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 It turns out to the surprise of many that the subject of the press release was not peer reviewed, but based on previous cumulative work by the Norwegian Research Council.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.
Mosh:
Radiative physics works. The radiative physics show that CO2 will do approx 1.0C per initial doubling of CO2.
What the radiative physics does NOT take into account is all the other forcings, small and large, that control climate.
Take a look at the last 10,000 years as an example. Using Alley2000, which is about as good as any temp reconstruction so far, and then comparing CO2 levels from Dome C…….what is going wrong there?
Temp is slowly falling, yes, intermitent warm ups, but falling, and CO2 is rising. The slow rise of CO2 should have produced a lot of warming, since it is logarithmic. It didn’t.
CO2 is not the large boogy man. Something else is, and hopefully we figure it out soon.
As I said after the release of the FOD that there is a hint of objectivity starting to emerge, and this recent event definately means it is gaining some momentum.
Interesting times. I love following this debate. I know I am not alone. After a decade, one might think I would get bored by now.
Thanks again to all you folk for all the hard work you all do. You know who you are!
Just because you can’t target an infra-red heat seeking missile in the IR spectrum that CO2 absorbs, doesn’t mean that CO2 has any impact on the temperature of the Earth at all. This is often described as the “physics”.
But the real physics is completely different than this simple rationale.
The speed of light, the molecular collision rate at 8 billion collisions per second, the fact that 98% of Earth’s IR emissions are at a different frequency than CO2’s spectrum, an untold trillions upon trillions of photons moving through an untold trillion different atmospheric molecules every millisecond means that one has to start at first principles and at a completely different level than a simple “CO2 absorbs IR at 10 um” basis.
It would be such a complicated problem, in fact, that it cannot be solved. The only viable option is to observe what really happens in the atmosphere instead. The theory is useless. We can only see what actually happens.
Bill Illis is correctomundo, as usual:
“We can only see what actually happens.”
What is actually happening disagrees with AGW
theoryconjecture.@Mark Bofill:
As an example of the “barb factor”:
“EM
You can question radiative physics all you want. You just wont be building a device that works.”
Goes right to the “insult the person” with derision. Now I’m willing to accept that if Einstein might question Newton maybe it’s OK to question “well understood” physics. Highly unlikely either that I’ll find something, OR that I’m the next Einstein; but I think it fine to question. Maybe even 100 times.
OH, btw, all the “how far you can see” stuff? I’ve used exactly those military sensors as proof that IR travels through air just fine, thank you very much.
As I said:
” Mostly I’ve yet to find anything wrong with it (despite a few odd bits). However, that questioning causes Mosher to toss rocks… ”
So now you see it in practice…
and
“something was wrong with the radiative model”
Mosher has trouble accepting that one can assert the “radiative model” is wrong since the radiative physics is right. He regularly confounds the model with physics. Often when I’ve look at “radiative things” I’m looking at both, looking for where something doesn’t fit right. This causes Mosher to have a fit as I’m not just accepting it all wholesale. He then goes on and on about the physics and leaves the model swallowed whole…
Short form: It’s more about the USE of the physics being wrong.
But at least you get to see some of the “sarc gone wild” with “insults to the person” in things like this:
“maybe it was a commie plot back in the 50s when the air force figured a bunch of this stuff out.. ya.. a secret commie plot.”
That, Mark, is a stellar example of “Mosher off the rails” that does not win him friends…
So, in summary:
I’m willing to do three very distinct things:
1) Question that there might be something wrong in the radiative physics
2) Question that there likely is something wrong in the radiative model and physics as applied.
3) Question that there is highly likely something wrong in the radiative mechanism assumed.
On #3, we have clear evidence that it’s wrong as the “pause” isn’t and mass flow happens.
On #2, we have clear evidence that it’s wrong as water radiates upward while CO2 only radiates significantly in the Stratosphere (see the graph above, it breaks our radiative quantity by altitude and gas type).
On #1, I’ve investigated a few things, had a few false starts, not found anything of merit. And have stated so “Mostly I’ve yet to find anything wrong with it “; so that’s what Mosher chooses as an “attack here” point with a diatribe about things that work which; by implication, I’m ignorant of or believe can’t work. The implied “You Idiot”. Despite being fully aware of them and being quite sure they work. ( I worked on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle… so I’ve been ‘aware’ of DOD toys for a while).
It’s that kind of “don’t confront the 2 things that matter, then warp and attack a third based on snark” that causes folks to bristle at him.
If he’d just address 1 & 2, and accept that 3 was a dead end, but OK to keep checking it, things would be fine. But he doesn’t.
Hope this little example has helped illuminate things for you.
Fixed it for ya. 🙂
ferd berple says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:22 pm
adding CO2 must increase the atmospheric pressure
Are you not ignoring the decrease in pressure due to fewer oxygen molecules?
If you’re not giving an indication of scale then you’re just guessing. This applies to statements like “if X increases then Y must decrease”. If I take the spare tyre out of my car it will weigh less and hence I will use less fuel. Will I notice that I notice that I’m getting more mileage from that?
Small additions of mass to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 will enhance it’s effect. It’s presently about 391 ppm (parts per million). Go work out how much atmospheric pressure increases if we add the additional mass to make it 800 ppm, then comment on evaporation.
Jeff Alberts says:February 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm
quoting climate scientist James Annan, who one could call a member of the “hockey team” based on his strong past opinions related to AGW and
paleoclimatology paleophrenology. phenomenometeorillogically.Fixed the fixed it for ya. 8<)
I might also note that you cannot target an Infra-Red heat-seeking missile through a relatively thick cloud layer either.
And clouds only absorb about 30 W/m2 of IR emitted by the surrface.
And relatively thick clouds represent about 30% of atmospheric conditions versus CO2 at just 0.3%. And relatively thick clouds absorb about 100% of the IR emitted by the surface when present (check Modtran and turn on the low level clouds option which results in the atmosphere becoming a perfect blackbody spectrum).
So 0.3% of the atmosphere absorbing just 2% of the Earth’s IR emissions somehow create 3.7 W/m2 of reduced emissions when the concentration rises to 0.56%. In fact, according to Lacis of GISS, the 0.3% is responsible for 150 W/m2 of the greenhouse effect.
Yet low level clouds at 100% emission reduction when present 30% of the time provides just 30 W/m2.
The math doesn’t work in case you were wondering where I was going.
Let’s give ‘er another six years or so, to (say) 2018, three decades after Senate air conditioning went ka-flooie. By then, cargo-cultists such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. will have joined Rene Blondlot, J.B. Rhine, Trofim Lysenko, Immanuel Velikovsky in a long line of bitter scientific frauds. The damage these Luddite sociopaths have inflicted is incalculable… we only hope they don’t get off scot-free.
E.M.Smith says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm
@Mark Bofill:
As an example of the “barb factor”:
“EM
You can question radiative physics all you want. You just wont be building a device that works.”
Goes right to the “insult the person” with derision. Now I’m willing to accept that if Einstein might question Newton maybe it’s OK to question “well understood” physics. Highly unlikely either that I’ll find something, OR that I’m the next Einstein; but I think it fine to question. Maybe even 100 times.
———————————————————-
I understand what you’re saying. It also helps me see why I don’t notice so much; I didn’t read him that way, but then I’m told I’ve got an abrasive way of expressing myself as well (shocking, I know, but people really do tell me that 🙂 ) and that I’m usually offensive when I think I’m being funny. But I’m not here to try to defend, excuse, or justify anybody; I was just curious and I do appreciate your answer.
BTW – I couldn’t agree with you more about the value of questioning anything and everything, particularly the stuff most taken for granted.
Best regards.
Steven Mosher;
Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.
As I have pointed out to you many times already, sensors, cell phones, and radar use the part of the radiated signal that does NOT get absorbed in the atmosphere. These things work precisely because we can directly measure them. We CANNOT directly measure what happens to the part of the radiated signal that does get absorbed. We are left to determine precisely what happens to the absorbed signal via indirect means that are orders of magnitude less accurate and that cannot even quantify all the possible paths that might be taken by a quanta of energy being absorbed and re-radiated billions of times between earth surface and TOA. The fact is that radar, cell phones, and so on are a simple point to point transmission. Suggesting that these are in any way, shape, or form, analogous to energy flux from earth surface to TOA is simply absurd.
We know from first principles, verified by testing, that doubling will get us to 1.2C.
Yes we do. In an atmospheric air column with constant water vapour concentration from top to bottom and no feedbacks. No such thing exists.
Steve MOsher writes:
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”
What breathtaking arrogance. And yet, so utterly typical. I have no reason to doubt that you mean well, and I also appreciate you’re quite a smart fellow, The only inference left is that you suffer some sort of pathology. I have a brother with delusional disorder. He has an IQ of 145 and yet is also convinced that the FBI is following him. Sad.
@Ferd Berple:
It’s more complicated (and interesting) than that!
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/fizzy-sky-ir-spectrum-is/
Folks have discovered “carbonic gas” in the air. Until recently it was believed to be impossible and dismissed out of hand. Yet it exists.
Nobody knows what the IR spectrum is for it.
So what happens to your IR transmission when the CO2 can simply form “carbonic gas” with water vapor?
Nobody knows….
So that whole “how water interacts with CO2” is in fact completely unknown. What we do know is that we’ve ignored carbonic gas, and that is wrong…
@Werner Brozek:
As the O2 combines with C and goes from 32 to 44 mol.wt. the density still goes up even if the moles gas stays the same.
Then there is that whole ‘carbonic gas’ problem 😉
@Mark Bofill:
You are welcome. Generally I ‘give the benefit of the doubt’ and don’t let such petty barbs actually bother me. More just pointing out how it works.
(Oh, and notice that somehow Mosher made a ‘leap’ from “question the physics” to “not willing to use it”. That’s a false leap. I’m quite sure even Einstein was willing to USE Newtonian mechanics while knowing “it was wrong” outside the rest plane… So I’m quite willing to USE the radiative physics. Even while questioning it.)
At any rate, getting close to time for me to go do other things…
Do we now address James Annan as “Luke Skywarmer”?
Darren Potter says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:41 pm
“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Are we looking at a crack in the dam? Leaky statement that could implicate a few Hockey Stick players with knowingly committing government fraud, crimes against humanity? Resulting in them turning State’s evidence with plea bargains, leading to even more of GW Alarmists going down.
——————-
Great plot but I’ll wait for the movie.
cn
“Centralized big iron solutions” have worked in one formerly poor country: China.
However, I would like to see rocket stoves distributed widely in the third world, to reduce environmental damage from wood smoke and forest cutting. Ditto for glass chimneys for oil-burning lamps.
pokerguy says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Steve MOsher writes:
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”
What breathtaking arrogance.
>>>>>>>>>>
I object also to this characterization Mosher. As you no doubt are aware, I tend to react rather negatively when someone makes bizarre claims such as “back radiation” not existing, or the even more absurd “it exists but it doesn’t do anything when it reaches the surface”. These claims simply defy common sense versus easily understood examples such as the earth being warmer than the moon despite getting the same average insolation.
By your definition, I’m a lukewarmer. But I define myself as a skeptic. Not because I don’t understand or accept the physics though. When one defines themselves as a skeptic, one must ask the question; skeptical of what? I’m skeptical of the C in CAGW. I’m skeptical of the order of magnitude and sign of feedbacks. I’m even skeptical of the direct effects of doubling of CO2 because the value of 1.2 degrees per doubling is calculated against an air column in which water vapour concentration is uniform, no such air column exists, and I’m not convinced that the effect will be linear when extrapolated to surface temps (and I have sound physics upon which to justify that skepticism).
From a comment I prepared a while back and didn’t post and for which I don’t have time to clean up. My apologies.
The problem is they say she’s a witch.
We say she is not a witch.
But they say she’s a witch.
And even though we’ve proven there’s no such thing as witches they say she’s a witch.
They’re gonna burn her at the stake with our tax money.
And what could we do about it?
cn
Lukewarmers. Still only half way to being correct…
davidmhoffer says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Yet another smashing, first rate post by davidmhoffer. He was responding to the following:
“Steven Mosher;
Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.”
It always saddens me to respond to Mosher on physics. Seriously, it makes me feel like I am punching a six year old. Time and again he has made it clear that he believes that the physics of AGW is sound because it is written down in a text somewhere when the text addresses none of the issues that challenge the AGW thesis, issues such as forcings, and addresses no important empirical claims about the environment whatsoever. Mosher clearly believes that because programmers and climate modelers have taken a course in physics or read a text that the physics in climate models and climate science generally must be sound. Such thinking betrays an ignorance of physics, computer models, and climate so profound that I cannot imagine how to explain it
If anyone wants to see Charlie Rose, throw softballs/lead the interview with his guest (Al Gore),
here you go:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12758
“fawning” will have to suffice, seeing as this is a family blog.