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 It turns out to the surprise of many that the subject of the press release was not peer reviewed, but based on previous cumulative work by the Norwegian Research Council.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…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Annan to Revkin:
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:
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
So is CO2 still back radiating?
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
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
“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.
The 95% consensus of climate scientists is breaking up.
Almost down below the 50%
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
“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
Can’t comment. What’s up?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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
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.