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 It turns out to the surprise of many that the subject of the press release was not peer reviewed, but based on previous cumulative work by the Norwegian Research Council.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:
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…
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
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.
@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…
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Matt G says:
February 2, 2013 at 2:58 pm
======
thanks Matt
The topic of this thread was set in its headline and head post. It included these statements:
In other words, a major “insider” climatologist has asserted that the IPCC authors would willfully obstruct science rather than modify their prejudices. IOW, they’re acting in bad faith. That’s the essence of the contrarian position. Support from the other side for our position is much more comment-worthy than Annan’s estimate of climate sensitivity.
The majority of credible climatologists, such as Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Idso, Miskolczi and others all estimate the sensitivity number to be below 1ºC per 2xCO2.
I am not including people such as Mann, Pachauri, Trenberth, Gore, Nye, Hansen, etc., because they are not true climatologists.
As for joelshore, he is just unhappy because the planet is falsifying his beliefs.
Philip Shehan says:
February 2, 2013 at 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).
————————————————————————————
Thanks Philip. I figured it’d be the ‘lone gunman’ rebuttal.
When a scientist states ‘quite openly’ in a meeting that he’s deliberately lying in order to motivate political action, what does that imply about that group? Obviously, he wasn’t worried that he was making a controversial statement to that group. What does it mean when a scientist remarks openly to other scientists, his peers, that he’s lying about his scientific opinion?
It means that his expectation is that this is the norm within the group. That if everyone isn’t doing it, at least that everyone is going to accept it.
To put it in plain terms, when you see one cockroach crawls blatantly across the table, you’re a fool not to realize there are several hundred more in the cracks and shadows.
Tell me, why would you want this buried? If you believe in the IPCC, if you really think this is the exception instead of the rule, why aren’t you raising hell about this? If someone falsified evidence in a cause I really believed in I’D certainly want that someone exposed, discredited, and disassociated from my cause ASAP. It strikes me as odd that you and Joel (and apparently Connolley as well) want to focus attention solely on whether or not Annan thinks the climate sensitivity is 2C or 3C now, while ignoring as much as possible the corruption that this incident exposes. It sounds to me as if you’re playing the same game as that anonymous scientist in question – sounds like you want a result, and you really don’t appear to give a crap about the means used to obtain it.
I think it’s worth a thread. I’m glad Anthony does too. Judging from the number of comments it’s drawn, it looks like a goodly number of people are glad as well.
Mark
davidmhoffer says:
Haven’t we had this discussion many times before? I justify averaging them because the global temperature trend is just one simple single figure-of-merit. There is no law of the universe that states that you have to average everything according to the computation of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative fluxes. If you are interested in those fluxes, you average those fluxes. If you are interested in the temperature, you average the temperature.
It is legitimate to ask what the best single figure-of-merit is or even to suggest that a single figure-of-merit does not contain as much information as having a full map of anomalies (although this latter point is rather obvious). What is not particularly legitimate is to make bombastic statements that something is the wrong way to do something when there is no right or wrong way.
As for the global temperature anomalies as a figure of merit: I know you don’t like it because you feel that it exaggerates things by weighting a rise in temperature in a cold region more than it would be weighted if it was done in your preferred way. However, you seem to ignore other ways in which it actually understates things. These include the fact that it under-represents the rise where people live, namely on land, because it includes the 70% of the Earth’s surface where people don’t live, i.e., on the ocean.
Also, while arctic areas may warm more than the tropics, those arctic areas are also much less than the land surface of the tropics (e.g., half of the Earth’s surface is in the 30deg south to 30deg north latitude band whereas less than 14% is poleward of 60deg latitude), so the global number actually hides the dramatic rises in those regions pretty well.
Matt G says:
As davidmhoffer has pointed out, the 324 W/m^2 number is not particularly relevant. It is sort of an apple-to-oranges comparison. Furthermore, it is not great mystery where the conversion from 3.7 W/m^2 radiative forcing to a little over a 1 C temperature rise, absent feedbacks, comes from. It is a simple enough problem to give to in an introductory physics course (as I have): You consider how much the Earth’s effective radiating temperature of 255 K would have to rise in order for emission to increase (via the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation) by 3.7 W/m^2. (There is a bit of subtlety involved here…The naive S-B calculation gives you a number of like 1.05 C, which as I understand it, becomes more like 1.2 C once one accounts for the fact that the temperature is not expected to increase uniformly…and it will go up more in some colder regions of the atmosphere, where a larger temperature rise is necessary to increase emission by 3.7 W/m^2 than in some warmer regions of the atmosphere, where a smaller temperature rise is necessary to increase emission by 3.7 W/m^2.)
rogerknights says:
February 2, 2013 at 5:34 pm …
Again I submit that the opinions of one individual that the IPCC has problems is not particularly newsworthy, especially when it involves speculation of how the IPCC will deal with his opinions, assuming they find them worthy of response.
REPLY: you are entitled to your opinion, the story stays. Be as upset as you wish – Anthony
davidmhoffer says, February 2, 2013 at 5:09 pm: “This comment from an individual who, over the last couple of weeks has: 1.claimed… 2.claimed … 3.presented … 4.presented … 5.claimed …”
============================================================
Well, davidmhoffer, I really have nothing against your distorting every single point I ever made on this blog or anywhere else, but please, do it on an appropriate thread, where the discussions on the issues are under way (and if I participate in those discussions, so not just behind my back, if possible).
It would be no problem, really, just feel free to use the distortion tool, the ad hominem tool and other nice ones, no problem with that. But I hope you can understand that my commenting here on your five points would possibly derail this thread and therefore I am not going to do that, out of respect for the readers and the moderators.
richardscourtney says:
Your very phrasing biases the question. The fact is that it takes many years (on the order of 12-14 based on a few examples I just ran using that trend calculator) before even a trend at EXACTLY that expected over the long term by the models (which is somewhere around, or a bit below, 0.2 C per decade) becomes statistically-significant from zero at the 95% confidence level. So, trends over such lengths of time or shorter that do not differ at a 95% confidence from a zero trend are not only not uncommon…but are more likely than not. Such trends over even longer periods of time, though less common, are bound to happen now and again.
If anything, the question needs to be turned around and asked in the following way: At what point is the observed trend incompatible, at some confidence level, with what the climate models predict? [Even then, what you then have is, at some confidence level, an incompatibility with the models, from which it does not immediately follow a statement as extreme as “increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is not causing global warming”.] At any rate, I seem to recall that there was a NOAA report from a few years ago that addressed this question in exactly the way that I phrased it. And, apparently, the answer they got was not good enough for some of you, as you have found it necessary to adopt a completely convoluted interpretation of what their criterion actually was (that can be shown on multiple grounds to be silly) in order to argue that it has been violated.
[snip]
joeldshore;
However, you seem to ignore other ways in which it actually understates things. These include the fact that it under-represents the rise where people live, namely on land, because it includes the 70% of the Earth’s surface where people don’t live, i.e., on the ocean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, well I tried to summarize for brevity, but thanks for responding. I might add than in addition it over represents winter seasons over summer in the temperate zones, which is a rather larger area than the arctic zones. It also over represents high altitude area over low altitude areas. It also over represents low humidity areas over high humidity areas. But allow me to re-state the question in light of your “single figure of merit” and contention that there is no right way or wrong way.
The theory is that doubling of CO2 = 3.7 w/m2 and that feedbacks alter this number in some way.
Why on earth would we try and determine the actual effects of CO2 doubling by measuring any single metric other than w/m2? Are you willing to assert that quantifying the effect of increased CO2 by tracking a proxy (temperature anomalies) with no linear relationship to w/m2 makes more sense as a single figure of merit than actually measuring and trending w/m2? What justification is there for trending a proxy to prove a trend that we can measure directly?
Anthony You are quite correct that it is only my opinion that Annan’s opinions are not particularly noteworthy. I am not upset and I have no wish for the story to be taken down.
Nice try, but you had originally said
You then selectively quoted a Nature abstract and left out the statement
To be clear, (and I will use quotes so you can’t ignore them) is it your opinion that Annan stating that high sensitivities are “untenable” and that the IPCC is “in a pickle” and will “brazen out” in order to avoid adjusting their sensitivity estimates is not “at odds with the majority of scientists on the sensitivity question”?
Honestly, what you guys will do to say “move along now, nothing to see here.”
And just to be doubly clear
Mark Bofill says:
February 2, 2013 at 5:48 pm
“If someone falsified evidence in a cause I really believed in I’D certainly want that someone exposed, discredited, and disassociated from my cause ASA”
Yes Definately. Annan should name him/her. Not simply because such a person should be exposed, and given the opportunity to defend himself, but also because in the absence of specific allegations, people such as yourself can portray that hundreds of other honourable scientists as cockroaches.
The fact is, as I pointed out on another thread, I have been a whistleblower on corrupt conduct (scientific and administrative) in a university department. As a result of my insistance that my allegations be properly investigated and that due process be followed, I was subjected to worse than usual attacks, including false criminal charges (acquitted) and ultimate vindication when the department suddenly collapsed and the financial cupboard found to be bare.
The snip on my 6:19 pm post is fine. I did not expect or intend that it be aired publicly but I hope the points were taken in.
joeldshore;
Just to expand on my question, let’s step through the physics.
CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = 1.2 degrees.
Well we can’t actually say that, can we?
@-40, 3.7 w/m2 = 1.3 degrees
@+40, 3.7 w/m2 = 0.54 degrees.
So the claim is unrealistic. But wait.
At -40, the upward flux from earth surface is about 167 w/m2
At +40, the upward flux from earth surface is about 544 w/m2
So, doubling of CO2 in cold regions/seasons can’t possibly have the same effect in w/m2 as it does in warm regions/seasons because there is a completely different amount of upward flux to work with. But wait.
In the tropics, at sea level, water vapour is as much as 40,000 ppm. In temperate zones less on average and in winter even less and in arctic zones even less and in deserts also less. Water vapour is also a ghg which has an absorption spectrum that overlaps with CO2 (I bet you knew that 😉 ) But ghg’s don’t work just one way. Since the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere is ABOVE the layer that has the bulk of the water vapour, downward LW generated by CO2 is in part absorbed and re-radiated back up by the water vapour close to earth surface. Since the water vapour ALSO varies by latitude, season, and geography (land vs water) this also means the flux that reaches earth surface varies based on this factor as well.
In summary, quantifying effects of CO2 doubling at earth surface as some sort of average is near impossible, as an average temperature is absurd, and if there is a “single metric” that is plausible, it most certainly is not temperature. The only single metric that is plausible in this context is w/m2.
I welcome you to make the case otherwise.
davidmhoffer says:
I think your statement represents various confusions that I will try to flesh out:
(1) 3.7 W/m^2 represents a top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) radiative forcing. You seem to want to think of that as a certain change in radiation from the surface (through a rise in the surface temperature) but that is not correct.
(2) The feedbacks do not alter the 3.7 W/m^2 TOA radiative forcing. What they do is alter how much the temperature has to change in order to restore radiative steady-state relative to what would be true in the absence of feedbacks. I guess you can think of this as altering the amount of increase in surface radiation that you get…but then the relationship to the 3.7 W/m^2 isn’t going to be particularly simple.
To summarize, I think that the basic problem is you imagine some simple relationship between the 3.7 W/m^2 number and some increase in radiation from the surface due to some change in surface temperature. However, the actual relationship is rather complicated. So, I don’t see any big value in trying to compute what the change in radiation from the surface is instead of what the temperature change is, since this change in radiation from the surface is related in nearly as complicated a way to the TOA radiative forcing value as the temperature change is to the TOA radiative forcing value.