![ipcc[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ipcc1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest Essay by Barry Brill
The timing couldn’t be worse.
On 23-26 September, scores of representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries are scheduled to meet in Stockholm to wordsmith the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the key WG1 (physical science) portion of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).
The draft SPM, sent to governments on 2 August, is a 22-page condensation of 14 chapters comprising 1,914 pages of material discussing scientific papers that were published between 2006 and 15 March 2013.
This SPM is (or could be) a document of world-shaking importance. As Bloomberg points out – “it is designed to be used by ministers working to devise by 2015 a global treaty to curb climate change”.
The timetable for the global treaty was deferred at the Durban COP because developing countries (particularly China and India) felt that the 2013 SPM was an indispensable input to the negotiations. Governments need an authoritative up-to-date assessment of both the extent and the causes of the climate change threat, present and future.
But the SPM has been sidelined by momentous climate change events that occurred after its March cut-off date – and even after the date the draft was circulated.
Climate sensitivity
The “extent of warming” issue turns on how sensitive the planet is to increasing CO2 concentrations. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) was crudely estimated by Charney in 1979 at 3.0 ±1.5°C and that range remained more-or-less constant through all four previous IPCC reports.
During 2012, several groups of researchers noted that recent data and modern diagnostics now showed that the 30-year old 3°C mid-point had been grossly over-stated. Peer-reviewed journal papers included:
• Ring et al: estimates of climate sensitivity ranged from 1.5 to 2.0°C.
• Van Hateren: millennium-scale sensitivity found to be 2.0 ±0.3°C.
• Aldrin et al: the 90% credible interval ranges from 1.2°C to 3.5°C, with a mean of 2°C
This, of course, led to great dissension and became the major challenge faced by the lead authors of WG1. Although we don’t yet know how they finally reacted, a leaked copy of the SPM draft suggests that they mainly held to the longstanding orthodoxy.
In January 2013, the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017. This ‘pause’ had not been predicted by climate models. In February, IPCC chairman Pachauri admitted that the temperature data had already been flat for 17 years, while opining that a standstill of 30 years would be required to rebut the previous consensus.
Both “cause” and “extent” issues are heavily dependent on the validity of climate simulations by the contemporary Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), as are all IPCC projections of future planetary temperatures and their impacts. Serious scientific doubts about either ECS-related inputs or the accuracy of temperature outputs would be fatal to the credibility of the AR5.
After the March cut-off date for WG1 papers, the following 2013 papers have strongly reinforced concerns regarding the exaggeration of climate sensitivity:
• Otto et al: the best estimate of sensitivity is 30% below the CMIP5 multimodel mean.
• Forster et al: analysis of CMIP5 shows that 2/3 are above the Otto ‘likely’ range.
• Masters: median estimate of ECS is 1.98°C.
• Lewis: improved methodology shows the mode and median to be 1.6K
In congressional testimony, Judith Curry cited the Hawkins graph depicting observed trends below 90% of CMIP5 projections, and notes that warming may not resume until mid-century. James Hansen attributes the ‘hiatus’ to a combination of natural variability and lower sensitivity but predicts “temperature will rise significantly in the next few years with the nex El Nino phase.”
Temperature standstill
The temperature standstill has been apparent in the data for many years, but the tribalism of climate science rendered it unmentionable until the public disclosures of early 2013. Once spoken, it demanded an explanation – and it then became clear there was a great dearth of research on the subject. By the time researchers were ready to fill this gap, the draft SPM had already been dispatched.
During August 2013, a flood of highly influential papers have appeared:
• von Storch & Zorita[1] found that observed temperatures 1998-2012 were not consistent with 23 tested CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, even at the 2% confidence level. The inconsistency increases rapidly with trend length and a 20-year trend (ie to 2017) would lie outside the ensemble of all model-simulated trends.
• von Storch & Zorita (the same paper) concludes that ‘natural’ internal variability and/or external forcing has probably offset the anthropogenic warming during the standstill. Overestimated sensitivity may also have contributed.
• Tung & Zhou[2] reported that the “underlying net anthropogenic warming rate has been steady since 1910 at 0.07-0.08°C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs ..”. The sharply increased CO2 concentrations of recent decades has not caused warming to accelerate, as was predicted by the models.
• Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Zie[3] plausibly found that climate models have vastly under-estimated natural variation. La-Nina-like cooling in the Eastern Pacific throughout the 21st century (since the PDO turned negative) has conquered the projected greenhouse warming. The 0.68°C warming trend during 1975-98 (when the PDO was positive) would have been[4] 0.4°C natural and only 0.28°C anthropogenic.
• Katz et al[5] says the critical uncertainty measures used by the IPCC are “out of date by well over a decade”. Modern statistical techniques could improve assessments “dramatically”.
• Fyfe Gillett & Zwiers[6] focused on the extraordinary gap between the temperature simulations of 37 CIMP5 models and the observed outcomes. Due to a ‘combination of errors’, the models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years and by 400% over the past 15 years.
Come the revolution…
These new papers devastate the IPCC orthodoxy that current and future global temperatures are mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, and will reach dangerous levels later this century. On the other hand, all older papers are blindsided by their apparent failure to take account of the recent data (standstill).
The IPCC’s 2001 report cautioned[7]: In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.
The “dangerous anthropogenic global warming” (DAGW) hypothesis is based on a clear difference between CMIP5 runs with natural plus anthropogenic forcing, versus natural variability only. That difference now disappears when ensembles are adjusted to reflect current empirical data. It is quite conceivable that natural variabilty (including natural forcing) has historically dwarfed anthropogenic effects and will persistently do so in future.
In his seminal 1962 work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn persuasively argued that science does not progress through the linear accumulation of knowledge but undergoes periodic revolutions or ‘paradigm shifts’.
In Kuhn’s view, no evidence that is incompatible with the current paradigm will be entertained during long periods of normal science. However, as anomalous results build up, science eventually reaches a crisis which drives the necessary acceptance of a new paradigm, which subsumes both the old and new results into a new framework. Kuhn calls this transformative point, revolutionary science.
2013 is ushering in a long-delayed revolution in climate science. A new paradigm is demanded which recognizes that AGW is but one non-determinative component in a ‘non-linear chaotic system’.
Dealing to the paradigm shift
All of this leaves the IPCC in a terrible bind regarding its September meeting. Should it:
• rubber-stamp a SPM that has been overtaken by events?
• add a major caveat to the state of play in March 2013, promising an addendum will be issued to cover post-cut-off papers? or
• adjourn the meeting to accomodate a crash program to re-write both the WG1 Technical Report and the consequent SPM?
The business as usual course is the worst option. With tense international negotiations riding on this document, it is far better that it be delayed than wrong – or indefensible. No government can make far-reaching policy decisions on the basis of a report which is widely believed to be obsolete before it is released.
An interim report suffers from a similar credibility deficit. Already[8], Environment departments from the USA and the European Union have formally sought more clarity on the “warming hiatus” and have asked the IPCC to include full information in the SPM.
“The recent slowing of the temperature trend is currently a key issue, yet it has not been adequately addressed in the SPM,” said the EU.
Although the draft says the trend has tapered off, the implications are unclear – causing the US to comment “a bunch of numbers are [left] up in the air without a concrete conclusion.”
Several countries, including China, seek information on the heat uptake of the oceans or other natural variances which might have depressed climate change data.
The draft SPM apparently fails to mention[9] that 30-year warming trends have declined each year since peaking in 2003. Or that the latest 10-year period (2003-12) is the coolest decade[10] since satellite records began in 1979.
WG1 has a track record of ignoring inconvenient research on grounds that it is ‘isolated’ or published in obscure journals. That can hardly be the fate of the August papers. All but one have been accepted by Nature Climate Change. Several of the authors are active contributors to IPCC reports, with Zwiers a current vice-chairman of WG1 and Fyfe a review editor.
Revolutionary climate science is under way. The question now is whether the IPCC is up to the challenge.
[1] http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
[2] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/22/1212471110.short
[3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
[4] See http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling
[5] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1980.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
[6] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
[7] 14.2.2.2 WG1 TAR IPCC
[8] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/global-warming-slowdown-data-sought-in-un-climate-report.html
[9] http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/if-warmists-would-only-tell-the-truth
[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
izen says: September 1, 2013 at 11:22 am
“The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 might be indicated by how sensitive it is to other past changes. Given the very wide variations seen in the historical record I think it is difficult to make a strong argument for a very low sensitivity unless you can show that the explanation, the cause of those past climate changes were much larger in terms of energy imbalance than the present measure TOA imbalance from the anthropogenic rising CO2.”
//////////////////////////////
if one looks at the Paleo record, there are instances of high levels of CO2 and rising, and yet temperatures at the time in question are falling. Given that, it is difficult to make a strong case for high sensitivity unless one also accepts that the bounds of natural variation are extremely high and can even trump the high positive forcing of CO2 which at that time prevailed.
If one looks at any temperature record (whether thermometer or paleo) the take home conclusion is that natural variation can and does trump the forcing from CO2 and accordingly the dominant driver of temperature is natural variation.
Indeed, this has to be so since according to the so called basic physics whenever there is an increase in CO2 levels there must always be an increase in temperature and thus for each and every year that CO2 emissions rise but there is no corresponding rise in temperature an explanation for the lack of warming consistent with the AGW theory is required. Maybe there is an obvious possible explanation, eg., a volcanic eruption, but usually there is not and it is the warmists who are forced to fall back on natural variation explaining why there was no rise in temperature. This is illustrated by the present pause which contradicts the theory and without a convincing explanation falsifies the theory as presently drawn. There have been no volcanos of note these past 17 years, there is some farcical suggestion that somehow the mssing heat has found its way down into the deep ocean but even that fanciful explanation does not account for all the missing heat and the warmists are therefore left to suggest that presently natural variation is trumping the CO2 induced warming that arises from the increase in CO2 emissions these past 17 or so years. The same applies to the 1940s to mid/late 1970s cooling..
Thus the position is that either natural variation is very powerful such that it can trump high climate sensitivity to CO2, or natural variation is not particularly powerful since climate sensitivity to Co2 is low. Either way, natural variation is the dominant player and of course, this is consistent with the null hypothesis that starts from the position that all changes in the temperature record are the result of natural variation unless someone can demonstrate some other cause being responsible for the change in temperature.
When discussing climate sensitivity I frequently note that one cannot determine climate sensitivity from observational data until such time as natural variation is fully known and understood, what it comprises of, the direction of each and every constituent forcing and the upper and lower bounds of each and every constituent forcing. It is only once one can seperate temperature changes which have been brought about by natural variation from those which natural variation does not explain that one can begin to seperate the signal of sensitivity to CO2 from the noise of natural variation. or put another way it is only when one can look at the temperature record and examine evry temperature change therein and identify which if any of those changes canot have been brought about by natural variation is one left with the component consisting of temperature chnages brought about by some no natural cause (by which I mean some anthropogenic induced cause which may not necessarily be CO2, it could for example be land use).
The fact that this cannot presently be done in itself sugggests that climate sensitivity is low. So too, the fact that we are here discussing this issue some 4.5 billion years after planet Earth was formed and the hell, fire and brimstow that it has gone through over the eons and emerged in a benign state conducive to life.
izen says:
September 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for that clarification. I’ll take your word for it.
Congratulations on scoring a single point in this thread.
If this author had read Kuhn more closely then he would have known that climatology is NOT chemistry or physics. Can someone tell me at what point in climatology has one theory supplanted all others and become the paradigm theory? Does all of climatology operate under an equivalent combustion theory of chemistry or Newtonian paradigm?
If there is no paradigm theory in climatology then there can be no revolution to overturn the paradigm theory.
My first thought:
“It would be revolutionary if the IPCC could actually do science.”
Allen: Climatology doesn’t even obey the law of thermodynamics.
Babsy says:
September 1, 2013 at 3:29 pm
No, it does not change that Richard here says that he wants to see an observed causality. I think he must see that it was a mistake, almost anybody do, but I see that he is too proud to admit even that small error.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
September 1, 2013 at 10:26 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Either English isn’t your first language or you simply lack the reading comprehension skills. What Richard said was pretty clear, and there was no mistake.
richardscourtney says:
September 1, 2013 at 3:09 pm
I quoted you in a direct error and it does not help to add more contexts to that. You start the knit-picking because you, instead of admitting that small but obvious error, you try to defend something that is not possible to defend.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
Yes, Richard clearly stated his case, except that nit picking does not use a “K”. A nit is the egg or larva of a louse or other parasitic insect. The task of removing all the nits from an infected person or animal can be almost overwhelming as it requires a millimetre-by-millimerer examination with a magnifying glass and tweezers. By extension, a pedantic person immersed in minutiae is often called a nit-picker.
izen:
In your post at September 1, 2013 at 4:47 pm you quote my having said
And you reply
No. The climate system is not in a “pathological condition”.
Nobody knows the cause of the LIA and its subsequent recovery.
It will continue to be impossible for you to think rationally about climate until you recover from your “pathological condition” which is the delusional belief in AGW known as warmunism.
Richard
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
September 1, 2013 at 10:35 pm
————————
Sorry, clearly English is not your first language, time for you to accept you’ve misunderstood.
Jan Kjetil Andersen and izen:
I write to suggester that you pester each other instead of me.
That way you will only be bothering each other.
Richard
izen says:
September 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm
AND
davidmhoffer says:
September 1, 2013 at 5:55 pm
////////////////////////////////
Whilst I understand the way the measurement is expressed, surely the volume point still stands?
In other words is the satellite measurement suggesting that in a 1 square metre column extending down from the TOA to the surface, then the amount of water vapour contained in that column has increased by 0.41kg per decade?
If we are talking about such a column, are we using the Karman line for TOA at say 100km, such that the column consists of 100,000 m3?
If that is so, then it would appear that the measured increase is miniscule and I wonder whether there are issues with resolution, accuracy and errors.
It seems to me that your point comes from a paper by Santer, which may be based upon model runs. Certainly the paper did not attach a table of the raw data measurements taken each month during the years in question, so I was unable to look at the underlying raw data.
Of course your observation about increasing moisture content runs contrary to other studies such as by Paltridge, Arking & Pook (see http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Paltridge_01.pdf )
.
Richard Verney says:
September 2, 2013 at 7:52 am
A water increase of 0.41 kg/square meter is not a small amount Richard. The total mass of the air column is approximately 10 000 kg, but that is mostly O2 and N2, the Water content is only approximately 25 kg. A good and easy explanation is found here: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html
That means that an increase from 25 kg to 25.41 kg is similar to1.6% per decade. It is small, but not negligible.
However, you show to a report by Paltridge & al. which you claim runs contrary to this, but I cannot see that is right.
The Paltridge & al. report show reduced humidity in upper troposphere, but increased humidity in lower layers. Figure 3 in the report show that in the NH the decrease at 400 hPa, is approximately 0.04, gram and the increase at 925 hPa is 0,12 gram. That means that we have three times more increase than decrease at those two points. It is approximately the same relation in the tropics and even more in SH.
Of course, great caution has to be taken in drawing conclusions from only two points; but it is a clear indication of more, rater than less humidity in the atmosphere.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
September 2, 2013 at 9:13 am
The Paltridge & al. report show reduced humidity in upper troposphere, but increased humidity in lower layers. Figure 3 in the report show that in the NH the decrease at 400 hPa, is approximately 0.04, gram and the increase at 925 hPa is 0,12 gram. That means that we have three times more increase than decrease at those two points. It is approximately the same relation in the tropics and even more in SH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Possibly the largest error made by the alarmist climate science community is repeatedly running a linear trend through cyclical data and attempting to draw meaningful conclusions from it. You repeat that same error in your response above.
2. The accuracy of the data you cite is no where near what is required for this type of analysis. The error range is larger than the measurement, another common error perpetuated by alarmists pretending to be scientists.
3. If you are going to cite Paltridge et al, then you are defeating your own argument. The original discussion was about magnitude and sign of feed backs from water vapour. If we accept your point that lower troposphere has increased three times what the upper troposphere has decreased, that still results in a net negative change in forcing, and a net reduction in the altitude of the mean radiating layer. An increase in the lower troposphere has little effect because the effect is already saturated while a decrease in the upper troposphere has a large effect because it is no where near saturation.
Your understanding of the physics appears as weak as your reading comprehension skills.
davidmhoffer says:
September 2, 2013 at 10:12 am
David, I am not using this report to prove anything, I am responding to Richard Verney who claims that this report runs contrary to the increasing moisture claimed by Izen.
As I clearly say, great caution has to be taken in drawing conclusions from only two points. However, I show that the indication is opposite than that claimed by Richard Verney. The report indicates more moisture, not less.
I have not said anything of feedback, so I cannot see how you can tell that Paltridge et al defeat my argument on that. I have not made any argument on that. All I have commented is that both the cited reports indicate more moisture in the atmosphere.
Why not stick to the topic so we may have a fruitful and interesting discussion rather than throwing out personal attacks?
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
September 2, 2013 at 10:45 am
Why not stick to the topic so we may have a fruitful and interesting discussion rather than throwing out personal attacks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. The original point of discussion was about feed backs, you jumped into the middle and ignored the beginning. The topic in fact was feed backs in the first place.
2. You deliberately and blatantly quoted another commmenter (richardscourtney) by truncating his actual sentence and then attributing to it a completely false statement. If you want to leave personal attacks out of the discussion, then cease the use of such tactics.
davidmhoffer says:
September 2, 2013 at 11:26 am
1.The discussion between izen and various opponents here is long and complicated and it did in fact start with a discussion about climate science. Feedback was brought in as one of several subtopics later. It is perfectly normal to comment on just one aspect in a discussion like this.
2.I quoted as much as I thought necessary to show the context. I am sorry to see that you think I truncated it to give a false impression. I never do that. May be I misunderstood richardscourtney, but I did not intend to do anything unfair.
I love this site because it has so many knowledgeable people and interesting discussions. I find it both entertaining and educating to contribute, but I always try to play fair.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:02 pm
I am sorry to see that you think I truncated it to give a false impression. I never do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is exactly what you did.
davidmhoffer says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Hm, no point in going further on that I see.
So thanks for the debate David
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm
That is exactly what you did.
Hm, no point in going further on that I see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Allow me to remind you of the facts which are easily determined by perusing the thread above. richardscourtney said, and a I quote:
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature.
Which you then truncated to read, and I quote from your comment at 2:25 of Sept 1:
That is a direct quote from your post September 1, 2013 at 9:57 am
Look at that last part: “GHGs are observed to increase global temperature”
That is to observe that GHGs are a cause of increase in global temperature isn’t it?
So yes, unless and until you are willing to retract and apologize for your position, your contention that you don’t do what you so blatantly did makes further discourse unproductive. But if you wish to continue, I shall certainly be happy to continue to point out the discontinuity in the written record.
davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for reporting the facts which you do in your post at September 2, 2013 at 12:57 pm.
However, as I see it, the important point is that I thought Jan Kjetil Andersen may have misunderstood what I wrote because English is not his first language and, therefore, I explained my meaning to him when I wrote
But he persisted and did the truncation you mention in reply to my explanation.
Hence, I cannot accept that his misrepresentation of my words was a misunderstanding and I will also refuse to engage with him until he retracts. At present it can be anticipated that future disruption of discussion will occur from his misrepresenting people.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Richard
As I see it, you have to consider both not to quote too much, as well as not too little.
If you quote too much you risk that the reader either does not read the quote at all or miss the critical point you want to highlight.
If you quote too little you risk misrepresenting the context.
So you have to weigh those aspects against each other.
What I wanted to highlight was the sentence part: “GHGs are observed to increase global temperature” which I think can mean to observe causality.
I quoted some more than that, and in my view, I quoted enough to show the content. If anyone wanted to read your whole posting they could just scroll up to do that.
I have not intentionally wanted to misrepresent your opinion. I never do that. However, I may have misunderstood you since I see from one of your posts that you seem to have a good grip on understanding correlation and causality.
Let’s look at this chart to put things in perspective:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Barry, the latest 10-year period (2003-12) is actually the hottest decade ever recorded by thermometer and certainly not the coolest since satellite records began in 1979.
Simon says:
September 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm
—————–
Simon, Barry Brill has addressed that point here;
September 1, 2013 at 5:30 am…http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/can-the-ipcc-do-revolutionary-science/#comment-1405390