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 It turns out to the surprise of many that the subject of the press release was not peer reviewed, but based on previous cumulative work by the Norwegian Research Council.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.
Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:09 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?
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.)
Somehow I really doubt it – ” If only Holland knew how the process really worked!!”
( http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6187 )
“Hearing footsteps,” Lewandowski?
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
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.
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.
OT: Energy Secretary Steven Chu resigns
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/energy-secretary-steven-chu-resigns/2013/02/01/9809fd8a-6c8f-11e2-8f4f-2abd96162ba8_story.html
“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.
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.
[oh, shut up with your whining – mod]
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.
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.
> 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! )
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.
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? 🙂
“Oh dear oh dear oh dear …”. Charles, the Waterman’s Arms, Barnes. RIP you old rogue.
Pointman
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.
She sure seems to dish it out with delight, at times.
what is meant by Lindzen strategy in reverse?
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.
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.
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.
” 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.
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?
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.