled by government boondoggles and prefer an attrition strategy to reverse the trend. Most home owners pay enough in income taxes over their lifetime to cover a one time flood insurance payment for their house by the government anyway, after which time the property owner should be left with a choice or selling or obtaining private sector insurance.

February 1, 2013 9:56 pm

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”
———————————————————————————————————
Mr. Mosher please.
I wish I could take you seriously. It does not matter whether the instrumental record has or has not been mucked about with. I submit that you and every one else had better hope and pray that CO2 is the heathen devil gas it is made out to be. Because radical warmist to lukewarmer has one, and only one, thing going for them. The Holocene had better turn out to be another interglacial anomaly, like MIS-11 (the Holsteinian) was, lasting somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 precession cycles. Because if it turns out to be like 5 of the last 6 interglacials, it will last on the order of half a precession cycle, which at present would be 23,000/2=11,500. And this year, the Holocene turns 11,716 years old……
Either the Holocene “goes long”, like MIS-11 did, or this is all just a silly buggers game.
Go ahead, play your one shot in six hand, strip the late Holocene climate security blanket to whatever concentration you wish.
But just before you do, take a moment to ponder the awesome anthropogenic signal to natural noise ratio that seems to be incumbent at most end interglacials. And this might bring us closer to what actually constitutes “knee jerk contrarianism”.
If we stipulate to the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 worst case estimate for sea level rise by 2100 of +0.59M amsl, then stipulate an order of magnitude more, to say Gore’s aging +20ft (~+6.0M), that only brings us to parity with the low end of the estimates which accompany the second thermal pulse which attended the end of the last extreme interglacial, MIS-5e http://www.uow.edu.au/business/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf we end up with a range which might be anywhere from +6.0M to +45M amsl. And that does not include the +52M amsl estimate here http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
And, well, you know, there is this other problem….. What if the Holocene does go long, like MIS-11 did? Well………….. It might have peaked, right at its very end, at some +21.3M amsl. http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/7516/1/vz_Olson_and_hearty_a_sustained_21m_sea-level_highstand_during_mis_1.pdf
The truly fascinating thing here is that it really does not matter what you believe. End extreme interglacials seem to have BESTed the very BEST anthropogenic signals anyone has yet contrived. Just how, precisely, do you attribute anthropogenic signal 1 to perhaps almost 2 orders of magnitude below the normal natural end extreme interglacial noise?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
Viewed from the perspective that even on things which actually have happened the science is not that particularly well-settled, what would be the things you would convince me with such that I could hear your wailings against such stunning end-extreme-interglacial normal climate noise?
“Knee jerk contrarianism”, in such a situation, might well be perceived as getting all worked-up about something catastrophic, which at best, might come in at 10% if what has happened at least twice in post-MPT time. At worst, maybe one hundredth.
Which, in the end analysis, means that I fret a lot more about bad bug bites than I do about orders of magnitude worse things that might happen anyway, with or without your BEST efforts.
“It’s like two fleas arguing about who owns the dog they are riding on….” Crocodile Dundee

Goracle
February 1, 2013 10:07 pm

After reading Mosher’s comments, you simply come off as an arogant, condescending, egotistical, “How dare you question me…I’m smarter than you” individual. Very unbecoming of an individual who may be in fact be very intelligent and has some idea of what he’s talking about (although stuck on radiative physics). To get respect you must offer it too. The childlike tone of your sometimes venomous comments belong on Twitter, not WUWT. Please, tone it down a bit.

February 1, 2013 10:20 pm

Jeez, I am very familiar with computer programming resumes and Mosher does not even list a language he is proficient in. He has no formal training in anything computer science related. “Written code” can mean anything, including writing scripts or customizing pre-made files.
His resume specifically says, “Developed computer simulation models for aircraft systems and war games.” and “Created and coded data collection and analysis systems.” That can mean anything and looks like resume padding. Why did he not list the language he “coded” in? Programmers who actually write software are much more clear and detailed about what they actually did. People who give ideas about what should be in a simulation can claim to be part of the “development team” that does not mean they programmed anything. You can claim to “create and code data collection and analysis systems.” by writing a script to extract data from a DB. None of which is a scientific credential let alone the backbone of a computer programming resume.
Only non computer science academics would fall for it. Conveniently this makes up the entire BEST team.
He explicitly sells himself as a “Marketing Consultant”. Marketing and Sales are the two most frequently used words on his resume.
Those who think they are programmers is one of the things wrong with climate science,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html
Yes there is a lot of things wrong with selling yourself as something you are not and I do not consider an English major to have any relevant scientific credentials no matter how much he pads his resume.

Philip Shehan
February 1, 2013 10:26 pm

A 2008 review of sensitivity by Knutti and Hegerl says:
“Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html
Annan offers his opinion that if outside this range, it is likely to be on the lower rather than higher end::
A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’

Sad-But-True-Its-You
February 1, 2013 10:35 pm

The words ‘climate’ and ‘sensitivity’ form an oxymoron.

garymount
February 1, 2013 10:58 pm

DaveA says: February 1, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“Small additions of mass to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 will enhance it’s effect. It’s presently about 391 ppm (parts per million). Go work out how much atmospheric pressure increases if we add the additional mass to make it 800 ppm, then comment on evaporation.”
– – –
Take into consideration what is physically happening. A carbon atom is attaching to two pre-existing oxygen atoms already present in the atmosphere. So we are not adding CO2 to the atmosphere so much as adding carbon atoms to the atmosphere.

February 1, 2013 11:01 pm

davidmhoffer says@: Steven Mosher; We know from first principles, verified by testing, that doubling will get us to 1.2C.
Yes we do. In an atmospheric air column with constant water vapour
concentration from top to bottom and no feedbacks. No such thing exists.
Thank you David–I was going to ask what “testing” could verify that? It’s certainly not being verified out in the atmosphere! But I thought, and rightfully so, that I am not qualified to ask even that. So you did it for me!
What I am going to ask, and still not qualified, is about the adjusted surface temperature being pretty correct within .2C. Mosher says, : Well, its pretty easy to test. I take a random sample of around 300 stations. I construct an estimate for the temperature at other locations. i used my sample of 500 to predict the other locations.
Guess what? damn, those estimates of out of sample cases are always bang on.

How come when the JMA doesn’t use the value added temps, they deviate so much from the climatological party line–or is their purple line within that .2C correct margin? It’s a .25 degree difference–so if that is “probably correct,” as Mr. Mosher says, then move along, nothing to see in the CLIMAT report data without adjustments. Means nothing. Is that what he is saying?

Darren Potter
February 1, 2013 11:04 pm

“Want to build a radar for the F-22? how far can it see? well, you have to pull out your radiative physics …”
“But monday morning when you show up to build shit that works, you pull out your radiative transfer codes.”
Or you could do something called prototyping and testing, (as in NAZI’s Horten Ho 229). Which may just show you that knowledge of radiative physics and assumptions of real world interactions isn’t perfect, and computer models that were coded are as buggy as most other programming. Later, perhaps being why computer Climate models have been failing to agree with mother nature. Of course starting with the faulty assumption that CO2 was ‘the’ cause, likely didn’t help said Climate models… 😉

matthu
February 1, 2013 11:05 pm

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Well, its pretty easy to test [i.e. the claimed accuracy of surface station records].I take a random sample of around 300 stations. I construct an estimate for the temperature at other locations. i used my sample of 500 to predict the other locations.
Guess what? damn, those estimates of out of sample cases are always bang on.
Wanna know something even better. So, you might think you’re right. I used to think that too. But, I pulled out my feynman, tested your idea and had to give your idea up.
go figure.

I think you will find that what you are testing here is the consistency of the temperatures, not the accuracy. If you added 1 degree to all of the temperatures, you would get the same result. I suggest you might do better to take into account Anthony Watts’ findings aboiut station siting and perhaps also compare surface station records against satellite measurements.

dp
February 1, 2013 11:37 pm

“Mr. Mosher please.”
Mosher is a lukewarm lapdog. Meaning there is a lap he appeases. The least influential of that genre, he reblathers the party line of climate hysteria using unsound and refuted by observed science to the great delight of the super powers of that underworld he humors. His personal meme is that of a nice guy, reasonable, but incapable of refutation because he propounds incomplete arguments that lacking foundation, could easily apply to a knitting circle as to climate. Generalities abound and his posts posit a mystery left to the reader to solve. To date he has convinced only himself which seems quite enough to encourage him onward. Of importance, anything he says that you don’t understand become evidence to him that you are a dunce and don’t belong in the conversation. Perish be he should come to grips with his non-participative side of the conversation where the typical response of his part of the conversation is “huh?” He hides behind his novel “catch me if you can” debate style which heaps responsibility onto the reader for understanding his cloaked blovia. If you really seek answers, avoid him. He is where thinking goes to die. I’m working hard here to avoid saying anything negative about him, but surely, there must be something along those lines I could add were I to give it some thought, so don’t take all of this as the heaping praise it appears to be.

February 2, 2013 12:37 am

I’ve met Steven Mosher a few times, and I must say he is not like he comes across in his comments. He’s a nice guy, and he’s not not arrogant or condescending like he appears here. One of his really good points is that he was the first to out Peter Gleick as the Heartland scamster.
Everyone is entitled to be wrong about CAGW, and if Mosh abuses that privilege, well, maybe we should give him a break.☺

Jimbo
February 2, 2013 1:26 am

Crosspatch says:
…………..There are also a lot of influential scientists, politicians, and various other personalities who have put their personal credibility on the line by making statements on the absolute certainty of this issue. It is going to be very difficult for them to admit they were wrong as people in high profile public positions tend to be more narcissistic than the general population. They believe they are smarter, they believe they are better informed, and they believe their own judgement to be better than that of the average person. For them to say that those whom they called “Neanderthals” were actually correct is going to be nearly impossible for them to pull off……….

Bravo Crosspatch!
This is the non-scientific issue that needs to be dealt with. We have to find a way for them to save face, an escape route if you like. All this after calling us of: anti-science, global warming deniers, climate change deniers, spreading disinformation, big oil shills, when in fact the opposite was true. One example is one lady called me a “denier” in the Guardian; I responded by pointing to the science from the IPCC and peer review to put her right. I never heard from her again.
Many people who did not look closely at the science simply used their high school knowledge about co2 being a greenhouse gas, combined with what climate scientist were projecting for this century and became convinced and alarmed. Most have NEVER looked into climate sensitivity or the IPCC projections compared to observations.
2011
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/new-study-in-science-shows-climate-sensitivity-is-overhyped/

thisisnotgoodtogo
February 2, 2013 1:39 am

Mosher, you said
“…you can change the consensus from inside the tent rather than attacking everything and everyone. Focus on sensitivity, work to refine that. You see there is a debate in climate science, its a debate about sensitivity.
When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents)
then you will see changes.”
OK, but a month ago you said that debate was over and the topic had shifted to mitigation/adaptation. Those are the answers wanted by POWER. Not other natterings.
Not any more.
.

Dodgy Geezer
February 2, 2013 1:45 am

“an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist…”
May I suggest that, in memory of the late, great John Daly, all such admissions in the future (and I suspect there will be many of them) are labeled “Oddly Cheering”…

wikeroy
February 2, 2013 1:53 am

ferd berple says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm
“Partial pressure dictates that adding CO2 will drive H2O out of the atmosphere. Since H2O is a stronger GHG than CO2, the CO2 sensitivity is at best 0.”
That is a very good argument, easy to be forgotten in the heat of the argument. ( haha )
But Ferd, it is a long time since I had Gas Law stuff at school, ( 30 years ! ) so certain details are forgotten…. How do we know that it is H2O that is driven out, and not N2 ? Or a combination?

February 2, 2013 1:58 am

Steven Mosher:
I am replying to your posts at February 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm and February 1, 2013 at 6:01 pm.
As this answer explains, both your posts are silly, and they display a deluded view of the world.
In the former post you ask

Regardless of the source of all the extra C02, the real question is
1. is it safe to continue our geoengineering project of adding more c02?
2. How safe?
3. how do you know?

Firstly, that is NOT “the real question”: it is a trivial consideration. I will address “the real question” after answering your ‘straw men’ questions.
Secondly, there is no “geoengineering project of adding more c02” except in your imagination.
There is an emission of CO2 to the atmosphere as a by-product of industrialised civilisation. This is no more a “geoenineering project” than mining and making iron.
I answer your questions as follows.
A1.
Nothing is “safe”: crossing the road has risks.
Life consists of obtaining benefits which are worth the risks of getting them. Industrial civilisation has many “risks” and several of the “risks” (e.g. global thermo-nuclear war) pose greater threat than the by-product of CO2 emissions.
A2.
Nobody knows how “safe” is industrial civilisation.
But its benefits have been immense providing bulk populations with longer lives and riches beyond the wealth of Emperors in previous ages. The benefits have outweighed the “risks” of industrial civilisation although some of those “risks” have been realised (e.g. two mechanised world wars).
A3.
Nobody can know how to determine the safety of industrial civilisation.
This is because such knowledge requires a time-machine to view the future. However, there is no known reason to fear that future.
A more reasonable questions than yours would be
Is it rational to inhibit industrial civilisation and its benefits because some people claim a by-product of industrial civilisation may cause problems but they have failed to find any evidence to support their claim?
And that brings us to your post at February 1, 2013 at 6:01 pm which concludes saying this

Energy: The big problem is how to produce power for the 6Billion people who will have no power in 2050. That problem wont be solved by focusing on solutions that work for rich countries. Put another way, coal gas and nuclear and big grids dont work for the billions who live in poverty. its not about C02 its about trying to push centralized big iron solutions to countries were a different approach is needed. And you cannot scale big system down in size, balance of systems prevents that. To solve the problem of energy for the poor you need a solution that is engineered for the individual and mass produced.. as in build 6 billion of them.

That is so wrong it is gob-smacking!
There cannot be “6 billion of them” if they lack sufficient energy: people die without adequate energy for food, shelter, clothing and transport.
You make a ridiculous assertion when you write, “you cannot scale big system down in size, balance of systems prevents that”. It did not “prevent that” for the already industrialised world.
A century ago, “coal gas and nuclear and big grids” were built in a few decades in the industrialised world (well, nuclear came later). China has done it (including nuclear) recently.
The reason “coal gas and nuclear and big grids don’t work for the billions who live in poverty” is because people cease to be living in poverty when they have “coal gas and nuclear and big grids”. Their greater available energy supply frees them from needing to use all their time and effort to provide power so they can do additional productive activities.
Until people are provided with “coal gas and nuclear and big grids” then your suggestion of a smaller “individual” solution may benefit them. But you make an offensive assertion when you say the poor must cope with that instead of the benefits of industrialised society.
In summation:
Your arguments which I here quote are a misrepresentation of reality, and they assert that the poor must be kept poor. I reject all your arguments because they are untrue and they are offensive on practical, ethical and moral grounds.
Richard

DirkH
February 2, 2013 2:05 am

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:15 pm
“DirkH.
You have the process all wrong. The effect works by raising the ERL. Dont believe me, it was DOD research prior to AGW that settled that issue. Take it up with Christy or Spenser or Lindzen and explain to them why they are wrong about radiative physics. or write a paper an collect your nobel prize.”
First of all, nothing of what I said was wrong – or maybe something was but you didn’t show what.
Second, why are you trotting out an argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy. There’s no need for that.
Third, Spencer has written about the speed of radiative cooling with his box experiments.
Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Fourth, about the raising of the ERL, that’s a good point and it might increase the number of absorptions and re-emissions for an IR photon in the CO2 absorption bands slightly. But that opens up the interesting question, what happens with the postulated never-observed water vapor feedback? Will water vapor concentrations in the stratosphere rise as well as a consequence of rising CO2?
Why has the lower stratosphere dried out? Article from 2010:
http://www.economist.com/node/15443791
Is there a constructal law at work; shifting the distribution of water vapor as a consequence of the very slight shift in energy distribution through the antropogenically modified CO2 GHG?
Has any GCM ever predicted the observed drying out of the lower stratosphere? Not to my knowledge. Shouldn’t this be top on the list of failures that the climate modelers should be looking into? Shouldn’t they have admitted complete and utter defeat the moment this unsimulated drying out was observed, and begged for another 30 years of comparison between model runs and real temperatures before one draws any conclusion?
There’s so much more to say but I’m running out of time…

little polyp
February 2, 2013 2:08 am

joeldshore says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm
…is plenty high enough to mean that we are going to have to leave a lot of the fossil fuels in the ground (or sequester the emissions) if we don’t want to significantly alter the global climate and sea levels.
the geologists are yawning
haven’t you got anything else to offer – phreatomagmatic eruption, large meteorite impact, some glaciation or perhaps a little cordillera here or there…

John Tofflemire
February 2, 2013 2:23 am

Steven Mosher says:
“1. We are not prepared for the storms and weather of our grandparents. Regardless of the cause of Sandy, we should see that such storms are to be expected given the past. Perhaps things will get worse, but remember the evidence shows we are not prepared for the storms of the past much less the storms of the future.”
Steven is spot on.
Tokyo is well prepared for the storms of the present and is likely prepared for the storms of the future regardless of what they might be. My home is located in a section of the city that would, without an elaborate system of locks and barriers, be underwater at high tide for many, if not most, days. While major typhoons cause local flooding (typically at points in the local area below sea level) even the strongest of storms pass through here with little or no significant impact. In addition, all electrical poles are constructed either out of reinforced concrete or steel (mostly the former). Such structures hold up to the strongest winds and are designed to hold up to major earthquakes. As a result, there are few, if any, power outages here from even the strongest of storms.
The Tokyo subway system is also designed to be secure even in the face of the strongest of storms. Subway entrances, especially in areas at or below sea level, are usually raised above the street level. This helps keep rain water from penetrating into the subway system. In addition, subway entrances can be completely sealed off in the event of a flood, further protecting the system from flooding. It is also important to note that the Tokyo subway system tunnels, especially in the part of the city I live in, travel under large rivers and underneath an intricate system of canals.
In contrast, New York’s protection against major storms is a complete joke. There are no significant seawalls protecting any part of the city potentially exposed (except, perhaps, for the east side along the FDR Drive in the Midtown area). Forget about the Queens and Brooklyn shore completely exposed to the Atlantic. And lower Manhattan had nothing to protect New York’s (and America’s) second most important office area from the storm surge that has wrecked so much havoc and which has caused so much economic damage. Tunnels such as the Brooklyn-Battery, were also completely flooded.
The city’s subway system was similarly unprotected as water poured into tunnel and subway entrances. The resulting subterranean flooding shut down the subway system for days. But remember that NYC’s subway system was shut down a few years ago by a summer downpour over about two hours of about 2 inches (5 cm). Water poured down unprotected subway entrances completely innundating the system for a number of hours. New York can’t even protect itself against heavy downpours, forget major storms.
Then there is New Orleans which was devastated in 1965 by Betsy and which learned nothing from that storm. In spite of warnings, the city was essentially unprotected when Katrina came in 2005. Pre-Katrina, officials in Louisiana actually boasted that the levees protecting the city were world-class.
Babbling about climate change is, in the end, an excuse to not build adequate infrastructure to protect against existing storms. Rather, it is an excuse to tax and spend the money on something else because the tax itself is its own defense against “climate change”.

Jimmy Haigh
February 2, 2013 2:32 am

Off topic but what’s happened to Climate Audit? Some company called “Aplusnet” is now using the URL “http://climateaudit.org/”

Philip Shehan
February 2, 2013 3:00 am

There is nothing extraordinary about Annan’s comments.
A 2008 review of sensitivity by Knutti and Hegerl says:
“Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html
Annan offers his opinion that if outside this range, it is likely to be on the lower rather than higher end::
A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’

Philip Shehan
February 2, 2013 3:04 am

Apologies for the repeat. Did not notice the last one had already gone up after some difficulties.

JC
February 2, 2013 3:12 am

rgbatduke says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Actually, what he says (if you read it) is that the data is suggesting that it is less than 2. It’s not completely unreasonable for people to have a bit of inertia in their former opinions (and to cover their asses, and to hedge their bets) and not jump all the way from prior belief to exactly what the data says (Bayesian thinking supports this).
— Nope. I was correct in my earlier statement. Below is a direct quote from Annan himself:
“Yeah, I should probably have had a tl;dr version, which is that sensitivity is still about 3C.
The discerning reader will already have noted that my previous posts on the matter actually point to a value more likely on the low side of this rather than higher, and were I pressed for a more precise value, 2.5 might have been a better choice even then. But I’d rather be a little conservative than risk being too Pollyanna-ish about it.”
As I said before, Annan is *not* suggesting his best estimate of CS if less than 2… at least not yet.

JC
February 2, 2013 3:16 am

Oh, and Nic Lewis responded to Annan’s criticisms of his estimate and returned with a value only 0.05 K higher, at 1.67 K per doubling. In other words, the gripes had little effect whatsoever.

February 2, 2013 3:46 am

For humor, I enjoy reading the English major Steve Mosher’s ramblings. So far in one post he has proclaimed himself the spokes person for the “lukewarmers” (whomever they may be) which cannot include Richard Lindzen since he supports too low of a climate sensitivity (<1c) and it cannot include Steve McIntyre because he supports Lindzen's position on climate change. Which is all rather confusing since he refers to some poll over at Climate Audit.
To be part of the "lukewarmer" Mosher cult you apparently cannot question the "consensus" view on the surface record, radiative physics, solar influences on the climate, climate models or anything but climate sensitivity. And you must fall within his pre-defined range or be banished. Apparently you change things from the inside by being an English major and not publishing anything in the scientific literature, who knew?
Just so people are aware Mosher is also a master of the strawman argument, religiously attacking everyone who does not support his self defined lukewarmer cult as a "Skydragon" skeptic. It all gets very old and boring.
The irony of all of this is neither Lindzen, Christy or Spencer supports his views on climate change let alone policy, yet he trumps them out as if they did to manipulate those who do not know any better.

DaveA
February 2, 2013 3:49 am

Jimmy’s right. Did Steve let the domain lapse?

Bloke down the pub
February 2, 2013 3:52 am

‘Annan also speaks about lying as a political motivator within the IPCC’
I know you go on to give the quote in bold, but am I the only one to think the above line makes it sound like you are accusing Annan of lying?

J Martin
February 2, 2013 4:12 am

Mosher said;

I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.

Yet on both this blog and others, notably Tallbloke’s, one can often see extensive thoughts, discussions, physics and mathematics as the issues are explored. Hardly knee jerk contrarianism.

Most skeptics ~ think their science is settled .

Nonsense. Its totally the other way around. Most warmists think the science is settled and are forever proclaiming it so. I have never heard a sceptic claim anything is settled.
Scepticism is the very essence of healthy science.
(If Richard Feynman had said that it would be a well known quote / saying).

cui bono
February 2, 2013 4:22 am

Anthony, just a suggestion. Rather than having this as the Mosh-bashing thread, why don’t we WUWT readers have a poll on climate sensitivity. Not, obviously, to determine what the value *is* (only the IPCC could be that dumb) but to test Mosher’s statement “Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.”
Most of the WUWT readership are sceptically inclined, so (providing there is no mass influx of trolls) it would give a good measure of the bounds of scepticism, from ‘CO2 has no effect’ to ‘lukewarmers’.
Merely an idea.

J Martin
February 2, 2013 4:26 am

@Jimbo. You said;

We have to find a way for them to save face, an escape route if you like.

Sorry, but I completely disagree.
Their irrational and simplistic foolish fraudulent alarmism has led to the the weakening of many economies with the consequent impoverishment of many families and the destruction of large numbers of jobs. It has also led to a doubling in the cost of food along with needless starvation and death in some parts of the World.
I sincerely hope that the people and judicial systems of the West one day produce some sort of judicial investigation resulting in very long jail sentences for the key individuals such as Santer and Mann, and significant jail sentences for the rest, including many of the bewildered politicians that continue to blindly drive the global warming bandwagon.

Mike Mangan
February 2, 2013 4:50 am

Poor Mosher. He’s a Lukewarmer but communicates like an Alarmist. Think about it for a second. What characteristic do almost all Alarmists share? It is the inability to communicate. They are unable to state their position without the listener wanting to box their ears for it. Mosh is probably correct in the radiative whatever. So what? Why obsess about the exceedingly small subset of humanity who bickers about it? I blame his peer group. One just doesn’t save the world with a sneer on their face.

Bob Layson
February 2, 2013 4:56 am

As for Keynes’ remark on ‘the facts’ it should be realised that changing facts are entirely compatible with TRUE theories, as such theories will, and must have, had they been employed and the data were available, predicted the changes both with regard to necessary conditions and resultant effects (if…then…). It is only when new data contradicts the the theory that a theorist must change his or her mind.
So called ‘confirmation’ does not justify dismisal of the sceptic but refutation positively obliges one to invite all, sceptics included, to offer replacement theories.

DirkH
February 2, 2013 5:27 am

cui bono says:
February 2, 2013 at 4:22 am
“Anthony, just a suggestion. Rather than having this as the Mosh-bashing thread, why don’t we WUWT readers have a poll on climate sensitivity. Not, obviously, to determine what the value *is* (only the IPCC could be that dumb) but to test Mosher’s statement “Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.””
That poll would tell us nothing that refutes Mosher’s statement. I think that the sensitivity to CO2 is close enough to zero to be impossible to be determined experimentally or observationally. At the same time I don’t know WHY this is so. Why did the lower stratosphere dry out? Dunno. Is the Svensmark mechanism working? Dunno. And so on.
Mosher’s statement implies that people who think that the sensitivity is under 1 C also think the science is settled. Mosher’s statement does not apply to me. I just think that the last 15 years of stagnating temperatures SHOW that CO2 does not cause warming to any discernable extenct. Beenstock et al have analyzed the time series and come to the conclusion that there is no causation; the CO2AGW theory is not working as expected; that is sufficient for me to discard it.
I do NOT have to know what is the correct mechanism that drives temperatures to be able to come to this conclusion. Mosher’s statement is a non sequitor.

David
February 2, 2013 5:35 am

So – a contributor to the Zickfeld paper (on which the IPCC relied heavily) LIED to ‘help motivate political action’…
Politicians of all Western governments – TAKE NOTE. You’ve been conned – and we, the voters, are paying the price.
Start assembling your excuses…

Frank K.
February 2, 2013 5:43 am

This violates my 2013 New Year’s pledge, but…
Poptech says:
February 1, 2013 at 9:00 pm
I have no hostility towards English majors like Mosher. I do have a problem with those who take what he says seriously without knowing his background; Mosher’s educational background consists of BA’s in English Literature and Philosophy. His “scientific” background involves bringing MP3 players to market for Creative Labs as a marketing director.

Hmmm. Didn’t know that about SM. I had supposed that he had studied radiative heat transfer at the graduate level in college, like I did when when I was getting my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. Or advanced numerical analysis, computational fluid dynamics, partial differential equations, convective heat transfer, thermodynamics… He seems like a good guy, though, when he not ranting about skeptics.
OK…back to my New Year’s pledge…

J Martin
February 2, 2013 5:54 am

@ JoeldShore
You said ;

Unfortunately, 3 C…or even 2 C per CO2 doubling…is plenty high enough to mean that we are going to have to leave a lot of the fossil fuels in the ground. ~ (Even a sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 C would mean we are going to have to leave a lot of them in the ground

For your edification,
According to Physicist Bryce Johnson;
If we took the entire know reserves of fossil fuels and converted that all to co2 and put it all in the atmosphere in one go that would lead to a warming spike of 3 degrees which would very quickly drop.
The worst that man can do would be half a degree at best.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/bryce-johnson-limits-of-carbon-dioxide-in-causing-global-warming/

February 2, 2013 5:59 am

DirkH:
re your post at February 2, 2013 at 5:27 am.
Ditto.
Richard

Richard M
February 2, 2013 6:05 am

Add me to the list that doesn’t think Annan’s statement is all that important. The wheels will come off the bandwagon when one of the major science bodies admits it was wrong and issues an apology. Until then we can take comfort in the small victories, however the war is far from being won.
The unrelenting lack of warming is the only thing keeping skeptics (and even lukewarmers) afloat. The rest of the world is not aware of the details of the science and the media explosion of “dirty weather” articles is having an effect on joe public.
As for Mosher … he comes across exactly the same as most alarmists. He uses appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. It’s exactly like you hear on warmist blogs or the Guardian. For example, he states the temperature record is almost perfect while seemingly ignoring station siting problems, UHI, deforestation and lower atmospheric mixing due to man made structures just for starters. How can anyone take him seriously?

Alex
February 2, 2013 6:07 am

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1391/co2sensitivitylast545my.png
Bill Illis whats the source for this graf? this graf pretty much summs up what made me a sceptc when I looked at the long term temp/co2 record and as a engineer could not get it to fit with the “consensus” theory.This also shows that co2 concentration is far from the whole story I mean there is no way there could be a -+40 degree sensitivity, magnitude is way to big to make sense. I.e. somthing else is going on.
One other thing why does people assume that the feedback from co2 is static? I suspect it pushes the temp both ways with variable force depending on the temp, high temp negative feedback, low temp positive feedback.

michael hart
February 2, 2013 6:27 am

Well, in the past, Annan did at least have the good sense to leave the lying to the professionals…

February 2, 2013 6:40 am

A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’
###
Steven Mosher says
Lukewarmer.
Henry says
How long are you going to look at the actual measured black bars and figure out that the skeptics might be right and that we are heading down? It is a parabolic curve down. For one solar cycle (11 years) it is
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
cooling.
There is no more warming. Earth has started cooling down.
By my calculations we will keep on cooling until 2038
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Mark my words. This whole AGW, LW AGW and CAGW is going to fall to bits and pieces. Within the next 4 years. Better change your T-shirt now.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/01/24/our-earth-is-cooling/

mkelly
February 2, 2013 6:41 am

Double ditto Richard C and Dirk H sensitivity much less than one. Personally I think zero.

RockyRoad
February 2, 2013 7:06 am

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm

” Ok, Mr. Mosher, but are you absolutely sure that all of the additional CO2 is from humans and not some natural response to a warming earth?
Are you sure you’ve got it right?
######################
Since science only deals in the likely and unlikely there is no proof in science and hence no certainty. Adding GHGs to the atmosphere is more likely to warm the planet than cool it. there is no science suggesting otherwise. Regardless of the source of all the extra C02, the real question is
1. is it safe to continue our geoengineering project of adding more c02?
2. How safe?
3. how do you know?

Easy, Mr. Mosher: You haven’t shown anything to prove it’s unsafe–except you have completely misrepresented carbon dioxide in number 1 above by using a little c, a zero, and the number 2. It should be CO2 (carbon and two oxygen atoms), Steven, but then, you don’t have anything else right, either.
So burden of proof that additional CO2 is unsafe is still in your corner. I can’t find anything that shows CO2 at this or projected future levels is unsafe, so I have to conclude it IS safe.
However, I will list several huge benefits: Earth is greening up. Foodstuff production is up because of the additional “geoengineered” CO2. Trees grow about 30% faster now than they did 50 years ago. So since you completely ignore this fact, you aren’t an environmentalist at all–you aren’t willing to admit to any benefits at all because it would severely weaken your arguments of gloom and doom.
But here’s why I dwell on the “safety” aspect of your CAGW cult:
All you’ve been able to present, Steven, is a bunch of scaremongering from the same ilk that have caused the deaths of millions of people over the last several decades–one estimate as high as 500 million!
Now, if that’s the result of implementing your brand of scaremongering on a global scale, I’d say you are part of a HUGE problem, Mr. Mosher, and should be held accountable. You blather on and on about hypotheticals but the implementation of your beloved cult has been an unmitigated disaster for the human race, and there’s no relief in sight as long as you and others hold to such a facinorous cult.
You say you don’t like to talk about the politics of global warming, and now everybody can see why–because if you’d get out of your extremely myopic box of global warming, you’ll find the policies based on your cult are demonstrably and completely unsafe. Anything that reduces mankind’s ability to cope with life and causes numerous deaths should be charged to the perpetrators, and that includes scoundrels like YOU!
So yes, CO2 is safe. It is Lukewarmers like you who have made the world far less safe, especially for those least capable of coping with life. I’m cheering for CO2 as part of the solution; you are fighting it–the implications are clear.
Words cannot convey the measure of disrespect I have for people with such blatant disregard for human life.

Latitude
February 2, 2013 7:12 am

HenryP says:
February 2, 2013 at 6:40 am
There is no more warming. Earth has started cooling down.
=======
I thought temps didn’t matter, it was all about feedbacks causing run away global warming.
/snark (<do I really need that)

wikeroy
February 2, 2013 7:17 am

S. Mosher, you are too fixated on radiative physics. In a control loop, the, say, 1.2 degrees could easily be cancelled out by clouds. Which Roy Spencer clearly has demonstrated.
So even though if radiative physics says, perhaps 1.2 degrees, (and it is logarithmic, where most of the warming has already taken place) , the system consists of many control loops, with couplings, and they are not linear; In other words; humanity cannot model the system today.
As time goes by now, it would not surprise me if the global temperature will curve downwards the next 20-30 years maybe half a degree or so.
And people will look back at this period of history, wondering why some very few people were so scared. And managed to scare the whole world with their computer models.
Lindzens words, more or less.

rogerknights
February 2, 2013 7:18 am

Philip Shehan says:
February 2, 2013 at 3:00 am
There is nothing extraordinary about Annan’s comments.

How about these?

“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
“By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.”

joeldshore
February 2, 2013 7:19 am

J Martin says:

For your edification,
According to Physicist Bryce Johnson;
If we took the entire know reserves of fossil fuels and converted that all to co2 and put it all in the atmosphere in one go that would lead to a warming spike of 3 degrees which would very quickly drop.
The worst that man can do would be half a degree at best.

I am properly edified: I see that one can find claims on the internet that happen to match what one wants to believe. Your reason to believe that “Physicist Bryce Johnson” knows better than the rest of the scientific community…including those who actually publish in the field…besides the fact that he is telling you what you want to believe?

joeldshore
February 2, 2013 7:23 am

little polyp says:

the geologists are yawning
haven’t you got anything else to offer – phreatomagmatic eruption, large meteorite impact, some glaciation or perhaps a little cordillera here or there…

Oh…Okay, I didn’t realize this was the new standard for public policy. Following that, I assume you are against spending any money whatsoever to combat terrorism? Do you think that geologists see a plane hitting a building and causing it to collapse as some sort of major geological event compared to ones that have happened over the entire geologic history of the Earth?
What exactly do you care about if this is your standard?

Luther Wu
February 2, 2013 7:34 am

So what if this news adds to the huge body of evidence against the alarmist point of view… all I hear from world leaders is retrenchment, not retractions.
Did you hear the US President in his state of the union speech? Hear him backing down on statist/warmist rhetoric? How about from NY mayor Michael Bloomberg?

harrywr2
February 2, 2013 7:40 am

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:01 pm
“1. We are not prepared for the storms and weather of our grandparents. ”
Just because I don’t have ‘collision insurance’ for my 10 year old car doesn’t mean I’m not prepared for the inevitable fender bender.
Sometimes we simply make the decision to accept the losses when and if they occur. Of course we lie to ourselves about the fact that we took a decision to accept the losses when and if they occur and then demand that the losses be socialized. But that’s a different story.
Incurring storm damage losses is a fact of life. Anytime winds are going to be in the 60+ MPH range losses of zero become improbable.

Alan D McIntire
February 2, 2013 7:50 am

John F. Hultquist says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Many years ago my high school math teacher set us to “squaring the circle” and “trisecting an angle” – two of the three classical problems. Thus, when James Annan writes . . .
“they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be”
The problem the ancient greeks had was to construct a square equal to the area of a given circle using only straightedge and compass. The problem was finally proved to be impossible in 1882.
It can be done, but only by ” cheating”- not following the Greek geometers’ requirement of using just a straightedge and compass.
Create a wheel of the same size as the circle and which is half as wide as the circle’s radius.
Cover the side in wet paint and make it revolve over a flat surface exactly once.
This leaves a painted rectangle with the same surface as the circle.
Finish up by squaring this rectangle (this step can be done even with straightedge and compass).
So if “they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be”, they are admitted cheats.

February 2, 2013 7:50 am

This is rather amusing because I argued with Annan that models were running generally too hot back when McKitrick/McIntyre’s paper came out. He said then (incorrectly) that I didn’t understand and argued that models were ok.
It looks to me like two more years of non-extreme data may have him changing his mind.

February 2, 2013 7:51 am

RockyRoad says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/#comment-1214671
Henry says
Nice comment. I liked that. Don’t expect an answer from Steven Mosher, though. He ducks and hides for the skeptics who know too much.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/01/24/our-earth-is-cooling/

February 2, 2013 7:56 am

One fellow wrote: “‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’ ― John Maynard Keynes”
Another fellow answered: “Never quote Keynes… ever. The sooner he is buried in the history books the better. What an idiot.”
Murray N. Rothbard: “There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
🙂

Robbo
February 2, 2013 8:01 am

@Mosh
Huge respect towards you for your approach and hard work and sharing and everything but….
Suppose one feature of the climate is a very strong negative feedback, for example from the water cycle shifting energy from the surface by evaporation and convection high into the atmosphere where much of it gets radiated into space, such that a higher surface temperature leads to more evaporation leading to more surface cooling and more radiation to space.
If this is the case, and I believe that the relatively narrow range of surface temperatures during recent geological time (last 300 million years) requires some strong negative feedback mechanism, then whatever hypothetical temperature effect CO2 has will be tempered by this feedback, which need have nothing at all to do with CO2, because climate is a system, where the whole affects the whole, and components cannot be isolated, modelled, and reassembled into a faithful representation. So, if this, or something like it is the case, global temperature sensitivity to CO2 is not actually a useful concept at all. Does this make me a lukewarmer, a sceptic, or a ddddenier ?

February 2, 2013 8:07 am

Wikeroy says
As time goes by now, it would not surprise me if the global temperature will curve downwards the next 20-30 years maybe half a degree or so.
henry says
how right you are … without any calculations? How did you figure these values?
Looking carefully at my graphs, you will note with me that over the next 8 years or so, we will be cooling down at the maximum rate, of around -0.04 degrees C globally per year. That is ca. -0.3 degrees C down on the maxima by 2020. Plus at least another -0.2 from 2020 to 2038. And I think earth average temps. (means) will follow this trend because it has already used up most of its reserves. So the following two decades will be cold. Very cold. Cold enough for arctic to start up freezing again, completely. But if you count back 88 years you will always realize that we have been there before and we all came through…
So there is really nothing new under the sun. Everything is as it has always been. Natural global warming and natural global cooling have been with us, like, forever, or at least for as far back as I can see….
Don’t worry about the carbon. Start worrying (a bit) about the cold…

Jimbo
February 2, 2013 8:09 am

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm
………………
1. is it safe to continue our geoengineering project of adding more c02?
2. How safe?
3. how do you know?.

1. Yes
2. Very safe.
3. The Earth carried out this experiment at far higher levels of co2 in the past and you are still here. In fact the biosphere has been greening including the Sahel.

Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
Abstract
Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/957

Don’t believe me, see it for yourself.
http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE

joeldshore
February 2, 2013 8:10 am

J Martin says:

Yet on both this blog and others, notably Tallbloke’s, one can often see extensive thoughts, discussions, physics and mathematics as the issues are explored. Hardly knee jerk contrarianism.

Wow…You seriously think Tallbloke’s blog is a notable example of that?!?
What it is an example of is people who don’t understand physics and mathematics pretending they understand it better than the real scientists. Here is one example of the level of nonsense there; Stephen Wilde, who apparently considers himself an expert on the ideal gas law (so much so that he lectures about how climate scientists have ignored its implications) doesn’t even understand the difference between number of particles an density ( http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/stephen-wilde-greenhouse-gases-and-the-ideal-gas-law/ ):

However, an increase in V results in a reduction of density (n) throughout an atmosphere which must REDUCE the product of nRT.

And, when someone tries to explain this simple basic point, he just digs himself deeper into circles of nonsense.

Jimmy Haigh
February 2, 2013 8:21 am

J Martin says:
February 2, 2013 at 4:26 am
I agree 100%. Why should we let the warm-mongers off with it?

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 8:26 am

D.B. Stealey says:
February 2, 2013 at 12:37 am
I’ve met Steven Mosher a few times, and I must say he is not like he comes across in his comments. He’s a nice guy, and he’s not not arrogant or condescending like he appears here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
When someone is peaches and cream to your face and claws and teeth to your back, one is best served not to turn one’s back on him. For every person he is “nice” to face to face, he influences thousands with his written word. Hence the saying “the pen is mightier than the sword”.
The damage that Mosher does with his pen is extensive, and how nice a guy he is in person is of little importance.

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 8:43 am

day by day
What I am going to ask, and still not qualified, is about the adjusted surface temperature being pretty correct within .2C. Mosher says, : Well, its pretty easy to test. I take a random sample of around 300 stations. I construct an estimate for the temperature at other locations. i used my sample of 500 to predict the other locations.
Guess what? damn, those estimates of out of sample cases are always bang on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The statement isn’t worth arguing with because it is constructed of statements too vague to be called science. What does “always” mean? They did it once, twice, 50, 500 times? They got it right each and every time? What does “bang on” mean? Within 10 degrees? 1 degree? 0.000001 degrees? If you make the acceptable error range large enough, you can make the statement true. I took the temperature of the entire earth in my living room this morning, and it is always bang on…. +/- 100 degrees. See how easy it is to be right?

February 2, 2013 8:49 am

Alex says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/#comment-1214644
Henry says
there are just too many variables that have not been tested
try to understand this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/
and it follows from my observations
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
that earth just follows natural forces, mostly by the conversion of radiation to heat by the UV falling into the oceans.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/01/24/our-earth-is-cooling/

Apoxonbothyourhouses
February 2, 2013 8:50 am

I will believe the corner has been turned when the science is sufficiently “settled” that billions are redirected away from a few academics / IPCC etc. and towards the many millions that don’t even have clean water. Until then Europe (for example) is and will continue to be a financial basket case pouring money down the drain in an arrogant attempt to counter the natural cycles of our sun. Please God we never forget this is not just an interesting scientific exercise.

Man Bearpig
February 2, 2013 8:57 am

Steve Mosher Says …
I dont think …
————————-
Now, I have been accused of cherry picking in the past and I do my best to not do that anymore, but I couldn’t resist this one.
Sorry Steve.

pottereaton
February 2, 2013 9:00 am

Mosher, like all of us, is giving his best estimate as to what is going on with climate. He’s the gift that keeps on giving, which is not to compare him to venereal disease. LOL. He’s making you all think and defend your positions. I don’t happen to agree with him, but he’s mostly elevated the discourse in my experience and done it without being unduly ideological or dictatorial. The problem is with the intractable true believers at RealClimate, SkepticalScience and DeSmog blog, not with people like Mosher, who readily engage and defend their positions.

February 2, 2013 9:17 am

OT, but has anyone looked at Climate Audit recently?
It was there this morning, but it now seems to lead to a page from “aplus.net”.

Björn
February 2, 2013 9:21 am

Jimmy Haigh says:
February 2, 2013 at 2:32 am
“Off topic but what’s happened to Climate Audit? Some company called “Aplusnet” is now using the URL “http://climateaudit.org/ ”
I often used climete audit as a kind of a springboard to other climate sites, and since this morning get a website with the name “Aplusnet” if i try to go there , and it looks like it is offering the domain name for sale or something , does anyone know if Stev’s site has been hacked , or if he has let his registration expire and packed up and gone to the moon or something. ????

Mark Bofill
February 2, 2013 9:25 am

joeldshore says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm
There is nothing particularly new about what Annan is saying now…It is what he has been saying since about 2006: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html He believes that climate sensitivity is quite well-constrained and that claims that it is much greater or much less than 3 C are both worthy of ridicule. Some other scientists are doubtful that (particularly the upper boundary) is really as well-constrained as Annan believes it to be.
Unfortunately, 3 C…or even 2 C per CO2 doubling…is plenty high enough to mean that we are going to have to leave a lot of the fossil fuels in the ground (or sequester the emissions) if we don’t want to significantly alter the global climate and sea levels. It just means that fatalistic notions that it is already too late to do anything are probably just that…too fatalistic. (Even a sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 C would mean we are going to have to leave a lot of them in the ground, particularly as it seems that we will continue to find enough fossil fuels to really shoot CO2 to quite astronomical levels if we burn them all.)
———————————————————————-
Damage control, Joel?
It’s strange that you claim there’s nothing new in what Annan’s saying. It is indeed well known that his position has been that CS=3C for some time. Other than speculating that perhaps you haven’t read the material carefully, I’m at a loss to explain how you missed his quote at Dot Earth, “A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.”.
Also, are you ignoring Annan’s blog post? “Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.” In a way you are correct; it is not in fact news to me or others who have spent time going through the climate-gate emails, or who have examined the Soon / Balinuas debacle, the blog discussions about IPCC reliance on grey literature, or any of the other sordid examples of chinanery surrounding climate science. Still, an open and matter of fact admission of scientists deliberately lying about sensitivity to motivate political action from an important and respected climate scientist might be news to the mainstream folks who don’t bother to investigate these things closely.
Finally, let me note that I really wasn’t alarmed about sea level rise back when the IPCC was projecting 4.5C warming, and I’m not alarmed about it at a 2C projected warming either. I’m certainly not going to start writing my Congressman in a panic now that people are beginning to realize that such projections weren’t credible. If anything, I think this demonstrates that a lot of hoke has been passed off as real science, and that we ought to step back and reassess what errors in our socio-political methodology led us to this in the first place.

February 2, 2013 9:39 am

DirkH says February 1, 2013 at 3:20 pm

GHG’s absorb and re-emit IR photons; basically scattering it. As radiative exchange is a quick process, many such exchanges happen in minutes. It doesn’t matter much whether a photon from the Earth’s surface goes to space instantly or is scattered a few times.
The absorption bands of CO2 at 4.3 micrometer corresponds to a color temperature of 600 K. The band at 15 micrometer to a color temperature of 200 K.

And, of course, you have been reminded before this is a curve, with those spectral peaks, not discrete points … also, you would be better off describing these effects in the EM field domain as opposed to ‘photon’; maybe you can otherwise explain how a simple dipole antenna works (as certainly the atoms within say an H2O or C02 molecule respond) with ‘photons’ and coupling and such?
.

joeldshore
February 2, 2013 9:58 am

Mark Bofill says:

I’m at a loss to explain how you missed his quote at Dot Earth, “A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.”.

And, this differs dramatically from this statement that James made in March 2006 ( http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html ) how exactly:

If I was giving round numbers, I would simply say 3+-0.5 (at 1sd, Gaussian) is a pretty good estimate – that makes
2.5-3.5C is likely (68%)
2-4 is very likely (95%)

That statement is perfectly compatible with his current statement that “A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5” since a value above 4.5 C would be more than 3 standard deviations away and a value of slightly under 2 would only be a little more than 2 standard deviations away.

…or who have examined the Soon / Balinuas debacle,..

I’m not sure what you think this illustrates. That debacle is illustrative of how willing the “AGW skeptic” community is willing to tolerate bad and deceptive science when it tells them what they want to hear.

February 2, 2013 10:05 am

Steven Mosher:
“Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.
davidmhoffer says February 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm:
As I have pointed out to you many times already, sensors, cell phones, and radar use the part of the radiated signal that does NOT get absorbed in the atmosphere.

Point being missed here, I think, It *was* necessary, at some point, however, to have studied the effects as EM energy transmission through the atmosphere, both optical (for, say, missile launch signatures) and ‘RADAR’ as the frequencies used progressed higher and higher, initially as defense activities and eventually as commercial, civilian activities (weather satellites observing both LW and SW IR wavelengths and DBS satellites for instance)
I’m sure you’re aware of “rain fade”, if you’ve ever subscribed to satellite TV (e.g. Dish Network) and no doubt witnessed the evening newscast with nighttime ‘cloud cover’ depicted?
Atmospheric Transmission (transparency) vs frequency graph:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/spectrum.jpg
.

Mark Bofill
February 2, 2013 10:08 am

joeldshore says:
February 2, 2013 at 9:58 am
….
——————————-
When I started by asking ‘Damage control?’, you could’ve just replied ‘Yes’, you know.

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 10:15 am

_Jim;
I’m sure you’re aware of “rain fade”, if you’ve ever subscribed to satellite TV (e.g. Dish Network)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I sure have. Which leaves me knowing precisely what the signal that made it through was, and tells me precisely nothing about what happened to the signal that didn’t, other than it didn’t.

February 2, 2013 10:25 am

henry@joeldshore
I think we have crossed swords before to which you continually seem to duck and dive,
just like, Steven Mosher,
Again, I would like to hear your opinion as to why we (on earth) are cooling, past 11 years (one solar cycle)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
as it seems the only logical explanation to me is an 88 years a-c wave
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
showing us that we will continue to cool for a long time to come.
Please enlighten me if you have different proof for warming/cooling in the future?

February 2, 2013 10:40 am

And while some here are arguing “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, the activists are still using ‘CO2 causes climate change’ argument (no matter what influence it has on the climate) as a political weapon.
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-feds-warming-imperils-wolverines-134916931.html
Wildlife advocates, who sued to force the government to act on the issue, said the animal’s plight should be used by the Obama administration to leverage tighter restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
As with the polar bear, the government is sidestepping that thorny proposition with the wolverine, and said in Friday’s proposal that listing the animal as threatened “will not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.”
Thabault said the agency would be on tenuous scientific grounds if it tried to draw a link between specific emission sources and impacts on wolverines.
Advocates expressed disappointment, with Noah Greenwald from the Center for Biological Diversity saying the administration “should not be exempting greenhouse gas emissions from the Endangered Species Act.”
A Washington, D.C., attorney, John Martin, who represented the energy industry during litigation over polar bears, said he expects no change in the administration’s policy against using endangered wildlife to regulate emissions.
So far I have not seen a compelling argument anywhere that proves, backed up by empirical data, the influence of CO2 on a complex system such as the Earth’s climate.
Where is it?
This whole scientific discussion, while interesting, about the influence of CO2 on the climate is a red herring.
‘CO2 causes climate change’ is the ultimate ‘weapon’ of the ‘watermelon’ activist.
Instead of demanding proof that their theory is correct (The scientific method), we are now compelled to prove them wrong…..
In the meantime the activists will invoke the ‘precautionary principle’ (It’s for the children) to further their agenda of de-industrialisation, re-distribution and political change.
I refuse to play their game.

Theo Goodwin
February 2, 2013 10:51 am

At this time there is an excellent discussion of the differences among physics, physics in a computer model, and physics constrained by empirical evidence. It seems to me that the best place to tap in is http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/do-forests-drive-wind-and-bring-rain-is-there-a-major-man-made-climate-driver-the-models-miss/#more-26699.

DirkH
February 2, 2013 10:55 am

_Jim says:
February 2, 2013 at 9:39 am
“And, of course, you have been reminded before this is a curve, with those spectral peaks, not discrete points”
You don’t have to remind me. Yet the energy drops off to lower frequencies with a curve that approximates the 4th power of the temperature.
” … also, you would be better off describing these effects in the EM field domain as opposed to ‘photon’; maybe you can otherwise explain how a simple dipole antenna works (as certainly the atoms within say an H2O or C02 molecule respond) with ‘photons’ and coupling and such?”
Picking nits much?

Theo Goodwin
February 2, 2013 10:58 am

markstoval says:
February 2, 2013 at 7:56 am
That’s funny. Thanks. My guess is that if Marx and Keynes could have met in their respective primes then we would know neither of them today.

February 2, 2013 11:00 am

davidmhoffer says February 2, 2013 at 10:15 am

I sure have. Which leaves me knowing precisely what the signal that made it through was, and tells me precisely nothing about what happened to the signal that didn’t, other than it didn’t.

Care to take an educated guess on where it may have ended up?
Are you at all familiar with the term: Radio Detection and Ranging and the principle by which it operates (‘backscatter’)?
Have you ever had a ‘lab’ class where your objective was to measure the reflectivity (and transmissivity) of various RF ‘transparent’ mediums (using, say, a network analyzer)? … this can also include the introduction of various gases in the ‘test’ area … commonly this is a known field of spectroscopy for measuring the characteristics of materials …
(To sum it up, I don’t think there are very many (read that as “any”) unknowns regarding ‘what happens’.)
.

J Martin
February 2, 2013 11:00 am

@ joeldshore.
You’re a professor of physics at a US University ?
I give you a link to an article by a nuclear physicist and you completely duck that and instead take aim at an English lawyer, one of whose hobbies is climate science and who undoubtedly doesn’t describe himself as knowing everything there is to know about physics, though perhaps you do ?
You could instead have followed the example of dear old Leif Svalgaard who does an admirable job in spending a great deal of his time educating and engaging with the hoi polloi including myself. Your time would be better spent helping educate and elucidating your opinions and points of view instead of aggressively attacking those of us who perhaps don’t know everything there is to know about physics.
Go the read the Bryce Johnson post and engage.

joeldshore
February 2, 2013 11:18 am

Mark Bofill says:

When I started by asking ‘Damage control?’, you could’ve just replied ‘Yes’, you know.

Well, I guess it is a matter of perspective. It seems like you are doing “damage control” to explain why news that is about 7 years old is considered “breaking”…At this rate, in another year or so, WUWT will announce as breaking news what was said in the AR4 IPCC report.
HenryP says:

Again, I would like to hear your opinion as to why we (on earth) are cooling, past 11 years (one solar cycle)

The short answer is that it is “cooling” for the same reason that you can cherry-pick other similar periods between 1975 and now where the slope of the trend is not positive…And, for the same reason, that one can create artificial data that consists of a constant underlying linear increasing trend plus noise and find periods of time where the trend is negative. This simple concept of how trends work in noisy data tends to fool non-scientists, which is why there is such a divide on this issue between what the “skeptic” community thinks and what the scientific community thinks.

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 11:34 am

_Jim;
(To sum it up, I don’t think there are very many (read that as “any”) unknowns regarding ‘what happens’.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was going to dissect your response line by line, but decided to let this last statement of yours stand on its own merit.

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 11:39 am

joeldshore;
I have asked this question of Steven Mosher and Zeke Hausfather without response. Perhaps you would like to respond?
With global temperature trend being expressed as an average of temperature anomalies, how do you justify averaging anomalies from very cold regimes with anomalies from very warm regimes given that via Stefan-Boltzman Law these represent completely different energy fluxes?

apachewhoknows
February 2, 2013 11:47 am

joeldshore,
On the thinking issue. “It is not what someone thinks”.
Got me some physics, inter. and dif. cal. , some chem. some EE degree, then some grad work back in the 1960’s at UTA then worked applied physics, EE, electronics with U.S. Gov. operation igloo white in Asia, then back to General Dynimics in Ft. Worth getting the terrian following radar to work with humans for the F-111.
What we found on sicience, physics, math, electonics and stuff was it was not what we thought so much as what worked. Worked the same way every time, worked that way because we had the basic physics, math, electronics, wires, circuts 100% correct.
Now when Michael Mann and his merry band of thousands of thinking ones on how it should work get to the point that it works the way they think it should every time and as in the F-111 some one could put his life on the line that the terrian following radar would work the same way ever last time, then Michael Mann etal will be on the other side of their opinion and on the side of real science.
Have a nice day.

Mark Bofill
February 2, 2013 12:00 pm

Mark Bofill says:
When I started by asking ‘Damage control?’, you could’ve just replied ‘Yes’, you know.
Well, I guess it is a matter of perspective. It seems like you are doing “damage control” to explain why news that is about 7 years old is considered “breaking”
——————————————————————————
Well, I appreciate your relatively straightforward and honest reply. But let me take your words to heart. Let’s not digress, but instead focus on that part of the news that IS fresh and new. You can disabuse me if this was already common knowledge, btw.
So, what’s your take on this statement?
“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Are you surprised to hear this? I think this could be a bit of a let down for those who trusted the integrity of climate scientists, but I’d love to hear your thoughts!

February 2, 2013 12:07 pm

joeldshore:
At February 2, 2013 at 11:18 am you say

The short answer is that it is “cooling” for the same reason that you can cherry-pick other similar periods between 1975 and now where the slope of the trend is not positive…And, for the same reason, that one can create artificial data that consists of a constant underlying linear increasing trend plus noise and find periods of time where the trend is negative. This simple concept of how trends work in noisy data tends to fool non-scientists, which is why there is such a divide on this issue between what the “skeptic” community thinks and what the scientific community thinks.

I am at a loss to comprehend how you could know or understand “what the scientific community thinks” but I will let that pass.
Of course, when the Earth is recovering from the LIA “you can cherry-pick other similar periods between 1975 and now where the slope of the trend is not positive”. But the time from the present back is NOT a “cherry pick”: it is an indication of what is happening now. And the recent halt to global warming indicates that recovery from the LIA has stopped perhaps permanently.
However, your comment that I quote poses an obvious question which I put to you.
The question is
How long does the globe have to experience no discernible warming before you agree that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is not causing global warming?
Please note that using http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php to determine how long it has been that the global temperature trend is not different from zero at 95% confidence one obtains the following values from the different data sets.
RSS
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 23 years .
Trend: +0.126 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
UAH
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 19 years .
Trend: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
Hacrut3
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 19 years .
Trend: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
Hacrut4
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 18 years .
Trend: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
GISS
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 17 years .
Trend: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
The times to the nearest month when warming is not significant for each set are:
RSS since September 1989;
UAH since April 1993;
Hadcrut3 since September 1993;
Hadcrut4 since August 1994 and
GISS since October 1995
I await your answer to – but anticipate your evasion of – my question.
Richard

Rhys Jaggar
February 2, 2013 12:20 pm

And there I was thinking that Kofi Annan had seen the errors of Pachauri’s ways…….
Still, you write a mean headline, don’t you?!

RockyRoad
February 2, 2013 12:23 pm

joeldshore says:
February 2, 2013 at 11:18 am

The short answer is that it is “cooling” for the same reason that you can cherry-pick other similar periods between 1975 and now where the slope of the trend is not positive…And, for the same reason, that one can create artificial data that consists of a constant underlying linear increasing trend plus noise and find periods of time where the trend is negative. This simple concept of how trends work in noisy data tends to fool non-scientists, which is why there is such a divide on this issue between what the “skeptic” community thinks and what the scientific community thinks.

You have it 100% wrong, joeldshore-You should have written “…which is why there is such a divide on this issue between what the “skeptical scientific” community thinks and what the “climate scientist” community thinks.
You see, true scientists are skeptics, so you automatically preclude any of those who agree with you as being “scientists”. And you can write all sorts of fiction, but temperatures are not controlled by CO2; models do a horrible job of forecasting (they can’t even hindcast); and you have a perfect double fail, joel.
But I’ll lump you in the same group as Steven Mosher–those responsible for the deaths of literally millions of earth’s human inhabitants because you’ve been suckered into the Global Warming cult, which no right-thinking person would ever do, joel.
Consider yourself executioner by design or default–either way it matters a great deal to all of the victims of your vile “climate science”.
(Or are you going to somehow justify “saving humanity” by killing humanity??)
Pathetic.

Jaye Bass
February 2, 2013 12:25 pm

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm
” Rex says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm (Edit)
> Mosher :
> lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record,
> its probably correct to within .2C
I disagree with the claimed accuracy of the surface record.
The network of temperature stations is being treated as if
it were a survey, whereas in fact it is a dog’s breakfast, and
being asked to fulfill a role for which it was never intended.
##################
Well, its pretty easy to test. I take a random sample of around 300 stations. I construct an estimate for the temperature at other locations. i used my sample of 500 to predict the other locations.
Guess what? damn, those estimates of out of sample cases are always bang on.
Wanna know something even better. So, you might think you’re right. I used to think that too. But, I pulled out my feynman, tested your idea and had to give your idea up.
go figure.

Give me a break. You can’t detect bias with the sort of experiment.

Matthew R Marler
February 2, 2013 1:03 pm

Steven Mosher: Which comments are “crazy refusals over radiative physics”? Plenty of people write about non-radiative heat transfer processes, and the non-equilibrium, non-steady state, non-stationarity of the overall system than make inferences from simple radiative models suspect. Don’t even lukewarmers have to drop the (crazy ?) refusals to acknowledge these limitations of the science?
…..
We know from first principles, verified by testing, that doubling will get us to 1.2C. Now, you suggest that other less well known and less certain considerations might overturn what is A) tested physics and B) physics that us used to build working devices. I think the recognition of limitations rightly should be pressed upon those who promote the less well know rather than the more well known.

What I meant was the “crazy” insistence that “first principles” based on radiative physics and equilibrium alone are sufficient to tell us what the effect of doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will be. 1.2C change is less than the global average approximation error of the equilibrium model, assuming that the current estimated mean temperature well approximates the current “equilibrium” temperature.
What exactly do you mean by “verified by testing”? Has there been a “test” of the climate warming effect of CO2 doubling and has the effect of 1.2C on the “equilibrium” temperature been confirmed? Model results are generally called “models”, “scenarios” and such rather than predictions, but to date the modeled values overestimate the quantity that matters, namely the increase in mean temperature induced by increased CO2. The disparity may not satisfy the criteria of a “statistically significant” rejection of the models, but they certainly have not be “verified by testing”. What has been verified by testing are a lot of radiative properties of CO2 unrelated to the question facing us now: given the atmosphere and climate as they are now, what will be the effects on climate of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Repeating one of your sentences: I think the recognition of limitations rightly should be pressed upon those who promote the less well know rather than the more well known.
I think that the people studying the less well known, perhaps the people promoting them as well, recognize the limitations of the knowledge. I interpret your comment as asserting that the less well-known processes should be ignored outright and they can’t in the aggregate matter. But they should be studied, and they might matter: the most commonly mentioned is the possible increase in albedo resulting from increased cloud cover.
Please tell us how you know that the “first principles” are sufficient for predicting the effects of increased CO2 on the actual, non-equilibrium, climate.

Philip Shehan
February 2, 2013 1:48 pm

rogerknights says:
February 2, 2013 at 7:18 am
If an individual made the comment as Annan reports then he is completely lacking in integrty.
The second statement is puzzling in that as I have pointed out, this whole thread is based on the puzzling claim by Annan is saying something at odds with the majority of scientists on the sensitivity question.
He isn’t.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again:
A 2008 review of sensitivity by Knutti and Hegerl says:
“Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html
Annan offers his opinion that if outside this range, it is likely to be on the lower rather than higher end::
A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’

February 2, 2013 2:06 pm

Crosspatch up thread makes a good point. Too many people have their livelihoods invested in all this unscientific rubbish.
its quite shocking to see this perversoi0n of science.

Mark Bofill
February 2, 2013 2:17 pm

Philip Shehan says:
February 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm
…this whole thread is based on the puzzling claim by Annan is saying something at odds with the majority of scientists on the sensitivity question.
————————————-
Since JoelDShore has apparently split, maybe you’d field this instead Philip. You don’t think James Annan’s quote is at all worth talking about?
“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
It’s a concise statement in and of itself, but the discussion surrounding it is every bit as interesting. ‘Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”.’, regarding the ‘private opinion poll’ he talks about.
Like I told Joel, this doesn’t particularly surprise me personally, but I think it ought to be news to more mainstream folk who don’t pay close attention to climate science. You don’t think this is worth a thread?

John M
February 2, 2013 2:25 pm

Philip Shehan says:
February 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Also from your reference

However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values.

Looks like Annan just ruled out those higher sensitivities.

February 2, 2013 2:44 pm

Philip Shehan:
Your post at February 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm is as illogical as all your other assertions on WUWT.
If, as you assert, the so-called “consensus” is
“Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.”
then Annan is breaking with the “consensus” when, as you admit, he suggests the value could be less than 2 °C because his suggestion is below the consensus range.
Hence, according to your own statements, you are wrong when you claim Annan is not “saying something at odds with the majority of scientists on the sensitivity question”.
In light of your previous mind-blocks when your errors are pointed out, I will restate your error in other words in hope that you will grasp at least one of the explanations.
(a) You say the “consensus” of most climate scientists is that
“Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.”
and
(b) You admit Annan is suggesting climate sensitivity may be lower than 2 °C (i.e. lower than that “consensus”range.
but
(c) You make the claim that Annan is not disputing the “consensus” range, and this claim refutes either (a) or (b).
Richard

February 2, 2013 2:49 pm

Friends:
Philip Shehan wrote, “At the risk of repeating myself yet again:”
Extrapolation suggests he will repeat himself again and again and …
He has done that on four previous WUWT threads.
Richard

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 2:50 pm

Mark Bofill;
Since JoelDShore has apparently split, maybe you’d field this instead Philip. You don’t think James Annan’s quote is at all worth talking about?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well its only been a few hours since his last post, let’s give him some more time. As for the quote, I’ll note that when Pachauri was confronted with the fact that he knew that the 2035 date for the Himalayan glaciers to be gone by was bogus, he said they left it in with the hope of it motivating decision makers to action. When the head of the IPCC sets the standard, we should hardly be surprised that his minions follow his lead.
In the meantime, unless Joel returns to this thread, the list of people who have declined to answer my question regarding the justification for averaging anomalies from completely different temperature regimes when SB Law dictates that this means the w/m2 associated with them is radically different and so not indicative in any way of energy balance at earth surface now reads:
Zeke Hausfather
Steven Mosher
Joel D Shore

Matt G
February 2, 2013 2:58 pm

Can we get a even lower sensitivity just from radiative physics than 1.2c?
When people like Steven are claiming the 1.2c per doubling based on a uniform air column in a lab, but ignoring the Earth’s radiative physics without feedback’s then they are no better.
Why does the so called acceptance of radiative physics include ignoring the planets radiative physics? ignored below when claiming a non feedback, while both skeptics and lukewarmers are both included in this category.
The 3.7W/m2 is claimed for a doubling of CO2, yet 324 W/m2 is claimed for all greenhouse back radiation. A doubling of CO2 therefore is just 1.1% of the total. If 33c represents the total for greenhouse gases this just represents 0.36c rise per doubling of CO2. This is being generous because most of the warming from greenhouse gases occurs during the first parts with it being logarithmic. This also doesn’t take a water body into account either on the surface.
There is obviously some disagreement here compared with the theoretical 1.2c per doubling CO2. The reason is obviously because this is partly derived from ideas over land not the ocean. The 324 W/m2 claimed for all greenhouse gases doesn’t warm a bucket of water in the shade during one day, so 1.1 percent of this even if atmospheric levels in future were reached are so miniscule. No wonder we can’t measure the difference from zero now with many decades until the possibility for a doubling of CO2 is reached.
Since the 1960’s CO2 levels have raised 80ppm until now so a doubling of CO2 won’t occur until it hits 630ppm. That means we are 25.4% of the target for a doubling of CO2. Therefore CO2 should have since the 1960’s only warmed the planet by 0.09c. The planet since then has risen 0.4c so only 25 percent at the most has come from CO2.
Therefore the Earth’s radiative physics not in a laboratory, shows the basic doubling of CO2 is 0.36c. This is how it should be when claiming a non feedback or not taking into account any feedback.

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 2, 2013 3:43 pm

@RodgerKnights:
Also note that in India ‘central Iron’ nuclear has worked rather well…
While I’m all for “rocket stoves” and better lamps, nothing stops coal / steam from working in Africa as well as it did in 1800s America (then a backwater…) or early 1900s Russia.
Nuclear solutions can be quite small too. (Toshiba makes one small enough for a village… offered it to an Alaska village, but the US rejected it…)
Second the notion about making NYC buildings more water proof. Why they put the electrical vaults below water level is a mystery… (Were it up to me I’d have all backup generators and switch rooms well above max water line. Heck, I’d even have auto-drop water tight doors around the perimeter that shut if water over a couple of feet shows up in the basement and auto-start bilge pumps…)
Oh Well. They didn’t ask me…

Greg House
February 2, 2013 4:44 pm

Steven Mosher says:
“Take it up with Christy or Spenser or Lindzen and explain to them why they are wrong about radiative physics.”
“But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.”

===========================================================
Steven, there is one logical issue in what you said. I guess, by “radiative physics” you mean the alleged capability of so called “greenhouse gases” to warm the surface by back radiation and that by 33C. The problem is, that this sort of warming would become a part of radiative physics first after it has been proven to really work in the real world. It is not sufficient to just call it “radiative physics”. It is irrelevant as well, who exactly calls it so without first proving it correct.
If someone calls “2×2=5” basic math, it is still not necessarily basic math.
The same goes for that warming by back radiation, the official IPCC concept.
So, everyone who claims that this “greenhouse warming” is a scientific fact, and is at the same time unable to present a scientific proof for that, is automatically wrong.

Philip Shehan
February 2, 2013 5:00 pm

Mark:
I already wrote what I think of the comment, again at the risk of repeating myself (yes Richard), if an individual made the comment as Annan reports then he is completely lacking in integrity.
But no, I don’t think a statement allegedly made by one unnamed individual at an unnamed meeting is worth an entire thread.
Similarly, an opinion poll of 14 scientists does not count for much and I am surprised PNAS found it worthy of publication. The opinion of one person (Annan) on that poll counts for even less. (Approximately 1/14 as a rough first guess).
That said, opinions of the 14 are now two and half years old, and at that time, according to the abstract:
“The width and median values of the probability distributions elicited from the different experts for future global mean temperature change under the specified forcing trajectories vary considerably. Even for a moderate increase in forcing by the year 2050, the medians of the elicited distributions of temperature change relative to 2000 range from 0.8–1.8 °C, and some of the interquartile ranges do not overlap. Ten of the 14 experts estimated that the probability that equilibrium climate sensitivity exceeds 4.5 °C is >0.1”
So John M, Annan’s “ruling out” of higher sensitivities, even if correct, does not fundamentally disagree with 10 of the other “experts” who said there was only a 10% probability that sensitivity would exceed 4.5 C.

February 2, 2013 5:09 pm

Since CG1 and the Copenhagen Climate summit, both in the late fall 2009, there has appeared in the public discourse more increasingly open critical analyses about the the IPCC’s alarming climate sensitivity assessments.
Analyses of the direct effect sensitivities of CO2 doubling on SAT when assuming Earth-atmospheric system equilibrium have yielded progressively lower values since 2009.
With growth of open skepticism we have seen the steady reduction of the intentional alarming AGW bias in the science community. Since skepticism about alarming AGW is continuing to expand, I expect direct effect CO2 climate sensitives will asymptotically approach a lower bound in the order of ~0.5C range or less.
As to feedbacks, given the widespread amount of geological research and data, the feedback to increased CO2 must be at least a moderately negative value.
With the exposure of its intentional alarming bias the IPCC is now irrelevant enough that objective climate science progress can start.
John

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 5:09 pm

Greg House;
So, everyone who claims that this “greenhouse warming” is a scientific fact, and is at the same time unable to present a scientific proof for that, is automatically wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This comment from an individual who, over the last couple of weeks has:
1. Claimed the results of an e-mail survey of climate scientists in which he filled in the opinions of those who did not respond, insisting that he knew what they would have said had they responded.
2. Claimed that a change in forcing from a change in cloud cover should result in a new equilibrium temperature in 0.00001 seconds.
3. Presented as proof that clouds do not have a warming effect a link to a single weather station over a single 24 hour period. He ignored changes in wind direction, wind speed, humidity, precipitation, barometric pressure, and presented this data as definitive for all situations and all cases.
4. Presented as proof that the ghe does not exist, an experiment done by Woods in 1906 in which Woods himself said that the experiment merely showed that in physical greenhouses the dominant factor was convection, and that his experiment was not applicable to anything but every day occurrences. As with the survey in which Mr House substituted his own opinion for that of those who did not respond, Mr House claims that he knows Woods meant that his meaning was that the experiment was applicable to the atmospheric air column, and that Woods results negate 100 years of physics since then including experiments which have since been done with equipment orders of magnitude more accurate than what was available in 1906.;
5. Claimed that while it may be possible to measure downward longwave, at night, when the source can’t be the sun and so must be the atmosphere itself, on the order of 200+ w/m2, Mr House claims that this energy flux increases the surface temperature by zero.
When Steven Mosher disses skeptics, this is the kind of skeptic that he is referring to, and with just cause.

davidmhoffer
February 2, 2013 5:12 pm

Matt G
The 3.7W/m2 is claimed for a doubling of CO2, yet 324 W/m2 is claimed for all greenhouse back radiation.
>>>>>>>>>>.
How do you come up with that number? Using SB Law and 255K vs 288K I get a difference of 150 w/m2.

Latitude