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 It turns out to the surprise of many that the subject of the press release was not peer reviewed, but based on previous cumulative work by the Norwegian Research Council.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.
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.”
” 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?
@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….
” 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.
Being wrong is 95% of a scientists job description after all.
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.
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.
IIRC, Spencer, Lindzen and Christy all estimate sensitivity at < 1ºC per 2xCO2.
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.
Judith Curry must be feeling vindicated. She, alone of the climate crew, jumped off the bandwagon while it still looked safe.
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….
Big D in TX says:
February 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm
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/
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%).
@Mark 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.
” 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.
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.
“Lindzen in reverse”????
Is that sour grapes I’m seeing from Annan? That’s pretty bold given that LIndzen’s work batter matches reality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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. 🙂