Climate Insensitivity: What the IPCC Knew But Didn’t Tell Us
By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
In a remarkable example of scientific malfeasance, it has become apparent that the IPCC knew a lot more than it revealed in its 2013 climate compendium about how low the earth’s climate sensitivity is likely to be.
The importance of this revelation cannot be overstated. If the UN had played it straight, the “urgency” of global warming would have evaporated, but, recognizing that this might cause problems, they preferred to mislead the world’s policymakers.
Strong words? Judge for yourself.
The report “Oversensitive—how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming,” was released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)—a U.K. think-tank which is “concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated” regarding climate change (disclosure: our Dick Lindzen is a member of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council).
The new GWPF report concluded:
We believe that, due largely to the constraints the climate model-orientated IPCC process imposed, the Fifth Assessment Report failed to provide an adequate assessment of climate sensitivity – either ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] or TCR [transient climate response] – arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion. In particular, it did not draw out the divergence that has emerged between ECS and TCR estimates based on the best observational evidence and those embodied in GCMs. Policymakers have thus been inadequately informed about the state of the science.
The study was authored by Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok. Crok is a freelance science writer from The Netherlands and Lewis, an independent climate scientist, was an author on two recent important papers regarding the determination of the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
The earth’s climate sensitivity is the most important climate factor in determining how much global warming will result from our greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from burning of fossil fuels to produce, reliable, cheap energy). But, the problem is, is that we don’t know what the value of the climate sensitivity is—this makes projections of future climate change–how should we say this?–a bit speculative.
Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of recent scientific research aimed at gaining a better understanding of what the climate sensitivity may be. We have detailed much of this research in our ongoing series of articles highlighting new findings on the topic. Collectively, the new research indicates an ECS value a bit below 2°C. The latest in our series is here.
But in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) finalized this past January, the IPCC gave short shrift to the major implication of this collection of new research results—that the climate sensitivity is much lower than what the IPCC assessed it to be in its collection of previous assessment reports (issued every 6-7 years) and that the rate of climate change is going to be much less.
For example, formerly, in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), released in 2007, the IPCC had this to say regarding the equilibrium climate sensitivity:
It [the equilibrium climate sensitivity] is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantial higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. [emphasis in original]
In its new AR5, the IPCC wrote this:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. [emphasis in original]
And IPCC AR5 footnote 16 states:
No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
So, facing mounting scientific for a substantially lower climate sensitivity, the best the IPCC could bring itself to do was to reduce the low end of its “likely” range by one-half degree, refuse to put a value on its best guess, and still cling to its high end number. Big deal.
The reason that the IPCC could only make these meager changes was that the collection of climate models that the IPCC employs to make the bulk of its projections of future climate change (and future climate change impacts) has an average ECS value of 3.2°C. The IPCC couldn’t very well conclude from the scientific evidence that the real value was somewhere south of 2°C—if it were to do so, it would invalidate the climate models and, for that matter the meat of its entire report (that is, its climate change projections).
We described the situation the IPCC faced last summer (prior to releasing the final copy of the AR5) this way:
The IPCC has three options:
- Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
- Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50 percent, or
- Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
We’re betting on door number 3.
As predicted, the IPCC chose option number 3.
The new GWPF report confirms, in detail, the IPCC’s choice and how it came to make it—by confusing the reader with a collection of evidence that was outdated, already disproven, based upon flimsy assumptions, not directly applicable, or flat-out wrong.
Putting it nicely, Lewis and Crok describe the situation thus:
The AR5 authors might not have wanted to declare that some studies are better than others or to adjudicate between observational and model-based lines of evidence, but we believe that this is exactly what an assessment is all about: using expert knowledge to weigh different sources of evidence. In this section we present reasoned arguments for a different assessment to that in AR5.
Lewis and Crok go, in detail, through each climate sensitivity paper considered (and relied upon) by the IPCC and identify its shortcomings. At the end, they are left with a collection of five papers that, while still containing uncertainties, are built upon the most robust set of assumptions and measurements.
From those papers the Lewis and Crok conclude the following:
A new ‘best observational’ estimate of ECS can now be calculated by taking a simple average of the different observationally-based estimates….This gives a best estimate for ECS of 1.75°C and a likely range of about 1.3–2.4°C. However, recognizing that error and uncertainty may be greater than allowed for in the underlying studies, and will predominantly affect the upper of the range, we conservatively assess the likely range as 1.25–3.0°C.
Now compare these figures with those in AR4 and AR5….Our new ‘best observational’ ECS estimate of 1.75°C is more than 40% lower than both the best estimate in AR4 of 3°C and the 3.2°C average of GCMs used in AR5. At least as importantly, the top of the likely range for ECS of 3.0°C is a third lower than that given in AR5 (4.5°C) – even after making it much more conservative than is implied by averaging the ranges for each of the observational estimates.
And as to what this means about the IPCC global warming projections, Lewis and Crok write:
The [climate models] overestimate future warming by 1.7–2 times relative to an estimate based on the best observational evidence.
This is a powerful and important conclusion.
We recommend that you read the full report. Not only is it a comprehendible and comprehensive description of the current science as it relates to the climate sensitivity, but it is an illumination of how the IPCC process does, or rather doesn’t, work.
The Obama Administration and its EPA will ignore this reality at their peril.
====================================================
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
Redistribution of wealth is the goal.
Facts, truth, data, science, honesty, honor have nothing to do with the U.N. or any of the Climate Change, Global Warming, CO2 kills cult.
Low information voters are the enableing force they use.
Keep up the pressure, the lies are now in fail mode.
They lied, in other words. Quelle surprise.
The Global Warming Industry has so many vested interests that there would be mass unemployment of climate scientists and falling energy prices if this paper was acted on.
Anyone think either of those are a bad thing? Problem is the GWI has absolutely no interest in any good news on climate, only bad news and catastrophic prophecies are allowed.
“The Obama Administration and the EPA will ignore this reality” with an ad hominem attack if they are pressed to comment at all. As far as “peril” goes, they’ve already taken their collective boat over the waterfall, now it just boils down to personal attacks on anyone who publicly notices.
Does this mean there are apologies coming from Obama, Kerry, and John Holdren to the masses of science-minded Americans? I think not. They are just as intransigent as Putin in their own way.
Thanks to Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger for this wonderful report. Thanks to Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok for their first-rate science. Thanks to WUWT for serving as the most important protector of scientific integrity in these times.
Watch the Alarmists run for cover (advanced computer aided obfuscation).
Seems to me that the Obama Admin and its EPA will ignore this reality at our peril rather than theirs.
On our planet, in our atmosphere, due to CO² acting alone?
ECS due to 2xCO²(11ppmv ==> 22ppmv) some warming.
ECS due to 2xCO²(22ppmv ==> 44ppmv) maybe a little bit more warming. Maybe.
ECS due to 2xCO²(280ppmv ==> 560ppmv) will be ≤ 0.000°C à la Ferenc Miskolczi.
Like I said at BH – There is a much greater chance that aliens will land and point this out than there is that the vested, wilfully ignorant jokers will ‘fess up while they still breathe.
Of some note on a hearing in Washington D.C. March 12, 2014:
Joint hearing of both these two subcommittees of the Committee of Science and Energy.
Energy and Environment subcommittees.
Hearing on the science of Capture and Storage of CO2 and the understanding of the EPA rules on this.
Sub committee head of the Energy sub,,,, Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) 202-225-2311
Sub committee head of the Environment Committee sub.. David Schweikert (R-AZ)
202-225-2190
Ralph Hall is the Chairman Emeritus of the full committee and his office will help for sure as he knows what is going on for sure. 90 years old but does know a thing or two , carrier landing Navy air to air conbat pilot WW-II. He is the most Sr. member of the House of Rep.’s.
202-225-6673
Need to try to get this info into the hands of the people who work for these three and try to get this info into the Congressional Record at the hearing.
If the IPCC had need around since the 1500’s or so, the earth would still be considered flat!
IPCC scientists have got themselves caught in a trap.
– humans may be warming the climate
– humans are probably warming the climate
– humans are likely warming the climate and it is dangerous
– humans are almost certainly warming the climate fast and it is likely catastrophic
In AR5 they are now collectively unable to retreat from positions they have adopted previously. They have over-hyped the message and now fear that they are simply wrong. They do not have the scientific honesty to accept the observational evidence clearly showing that they have very over-estimated warming by about a factor of 2.
It is a scientific disgrace !
“The Obama Administration and its EPA will ignore this reality at their peril.”
I boldly predict they’re going to go ahead and ignore it anyway.
“The Obama Administration and its EPA will ignore this reality at their peril.”
Bambi and the EPA will ignore this reality at OUR peril.
And they WILL ignore it. >:-(
Peter Miller says: @ March 6, 2014 at 9:38 am
The Global Warming Industry has so many vested interests that there would be mass unemployment of climate scientists and falling energy prices if this paper was acted on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not to mention a partial collapse of the stock market.
But not to worry Al Gore has already moved out of Green Slime™ Energy
Best news I have heard in a LOOoooong while.
Note that one of the recent comments mentioned the newest ‘Politically Correct’ term is now Abrupt Climate Change. As NOAA has said no one knows what causes D-O and Bond events so that is probably what CAGW will morph in to (a bone for Academia) as Gore and his fellow scammers walk away with their takings from this scam and Obama and company leave a shambles to be blamed on the next president (No doubt a Republican fall guy.)
fobdangerclose says:Redistribution of wealth is the goal.
Oh, it’s always about wealth redistribution, but it won’t be some kind of Robin Hood , giving to the worlds poor and needy. The unaccountable $100bn slush fund is not about socialist equality, it is a recipe for corruption on a scale never yet seen.
Still a factor of about 5 too high. CO2 dwell time in atmosphere is only about 5 yrs., not 1000. Unfortunately.
It took 20+ years for everyone to jump on this bandwagon it will take about that long for folks to figure out the ride will only get bumpier and jump off. A few will wait too long and will not get off until the wagon leaves the road and crashes into a tree.
Lots of businesses and individuals have melded an assumption of AGW into long term business and personal plans. They even if they see the writing on the wall know what will happen if everyone rushes to the exit at the same time. So the smarter ones will quietly edge toward the door while giving lip service toward the dogma until they safely dump AGW related investments and turn company business plans toward another revenue stream.
It will be the sincere believer in the street that will be the last to know a problem exists and they will get the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute when some trigger event makes the house of cards collapse.
The biggest casualties will be all the young idealistic kids who are now taking degrees in trade schools for wind energy careers and environmental studies etc. When they realize that their training is next to useless and they cannot find a job as the alternate energy industry does a slow implosion.
I really do wonder what ‘observational evidence’ from the real world points to a ‘climate sensitivity’ of 1.25 – 3.0 degrees … Could it perchance all be based on the assumption that some or all of the observed global warming during a certain period of time is caused by the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Meaning, on a purely circular argument?
Right now we are in the talking phase of climate change, government leaders are lying in concert with the UN. Governments and bureaucrats have added laws and regulations for citizens and corporations to follow. The faster this lie. crumbles the harder the edge will become. Resistance to this foolhardy pogrom is everything.
Essentially the IPCC have moved from a IPCC AR4 statement:
We are 50% certain the next coin flip will be heads
To a IPCC AR5 probability statement:
We are 100% certain the next coin flip will be heads or tails
The day the IPCC is forced to declare a false alarm draws nearer with each report. If the hiatus continues then the next report will make interesting reading.
An unusually honest article today in the UK Guardian, under Environment-Climate Change is titled “Not even climate change will kill off capitalism.” What is remarkable about this article is that it discusses nothing about climate change itself, but treats the issue as simply a tool in the larger goal, defeating capitalism. It bemoans the possibility that capitalism may survive the onslaught of environmentalism and may even continue to thrive. It suggests that other tools may be needed.
What struck me about the article is how frank it was that the goal is defeat of capitalism and that climate change is just a tool. There is no discussion of the science whatsoever and the article makes clear that the science is secondary to the goal of defeating capitalism. If climate change doesn’t work then something else needs to be tried. No clearer revelation of the underlying agenda behind warming alarmists could be made by even the most critical of observers.
If the IPCC can be proven to have the intent, i.e., the mens rea, necessary for fraud, a.k.a., a l1e,
then,
all who:
1) reasonably relied
2 on those l1es
3) to their detriment
are owed just compensation for their damage.
However…
Given: “IPCC AR5 probability statement:
We are 100% certain the next coin flip will be heads or tails”
(nicely restated by Onion at 11:20am)
Thus, any reliance on the IPCC’s speculations is NOT reasonable.
Therefore, the culpability shifts
to the government officials who clearly DO have a legal duty to not mislead the public. Not doing due diligence or acting negligently (i.e., not acting as a reasonably prudent official would) or acting with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the facts upon which they rely (i.e., intending the carelessness, but not any particular effect of those acts) makes the government officials liable for damages caused by their malfeasance.
While those officials may successfully argue some sort of Sovereign Immunity defense for negligence, intent should be easy to show, especially given the fact that
many of those government officials are not only Envirostalinsts, but also Enviroprofiteers.
The handwriting has been on the wall for several years, now. And that handwriting was not written in pencil… . Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
YOU ARE DOOMED, you AGWers, DOOMED, I say.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaa!
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
FInis.
I believe the IPCC should engage the climate modelers to have a thorough look at the radiation now occuring in parts of the Pacific ocean due to leakage from the Fukishima reactors. Trace amounts in the parts per billion range are showing up. It would take about a thousand times higher concentration to become a health concern, and we all know the traces will dissipate. However, the IPCC modelers could demonstrate that since the radiation was almost nill 4 years ago, and has grown to measurable trace amounts today, that in 10 years it will most certainly be much higher (high confidence). IPCC could extrapolate that 100 years the Pacific will be highly radioactive (high confidence), and in 1,000 years will be a toxic sludge pool. Someday the IPCC modelers and reality should have a meeting.
In a remarkable example of scientific malfeasance, it has become apparent that the IPCC knew a lot more than it revealed in its 2013 climate compendium about how low the earth’s climate sensitivity is likely to be.
Lewis and Crok do not dispute the scientific reviews, but only the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM.) The SPM expressed a political judgment.
Oh, sorry. I meant to kill that last comment, not post it.
Gail mentioned the term “abrupt climate change.” How’s this quote from Mr. Trenberth for abrupt:
Forecasters expect El Nino ocean warming this year, may provide relief for US weather woes
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/06/forecasters-expect-el-nino-ocean-warming-this-year-may-provide-relief-for-us/
“Trenberth said this El Nino may even push the globe out of a decade-long slowdown in temperature increase, “so suddenly global warming kicks into a whole new level.”
Given the absence of measureable temperature increase in the atmosphere or upper ocean in the last 10+ years in the face of continuing rise in atmospheric CO2, it seem to me that the “measured” sensitivity to CO2 must include “zero” as a lower limit.
The Null Hypothesis for CO2-force global warming is reasonably phrased as “there is no measureable increase in global temperatures as a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2”. So far, this Null Hypothesis remains at least “not disproven” based on measurements of the real world.
That is contrary to the failed predictions of the great mass of climate models of the 1980’s and 90’s which were used to gin up the current crisis. They have been disproven by measurement in the real world. Indeed, this is perhaps the only part of the science of climatology that ought to be considered settled.
It still seems likely that there will be some global warming induced by rising CO2, but as the sensitivity gets nearer to zero, the harder it will be to tease out this effect from the natural variability of our climate. This is the situation we seem to be in now.
So much for headless chickens prince chuck!
but gore did a documentary with sexy graphics so the co2 deathstar coming to kill us has got to be true because its a better movie. This they would say is just quibbling and nit picking about minor numbers 🙂 anyway deindustrialisation is ‘the right thing to do’.
until a counter documentary is made with sexy graphics it won’t penetrate the publicosphere
proofreader!
get yer butt orientatificated and face the mounting scientific! wanna sound real orcademic, here.
The Obama administration/ EPA is full of wackadoodle watermelon zealots. Of ccourse . They will ignore this.
Sorry but I just gotta…
Janice Moore,
I was under the impression you have some knowledge of US law.
Given people have been forced to have smart meters or get their electric cut off and given the closing of coal plants link will cause electric rates to as Obama put it “ necessarily skyrocket.” would a group of citizens have ‘Standing’ to sue the former EPA officials like John C. Beale, Lisa Jackson and perhaps those helping Greenpeace and the Sierra Club rig court cases among others (like Hansen)?
I really really would like to see some ERRrrrdragged in to court.
“and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)”
This is an oxymoron; a grammatical absurdity. If the words “very unlikely” are not a statement of high confidence, then the words mean nothing.
Don’t worry about a peril to the administration. A government’s reputation is worth more than any taxpayer’s money.
“… there is no measurable increase in global temperatures as a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2″. So far, this Null Hypothesis remains at least “not disproven”… .”
Kwinterkorn at 12:14pm
And when you factor in that the % of atmospheric CO2 which is human CO2 emissions is:
1) tiny (.04 percent); and
2) EASILY overwhelmed by a magnitude of 2 by the net CO2 of natural sources and sinks,
any speculated effect of HUMAN CO2 is almost certainly going to be ZERO.
Patrick says: @ March 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Wishful thinking.
He must be getting a bit nervous since He is close to 70. Don’t want to lose all that cushy money and awards and limelight now do we?
According to WIKI: Trenberth has “.. made significant contributions[3] to research into El Niño-Southern Oscillation….” I am sure the rest of the team is hoping he will pull an El Niño rabbit out of his… hat. Bob Tisdale must really chap his rear.
Hi, Gail,
Well, lol, so you WERE “under the impression {I} have some knowledge of US law” … until you read what I wrote today, heh, heh. (smile). Good, well-informed, worthwhile, question (at 12:50pm).
Re: Standing
Just a very incomplete and vague (sorry, I’m about to leave and wanted to answer quickly AND I don’t have the cites memorized, so, would have to take quite some time to look it all up) answer:
Generally, if the plaintiffs (whoever they are) can prove that they were:
1) injured
2) not due to their own fault (e.g., failing to mitigate)
3) that injury was proximately caused by the defendant (former EPA officials, here)’s negligence (or other malfeasance) and
4) they do not have a good sovereign immunity (or reliance on the best science at the time – type defense) defense
then, YES, a group of injured (could be on behalf of estate of their dead from hypothermia grandma — hard to prove causation of death was “but for” the coal regs., though…) U.S. citizens could sue, here.
Please forgive my almost useless answer, Gail. I wanted to answer AT ALL, and, knowing what I do of the law (including the Rules of Professional Responsibility)… I could not say more … . Someone who knows less about the law might say more… .
Hopefully, someone who knows and has the time to give you a competent answer will reply. In fact, to help you out there, I’ll write this:
*****************************************************************************************
ANYONE WITH THE TIME AND KNOWLEDGE TO ANSWER GAIL’S Q AT12:50PM — PLEASE REPLY TO HER.
******************************************************************************
Hope THAT, at least, helps. #(:))
btw: your post on the EPA at SCOTUS thread re: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) shows that YOU are well-versed in American jurisprudence. That case was, imo, wrongly decided and it would be the severing of a giant, economy-enervating, tumor, for it to be overruled by SCOTUS. Oh, that would definitely, be “Happy days are here again.” Please, dear God, bring that question presented before the court! (and have them rule correctly, this time…).
Thanks again for all your fine, thoughtful, posts on WUWT. You add immense value to this site. And, now, I REALLY have to run so — whoopee, no proofreading, just … “hit post comment and go!”
Your WUWT fan and pal,
Janice
As stated over at Ed Hawkins, as a layman I have my own calculation of ECS based on a temperature increase of 0.8% since CO2 was at 280ppm in the atmosphere. It is now around 400ppm so the increase is around 43%. As CO2 temperature effect is considered to be logarithmic a reasonable projected temperature for a doubling of CO2 would be around 1.75C max . Taking the IPCC confidence that over half of the above mentioned temperature increase is caused by man made CO2 emissions, my estimate is 1% ECS based on a CO2 doubling. I am proud to find myself in company with such scientists as Professor Lindzen and Dr Spencer and that is without using a model. Even Mosher cannot argue I am using a model. I would say that anyone disagreeing with this projection must show an acceleration in increasing temperatures since pre industrial times and how do you do that in face of a “pause” now exceeding 17 years per RSS?
I wonder if in say, 50 years or so elementary children will be learning about how scientists once thought that CO2 was going to change the climate catastrophically. Kind of like we learned about spontaneous generation when I was a kid. Something about a cardboard box, a dirty shirt and grain spontaneously produced mice…
Given the Obama admin’s track records, if it continues to push AGW and anti-civilization policies, start seeing certain scientists’ funds disappear and the occasional tax audit.
Gail Combs: … or a rabbit out of his assets.
[snip – no valid email address, required by policy to comment here].
MX record about gmail.com exists.
Connection succeeded to alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com SMTP.
220 mx.google.com ESMTP k18si7129490wjw.99 – gsmtp
> HELO verify-email.org
250 mx.google.com at your service
> MAIL FROM:
=250 2.1.0 OK k18si7129490wjw.99 – gsmtp
> RCPT TO: Meadrol@gmail.com
=550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist.
Nice try, – but DA doesn’t get a pass here with fake emails – Anthony]
It is difficult to publish low ball estimates of ECS and TCR in the current political environment. I suspect that studies which might give low values have either self censored or not been published. Hence I regard the lower bound in the published literature as being far too high. Indeed I tend to think it makes a more likely upper bound. My own personal subjective assessment is that TCR is somewhere in the range 0.3 to 1.3. And yes that implies I think feedback is most likely negative.
ECS is much more problematic as you are comparing to what “would have happened”. It could be large if the extra CO2 manages to delay the next onset of glaciation in the current ice age. But if that happens I really don’t think we’ll mind.
This is still a meaningless metric as its assumes the warming is caused by CO2 increase, It can’t explain the pause and is still based on flawed models that don’t have the correct climate inputs and constraints.
The agw crowd are nothing but crooks. Mann and the rest of the bunch need to be perp walked before the public.
Why didn’t Lewis & Crok submit their science for peer review? Frankly, it looks like they’re trying to avoid it. Disappointing, because more is needed.
There must be more scientists apart from Lewis and Crok who are aware of the deceit, misrepresentation and reluctance to fess up from the IPCC, which discredits their contributions.
Isn’t it time to challenge the IPCC? These deceits are not unfortunate choices of words, they appear to be deliberate attempts to mislead. Are those who contributed prepared to remain complicit in this?
“All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing…” Edmund Burke.
Mead R. says: @ March 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Why didn’t Lewis & Crok submit their science for peer review? Frankly, it looks like they’re trying to avoid it. Disappointing, because more is needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TIME
Obama has ~ 2 years to get his de-industrialization of the USA pushed through. Mid-term elections come up in November so we need this ammunition ASAP.
Thanks, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger.
Your new report deserves careful reading, possibly links.
Gail Combs: You didn’t answer my question.
It sure looks like Lewis & Crok deliberately avoided peer reviewed journals. Why?
It’s a simple question.
Yes, we are ignoring you.
Why?
It is a simple answer.
Because your “question” is assuming that their paper and their ideas would get a fair and accurate and timely review by the prejudiced paid-by-government-grants pal-review-and-approve-system without chance of public review and exposure.
“It sure looks like Lewis & Crok deliberately avoided peer reviewed journals. Why?”
Because peer review is at best a rather superficial check, and has been thoroughly corrupted by the alarmists, as the Climatequiddick e-mails show.
RA Cook: There have been many contrary papers published in recent years, some by Nick Lewis himself:
“A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series”
R. B. Skeie et al , Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 4, 785–852, 2013
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/785/2013/
“Energy budget constraints on climate response”
Alexander Otto et al (includes Nic Lewis), Nature Geoscience 6, 415–416 (2013)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html
“Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models,” Troy Masters, Climate Dynamics (April 2013)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4
“An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity,” N. Lewis, J. Climate (2013)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1
So why avoid peer review now?
Akatsukami says:
Because peer review is at best a rather superficial check, and has been thoroughly corrupted by the alarmists
But there have been over 1000 skeptical papers published in the literature:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
So I’m asking again — why did Lewis & Crok avoid the peer reviewed literature?
Dr. Feynman was far too optimistic about the proliferation of scientific integrity.
Cargo Cult Science
Richard Feynman
From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974
“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn’t they discover the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of–this history–because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that kind of a disease.
But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves–of having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.”
There is a very interesting paper out by two brothers from the United Kingdom somewhere who analyzed 13 million weather balloon, temperature reading profiles.
They discovered there is a 1:1 linear fit effectively for the condition called molar density. It is the number of actual molecules in a cubic meter of a gaseous compound; and is a little separate thing from, simply, the air pressure.
They discovered that the atmosphere has the temperature profile so clearly that it was on their original passes over the data they saw how straight the line was, simply projected a linear response and found that the overwhelming majority of all the readings were right on the linear response to molar density.
The profiles show the atmosphere up to about 20 miles where the helium radiosonde balloons burst, is in what’s called energetic equilibrium: the amount of energy per cubic meter of air is the same from the ground up through 20 miles, but the temperature is different.
They are two brothers one of whom is a progammer who dissected current infrared cooling models in use and noted their algorithms and features; and was interested in climate. In the United Kingdom them founded and operated some kind of tropical fish raising operation and in their years of dealing with liquid and gaseous fluids and temperatures they got more and more interested in Climate the more they researched for themselves.
They didn’t get paid for the research and put it online with instructions how to perform what they did. It’s is up for some kind of ‘open peer review’ where instead of a few hidden people making notes and critiques, several hundred to several thousand can simply review the paper and pick out any errors, or something like that.
They said they believe that it was simply coincidental that they decided to simply check and see if the atmosphere actually was, energetically distributed as it truly is, not the way modern climate majority believers thought it was.
Mead R. says:
March 6, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Gail Combs: You didn’t answer my question.
It sure looks like Lewis & Crok deliberately avoided peer reviewed journals. Why?
It’s a simple question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did answer your question. If the paper is put out for peer-reviewed publication it can not be published else where first. So As I just said TIME!
This is from a peer-reviewed paper on solar influence on climate chosen at random:
Received: 12 July 2012
Accepted: 24 September 2012
Published: 28 November 2012
If they put the paper out now, and even if the first journal accepts they still may miss influencing mid term elections in the USA.
Also peer-review doesn’t mean Sh1t any more. It is completely useless in determining the quality of a paper because it has been so badly abused. It is to the point where one Journal is now demanding the statistical method be sent to the journal BEFORE the experiments are done.
I have a whole file labeled science fraud. I will [refrain] from dumping that file here unless you request I do so.
Mead R……peer review?
Well it is out there now….review away!
I’d love to hear what you, OR anyone else, has to say. Or is your idea of “peer review”…. sceptical filter?
Mead R. says: March 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Why didn’t Lewis & Crok submit their science for peer review? Frankly, it looks like they’re trying to avoid it. Disappointing, because more is needed.
Don’t worry Mead.
It is right now in the process of getting very thoroughly reviewed by ‘peers’.
And by everyone else.
It makes the old ‘peer review’ process seem very old school, and a bit too [cozy], does it not?
Mead R. says:
March 6, 2014 at 5:24 pm
“So I’m asking again — why did Lewis & Crok avoid the peer reviewed literature?”
——————————————————————————————————–
You can ask as many times as you like, but there is nothing to be gained by this. The petulant “but, but, it’s not peer reviewed” shrieking impresses absolutely no one.
A. The Lewis & Crok paper is not a scientific paper, just a report listing ECS values of other papers. Peer review has no relevance here.
B. For future reference, most WUWT readers will be familiar with the classic Climategate email – “we’ll keep these papers out even if we have to re-define what peer review means”. After that email, no amount of shrieking about “not peer reviewed” will ever work again. That ship has sailed, hit the iceberg of truth and sunken with all rodents.
Watching the Alinskyite David Appell moaning about a report on reduced ECS is a bit of a joke now. More and more citizens are considering evidence that radiative gases do not warm our planet at all. “Pal review” is meaningless when citizens around the world can build and run the empirical experiments proving AGW false for themselves. No amount of Alinsky “change agents” can counter empirical results that individuals can try for themselves.
Trying to control the “narrative” no longer works in the age of the Internet. Citizens aren’t waiting for some “pal reviewed” paper reported by the lame stream media to tell them what to think. They are feeding satellite temperatures directly into their own computers now. They are surveying the surface stations for themselves. Citizens now review and demolish the papers of the climate pseudo scientists (often within minutes), not their “peers”. The Internet has proven a powerful force for truth and democracy. The Fabian fantasies of the AGW fellow travellers are being crushed, along with their reputations, careers and any institution, NGO or political party they seek to hide in. Welcome to OUR brave new world 😉
I read through the papers’ summaries but not the papers. The brothers said they used pretty standard methods. They did the atmospheric pressures and temperatures research all themselves, because it’s so simple: it is ideal gas laws that creates the profile for the temperature of the atmosphere they said, and that the fact it was ideal gas law’s exact match to temperature gradient vs molar density was what made them go on to do a lot more research to see if they could possibly just be wrong.
These are the two people here
About Us | Global Warming Solved
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/
and here is their explanatory starting page:
Start Here | Global Warming Solved
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-here/#our_methods
It’s pretty interesting stuff and there is a description that assigns the point where the air molecules seem to clump exceptionally densely as the tropopause edge, with the realm and region above that point being the full region normally considered the tropopause itself with a very gradual and regular change toward typical stratospheric conditions.
They have both worked in many sciences and also run working scientific businesses dealing with fluids and temperatures, and really what they say sounds like it has the ring of real science.
Not, what most modern climate science people consider, real science.
They seem to be very sure that what they are saying is easily checked and verified as being what they say, or not, I didn’t go so far as to actually read their papers; however their links for their papers’ introductions have a lot of in-depth discussion of the atmosphere that makes a lot about what their message is, quite clear, and I can say that I recommend everyone read them.
It seems it has only been a couple of years since climate gate revealed the scientists knew their precepts and postulations were in trouble, and here we are with Dr. Michael Mann mired in lawsuits he can not possibly win as a public figure active in policy politics,
James Hansen forced into retirement, AGW believers everywhere in stunned disarray,
and a whole new generation of experienced, competent, professional atmospheric chemists is coming up behind them analyzing the atmosphere using honest straightforward means,
revealing very much of what the climate scientists were saying was just, wrong.
Climate gate simply underlined that they all knew it and that they had to keep control of public policy over it, or the entire charade they were involved in – basically they were mathematics modeling grants scammers whose work got seized on by an unfortunate politician for usage in an ecological crisis crusade –
would come utterly unraveled.
markx says:@ March 6, 2014 at 6:19 pm
A paper that makes it though a WUWT review is much better than a paper that goes through pal-review.
More than one paper has been vetted by WUWT first and then updated based on comments before formal submission.
Anthony,
Three important points to remember:
1) This climate sensitivity is with respect to CO2 only. The climate is sensitive to many other radiative forcings from clouds, aerosols, ocean circulations, etc. IPCC excludes clouds and oceans in its assessment reports but their effects are probably greater than CO2. (Note the “pause” is sometimes attributed to PDO, ENSO, AMO) The uncertainty is the forcing of aerosols is about -2.5 W/m^2 (IPCC estimate). This means it could cancel the forcing of CO2 = +1.66 W/m^2. This is obvious from the IPCC AR4 radiative forcings chart but not emphasized.
Even if CO2 doubles, it is uncertain temperature will rise by X amount because that assumes all other forcings remain constant. “All things being equal” The climate is always changing. “All things are never equal”
2) The relevant sensitivity is TCR not ECS because the latter takes thousands of years to attain. It is only flawed models that exclude deep ocean mixing that assumes ECS can be attained in decades.
3) Any TCR estimate above 1 C implicitly assumes positive feedback. Lindzen and Spencer have studies based on satellite data that the climate has strong negative feedback (approx. 6 W/m^2/K) This means it’s possible TCR is less than 1 C.
Dear Gail,
I see that no one else responded to your fine question of 12:50pm, today. You have been, apparently, (so far as I’ve read of the posts since mine of 1:21pm) polite enough to say nothing when nothing good could be said about my reply to you at 1:21pm, today. I apologize again for how general it was, but, I was really out of time, then.
You deserve a better answer. When I thought over this evening how I would approach the topic of private citizens suing the EPA, in anticipation of writing you a better reply, I realized that it would take me many hours to do the research that it would take to write you a memorandum on the law involved of the quality I would want to do (of the quality I really must do, if I do it at all). YOU ARE WORTH that effort, but, if I ever get to that project, it will end up being quite awhile until I respond to you. Thus, this disappointing post by me here just to let you know that I am not ignoring you and to apologize for not answering more fully. If I get that memorandum completed, I’ll flag you down (and you KNOW I’ll persevere at that flagging, lol).
If you have other questions, please ask me — perhaps, I may know the answer without much research needed OR (even better!) someone else will answer you with competence and completeness.
Regretfully,
Janice
It is a great pity that these excellent scientists, Lewis and Crok, make the careless mistake of reporting a small temperature change as a percentage. When they do so, they imply that we all agree that absolute zero is 0C. It is of course 0K. They would get a very different percentage if they used that. Why can’t they just say there is a difference in temperature and report it in degrees? It would be scientifically correct and it wouldn’t matter whether the reader was thinking in C or K.
They are of course not the only ones making this foolish mistake. It is usually warmists. I don’t bother correcting them.
Three important points to remember:
1) This climate sensitivity is with respect to CO2 only. The climate is sensitive to many other radiative forcings from clouds, aerosols, ocean circulations, etc. IPCC excludes clouds and oceans in its assessment reports but their forcings are probably greater than CO2. (Note the “pause” is sometimes attributed to PDO, ENSO, AMO) The uncertainty in the forcing of aerosols is about -2.5 W/m^2 (IPCC estimate). This means it could cancel the forcing of CO2 = +1.66 W/m^2. This is obvious from the IPCC AR4 radiative forcings chart but not emphasized.
Even if CO2 doubles, it is uncertain temperature will rise by X amount because that assumes all other forcings remain constant. “All things being equal” The climate is always changing. “All things are never equal”
2) The relevant sensitivity is TCR not ECS because the latter takes thousands of years to attain. It is only flawed models that exclude deep ocean mixing that assumes ECS can be attained in decades.
3) Any TCR estimate above 1 C implicitly assumes positive feedback. Lindzen and Spencer have studies based on satellite data that the climate has strong negative feedback (approx. 6 W/m^2/K) This means it’s possible TCR is less than 1 C.
Mead R.
So I’m asking again — why did Lewis & Crok avoid the peer reviewed literature?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It doesn’t matter why. Either there is an error in their work, or there isn’t. If you have spotted an error, by all means, tell us what it is.
Konrad,
That was my paper that they plotted to keep out. They ultimately included it but smashed it with a totally ad-hoc criticism in the IPCC text.
Dr. Strangelove says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:33 pm
————————————–
No Dr. Strangelove, that won’t work. Try that and there will be fighting in the war room.
There is no “warming, but less warming than we thought” get out of jail free card.
Remember Dr. Spencer’s blog? Remember when you lied and claimed to have conducted an empirical experiment into LWIR heating of water? Remember just after your post when another reader took my build instructions and replicated my results? The Internet remembers. The Internet remembers forever.
There will be no “soft landing” for the global warming hoax nor any of the fellow travellers. Nothing you can say or do can engineer such an outcome. The net effect of radiative gases is planetary cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. No excuses. No ameliorations. No escape.
michaelspj says:
March 6, 2014 at 9:53 pm
“That was my paper that they plotted to keep out.”
—————————————————————–
“What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”
It’s not the initial lie but the subsequent cover up that gets them…
Although I’m not sure any further “practice” could have saved the IPCC 😉
My point – the attempt to suppress your paper cost the IPCC far more than they could ever have imagined.
Ultimately this is not about science. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reducing the atmospheres radiative cooling ability was always pseudo science. Complete foaming inanity. Observe the petulant squealing of David Appell. “Scientists say” and “it’s peer reviewed” is core to his “narrative”. They hoped that pulling on the white coat of scientific respectability would help them further the ultimate “gotcha” against free market democracy.
But they are now caught in their own tangled web. “scientists say” no longer works. Now the public ask, are those scientists or climate “scientists”. I find it delicious that what posed the greatest threat to science, reason, freedom and democracy has now turned against its worthless creators and will destroy all of the Fabian’s sick fantasies.
We are living in interesting times 😉
IPCC should stand for International Panel for Communicating Corruption
FYI, the pressconference and presentation took place in the very heart of our democracy, presscenter Nieuwspoort in The Hague, the Netherlands.
For a report see: http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/2365/een-gevoelige-kwestie/ including some pictures.
Translate via Google translate
where all reports are also downloadable, including the Dutch version, translated from English by Marcel Crok.
No AGW no IPCC, it really is that simply . Now given that want do you think the IPCC will do ?
Lewis and Crok are referring to a sensitivity value in response to a doubling of CO2, e.g. 3 deg C or 3K or 5.4 deg F. They have concluded that true sensitivity is around 1.75 deg C or 1.75K or 3.15 deg F. They are perfectly justified, therefore, in using a percentage difference.
The Lewis & Crok sensitivity estimate is about 40% lower than the ‘IPCC’ sensitivity estimate.
bbc website has a hys on this story but if u post the link to here it goes into ‘moderation’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26468564
the bbc article sells the story as a pro co2er one
“Here was one of the world’s foremost bastions of contrariness when it comes to man-made climate change, admitting that temperatures were actually rising in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
And according to the study, the 2C threshold of dangerous warming would be crossed later on this century.
Huh? What about all that stuff we’ve heard in the past from those who refused to accept the science? That the whole thing was a warmist conspiracy, driven by out-of-work ex-communists?”
Temperature versus CO2 over the last 750 million years. This is based on 2,560 individual estimates of both that are from the exact same timeline.
Two versions; the first showing the observations/estimates versus the 3.0C and 1.0C per doubling logarithmic rising lines that many of you have seen.
http://s3.postimg.org/gu69jeh9f/Temp_vs_CO2_Last_750_Mys.png
And then on the “distribution” basis that climate science likes to use. While climate science seems to be able to squeeze the numbers into a Chi-Square distribution from 1.0C to 6.0C centre-weighted at 3.0C per doubling, the best estimates from the climate history of Earth are in the 1.0C per doubling range with a +/- 40.0C distribution.
http://s30.postimg.org/5mel2gyk1/Equil_CO2_Sensitivity_Last_750_Mys.png
I would conclude that it is really a “Null or 0.0C Sensitivity” result.
(I have also built in estimates of what Earth’s Albedo would have been over these timeframes based on the continental distributions and the extent of glacial ice, desert etc. from the reconstructions – and Albedo seems to vary from 0.250 to 0.500 on Earth mostly as a result of the extent of glacial ice which has by far the biggest impact on Albedo of all the various factors – and one would get a tighter distribution around 1.0C per doubling if this were included).
jauntycyclist says:
March 7, 2014 at 3:25 am
————————————
“those who refused to accept the science”
Just what “science” would that be? Would that be the “basic physics” of the “settled science”?
You know, the two shell radiative models where the speed of tropospheric convective circulation was held static for increasing concentrations of radiative gases? The junk science?
The same “basic physics” that claims the oceans would freeze without downwelling LWIR? That tripe?
Sceptics do not claim global warming is a communist conspiracy. Rather it is inane groupthink that attracted a vast crowd of fellow travellers who all foolishly thought it could further each of their agendas.
The co-founder of greenpeace makes the same claim here –
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2014/02/28/exclusive-former-greenpeace-founders-reality-check-liberals
The good news is that all the worlds most useless people continued to push global warming even in the age of the Internet. The name of every AGW propagandist is now a matter of permanent record as is the name of every one of the Professional Left who chose to vilify sceptics to silence them. We are living on a planet where radiative gases do not cause atmospheric warming. How is this going to end for the Professional Left? I’m sure, given time, even you can work this one out 😉
Been going on at IPCC since before Steve Milloy wrote his first junk science primer. Can a political organization commit scientific malfeasance or do you have to be a scientist being associated with it? Seems esoteric, but science by committee for the purpose of governance has malfeasance baked into the cake along with irresponsibility for the “science”. And the National Academy and the Royal Society are complicit.
Excerpt:
Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of recent scientific research aimed at gaining a better understanding of what the climate sensitivity may be. We have detailed much of this research in our ongoing series of articles highlighting new findings on the topic. Collectively, the new research indicates an ECS value a bit below 2°C.
My comment:
“A bit below 2°C” is still much too high.
If ECS exists at all, it is below 1°C and probably below 0.2°C.
And it may not exist at all in the practical sense, since atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales, and the future cannot cause the past.
Alternatively, as Richard Courtney said some years ago, “Show me your time machine.”
Regards, Allan
@ Konrad — YOU, GO, HERO WARRIOR FOR TRUTH!
Impressively powerful, efficient, fighting above — with deadly (to AGW) accuracy.
*********************************************************************
@ Gail — If I have not offended you beyond the point of never speaking to me again… Did you see my comments at 1:21pm and 8:10pm yesterday? Mine a 1:21 was in moderation (I have no idea why — maybe spelling l-i-e-s with a “1” doesn’t work anymore) for awhile and perhaps you missed it and I’d hate to have you think I just blew you off. Please forgive my inadequate answer to your fine Q. Thanks (in advance, (smile)) for the ping-back. J.
Just curious — Moderator — do you have any idea why my 10:34am comment is
(like my 1:21pm yesterday comment) i
n moderation? Is it the version of the word: “lll-ii1i-ee-s”? Is it because I misspelled at (“Mine a 1:21”), lol?
Thanks. J.
[Reply: Have no idea. WordPress does what it wants. But I’ve posted it now. ~mod.]
Thanks for rescuing me from the Moderation Monster, Mod. My Hero.
#(:))
@Norman Woods
Thanks for the links. Perfect.
Perhaps you can answer a question for me.
Noted in another comment above is the phrase, ‘Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reducing the atmospheres radiative cooling ability…’ which is oft-repeated.
If I want to increase the radiative cooling of a heat exchanger, I add to its ability to radiate by, say, painting it black instead of green. The concept that “adding CO2 to the atmosphere decreases its ability to radiate heat into space” is fundamentally flawed, because at the effective radiating altitude, there will be more little radiators working day and night to send IR into space.
The claimed effect is really one of insulating the lower altitudes with ‘back-radiation’ but those additional molecules are sending it down to an increased number of ‘forward radiating’ molecules.
In any insulating medium, say a dense foam, adding particles that are conductive decreases the insulating effect. Because it is conducting, not radiating, that is a one way trip. An experiment has been proposed that involves reflecting light onto a light bulb using a single reflector to see if it heat up. However this is not analogous to CO2 in the air. The light bulb would have to have an extra reflector added to send the light more effectively away, then a second mirror sending some of it back, in order to represent the atmosphere.
The fact that the experiment with one reflector failed to raise the temperature of the bulb is not the point. It is that increasing the CO2 concentration throughout the column as examined by the brothers will increase the ability of the atmosphere to rid itself of heat. Have you seen anything on line that explores this angle?
The schoolboy explanation which says “adding a radiative gas reduces the cooling ability” is an oxymoronic phrase.
Janice: I endorse the sentiment of your original post…
MARIO!
What a happy surprise. #(:))
So, you agree with THIS, I take it:
YOU ARE DOOMED, you AGWers, DOOMED, I say.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaa!
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Finis.
(just felt like shouting the entire thing, this time)
Thanks for letting me know my comment wasn’t invisible,
O Hero par excellence.
Your Janice pal
@ John Finn
You are of course right! They were not talking about temperatures but sensitivities measured in degrees. Posted in haste. Sorry to have wasted readers’ time.
Because it is a Think Tank report not a peer-reviewed paper. Are you unfamiliar with these?
Konrad
I will not waste my time on you. Your ridiculous claims are the stuff of Dragon Slayers. I do my own experiments not for your satisfaction. You, like Doug Cotton, are hopeless. BTW my experiments disproved your claim that LWIR cannot heat water. But I don’t expect you to believe that. Long live the Dragon Slayers!
Dr. Strangelove,
While you may, indeed, have a genuine scientific difference with Konrad based on a well-conducted experiment, I have read enough of Konrad’s comments and also those of “Vis-it-ing Phy-si-cist” a.k.a. “Name du jour” a.k.a. D. C-o-ttn to know that your characterization of Konrad is grossly inaccurate.
C-o-ttn is, indeed, a kook. Konrad, on the other hand, presents solid, convincing, and persuasive, evidence for his conclusions.
That you felt it necessary to write as you did weakens your credibility. Next time, post the details of your experiment and contrast its results with Konrad’s. THEN, you might be persuasive.
Janice
Okay, I’ll re-post my 11:24am comment now in moderation for a reason I think I have partially guessed …
Dr. Str-a-nge-love,
While you may, indeed, have a genuine scientific difference with K-onr-a-d based on a well-conducted experiment, I have read enough of K-on-rad’s comments and also those of “Vis-it-ing Phy-si-cist” a.k.a. “Name du jour” a.k.a. D. C-o-ttn to know that your characterization of K-on-ra-d is grossly inaccurate.
C-o-ttn is, indeed, a kook. K-o-nra-d, on the other hand, presents solid, convincing, and persuasive, evidence for his conclusions.
That you felt it necessary to write as you did weakens your credibility. Next time, post the details of your experiment and contrast its results with K-onr-a-d’s. THEN, you might be persuasive.
Janice
Janice Moore;
C-o-ttn is, indeed, a kook. K-o-nra-d, on the other hand, presents solid, convincing, and persuasive, evidence for his conclusions.
>>>>>>>>
Only to anyone who doesn’t have a background in physics. He’s utterly convinced of his conclusions, no matter how much contrary evidence you put in front of him. He’s just as much a kook as cotton and the slayrs.
Dear davidmhoffer (per your request, I leave your name as printed),
I, not having a background in physics, cannot, of course, affirm what you say at 12:23PM today. However, I respect your opinion as one whose comments reveal a conscientious, educated, intelligent, honest, mind. Thus, I will more closely scrutinize both the evidence of K-on-rad and of his opponents in argument from now on.
Thank you for taking the time to warn me of what you consider to be a matter for serious concern.
With much admiration for all your erudition so nicely displayed on WUWT,
Janice
(if you like, you may use my given name, though I have a feeling you’d prefer not to)
Janice.
All you have to do is compare the average temperature of rain forests and deserts at the same latitude. If K. was correct, then, due to the the high water vapour (ghg) content in the rain forests, they would be cooler than dry (low ghg) deserts at the same latitude. We see the exact opposite of that. Deserts cool of dramatically at night because they have a sparsity of ghg’s, while rain forests stay warm because they have high levels of ghg’s. I could give you lost of other examples, but one is all you need to falsify his hypothesis.
Dear davidmhoffer,
Thank you for your explanation. It sounds plausible. I’d like to hear what K-onr-ad would say, too, of course.
In the interests of defeating the political movement we call “AGW,” might I suggest that when talking about a situation where water vapour is the only known effective “greenhouse gas,” that we just say, “water vapour.” Using the term “greenhouse gases” gives, simply by the mere mention of it, too much implied weight to the unproven conjecture that human CO2 is causing any significant changes in earth’s climate.
Thank you for taking the time to help me better understand. Glad to see you used my given name.
Sincerely,
Janice
Janice,
We’re stuck with the term. It is inaccurate, but it is pervasive. In the example above, since we have a desert and a rain forest at the same latitude, insolation (energy from the sun into the system) is identical. GHG’s other than water vapour are reasonably well mixed. So the major difference is water vapour concentration, which is in fact a GHG. The higher concentration with all other factors more or less equal gives the exact opposite effect to what K. claims.
Dear davidmhoffer,
I just want to make sure I understood your comment at 4:21pm. Is there NO situation (say, where we compare deserts to rain forests as per the example at 2:13pm above) in which water vapour is the only proven-effective “greenhouse gas,” thus, we could IN JUST THOSE SITUATIONS, simply talk about “water vapor” as the driver? This would (words are so powerful, as you, I can tell from your writing, are well aware) go a long way to counter the AGW propaganda which touts the conjectured power of the non-water GHG’s.
So, in the hopes that this will ensure that I communicate clearly, your example of 2:13pm would INSTEAD read:
________________________________________________
“If K. was correct, then, due to the high water vapour
(ghg)content in the rain forests, they would be cooler than dry (lowghgwater vapour) deserts at the same latitude. We see the exact opposite of that. Deserts cool of dramatically at night because they have a sparsity ofghg’swater vapour, while rain forests stay warm because they have high levels ofghg’swater vapour.___________________________________________________
Again, my strikes and adds are NOT to say that technically you were incorrect to use the conventionally accepted term “ghg (greenhouse gas).” I only cite the above edited version to ask (please know that I am not yelling, here, I just want to emphasize my main point to promote better communication): CAN WE USE “WATER VAPOUR” INSTEAD OF”ghg” where water vapour is the controlling (the null hypothesis having not been disproven as to any other “ghg’s”) causation (to avoid giving implied weight to AGW speculation)?
Boy! Communicating is SO much harder in writing than by speech!
With gratitude for your patience,
Janice
Words aren’t as good as speech but to really communicate technical issues, one needs a white board too. Blogs are SO limited in that aspect.
Yes you could word it as you have. But at day’s end, water vapour is a GHG. In fact, it is the dominant ghg. So variations in CO2 make little difference compared to water vapour. But to test K.’s theory, we can compare high water vapour (= high ghe) to low water vapour (= lower ghe).
Here is a good graphic:
http://eos.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/erbe/disp.pl?net.ann.
Look at the tropics. Over the ocean where water vapour is very high, the earth is a net absorber of energy. Over rain forest (northern South America for example) water vapour is less than over the oceans, but still very high and still those areas are net absorbers. Over North Africa and Saudi Arabia though, while still in the tropics, these are desert areas, very dry, and are clearly net radiators of energy. Exactly the opposite of what K claims should be happening according to his theory.
Dear davidmhoffer,
Thank you for your thoughtful answer. While water vapor IS a ghg, I think we should speak of it, where we can as “water vapor” to promote the truth that water vapor is the overwhelmingly dominant ghg.
Your explanation is clear and plausible. I, not having a background in physics, #(;)) cannot affirm or deny it. And I would still want to hear from K. himself, of course.
Thanks again for taking the time to tutor me,
Janice
K says that as you add ghg, you get a cooling effect. I’ve pointed you to data that shows the exact opposite. You can get all the explanations from him that you want, it won’t change his claim nor the data.
Gail Combs says on March 6, 2014 at 4:52 pm
“Obama has ~ 2 years to get his de-industrialization of the USA pushed through.”
______
Hello Gail,
Whether “de-industrialization of the USA” is Obama’s intention or a consequence of incompetence, it seems to be working.
The Shale Revolution has given North America a huge competitive advantage in energy cost over other parts of the world, and a rapid return of manufacturing and jobs to North America should be happening much faster.
The irrational opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is another example of the Obama administration’s extreme dysfunction. Keystone XL would bring secure Canadian crude oil to Houston, the centre of USA oil refining and will displace politically risky foreign crude imports. This is a huge strategic win for the USA in these increasingly unstable times. Approving Keystone XL has been a no-brainer for years – Keystone XL is clearly the best strategic interests of the American people.
Because Keystone XL has been opposed and delayed, Canada has developed alternative routes to export its crude oil through our East and West coasts. We have lost faith in the USA as a reliable energy partner and the USA is losing access to a secure and friendly supply of oil. Lose-lose for us all.
The USA and Canada have been friends for 200 years. Our friendship must continue. We have a little tiff in 1814, when you burned Toronto and we burned the White House, but all is forgiven. Most Canadians believe Toronto should be burned from time to time anyway, so we think we got the better of that deal. 🙂
America remains the one great hope for increased personal freedom and security in the world. There are about 200 countries in the world, and I suggest that only about 20 of them are worth living in. Most of the people in the world live in countries where there is insufficient personal freedom and security for individuals and their families. If the world is to transition to a point where most people enjoy personal freedom and security, then it will have to be led by the USA and the few Western countries that are its allies. I suggest it is naïve to think that China or Russia are going to lead the way into a better future for us all.
Best personal regards, Allan
davidmhoffer says:
March 9, 2014 at 5:13 am
K says that as you add ghg, you get a cooling effect. I’ve pointed you to data that shows the exact opposite. You can get all the explanations from him that you want, it won’t change his claim nor the data.
++++++++
I think you are correct here. Water vapor can turn into various forms such as clouds. Clouds have varying effects, such as to hold in net heat at night and blocking net heat during the day. So when and where clouds form is important. But in the form of water vapor, their energy holding is in the form of latent heat energy. That is, it takes tremendous energy to keep water in its vapor form! The energy content increase of the atmosphere with more moisture is greater at a given temperature than relatively dry air. Said another way, one would not expect the temperature of moist air to increase from incoming radiation as much as dry air. So measuring the temperature does not tell all of the story. I am not saying anything here that you (davidmhoffer) doesn’t understand, but thought I should bring this into the conversation.
Dear davidmhoffer,
First let me say that I am sorry that my responses to you have been so inept as to have offended you (yes, your tone clearly shows that at 5:13am). Please, if you can, forgive my refusing to reject K. as a legitimate scientist and, in your eyes, for my slowness of mind.
1. I am not familiar with the entirety of K-o-nr-ad’s position. I have only read his able defense of his assertion that longwave radiation cannot significantly heat the ocean (for there, water evaporates freely). That only shortwave radiation can penetrate deeply enough to do that. I don’t want to risk unintentionally mischaracterizing K.’s argument by attempting to describe it here, so I won’t. I do not recall him arguing for “ghgs” per se, just about water vapor and oceans. Thus, the desert refutation is not going to convince me to reject K.’s assertions.
2. Re: “K says that as you add ghg, you get a cooling effect.” (you at 5:13am today) I believe it would be more fair to K. (ESPECIALLY SINCE THE MAN IS NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF) and a more accurate representation of his position to say: “K says that as you add water vapor, you get a cooling effect.
3. Your tone tells me that you feel slightly insulted that I have not been persuaded by your evidence. It, however, violates far too deeply my sense of fair play to take one party’s characterization of an absent other and “convict” them on that. I simply will not treat someone like K. that way.
4. I say “like K.” meaning someone who, from reading his comments, is, even if K. is mistaken, not even CLOSE to being a nut like D.C-o-tt-on. It doesn’t take familiarity with physics to see that.
davidmhoffer, if I have offended you by not giving your word here as much deference as you feel I should, please forgive me. I simply do not know you or K. well enough to do that. FAIR PLAY demands that K. be given an opportunity to present his case. I’m sorry that I have alienated you. I had hoped that, even though I could never have your admiration for my intellectual abilities, that I could at least have your respect as someone who looks carefully at both sides of an issue.
With sadness, yet, hoping that eventually, we might be WUWT friends (you seem to be pretty hostile toward me, now),
Your Ally for Science Truth,
Janice
*********************************************
Dear Mario,
Thank you for adding (for me, anyway) much valuable, helpful, well-informed, science at 10:14am.
Much appreciated.
Your Janice pal
stevek says:
“The agw crowd are nothing but crooks. Mann and the rest of the bunch need to be perp walked before the public.”
It would be much funnier if they were “Twerk-Walked”. Credit to Mark Stein.
Janice,
I’m not offended. Sometimes one has time for a detailed response, sometimes not. From Konrads comment above:
Konrad says:
March 6, 2014 at 11:17 pm
The net effect of radiative gases is planetary cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
I’m sorry, but that is plain nonsense. It was that comment I was responding to, and it deserves no more debunking than I’ve already given it. It is the stuff of sl@yers.
As for LW not penetrating the ocean surface, he’s half right. LW is absorbed in the first few microns, leading to evaporation. You now have warmer water vapour in proximity to colder water and conduction comes into play. You also have mixing due to turbulence. You also have energy absorbed into flotsam and other debris on the ocean surface. You also have rain over large portions of the earth surface which puts energy (from evaporation) back into the oceans from kinetic energy being converted to heat when the rain hits.
Konrad may not be here to defend himself, but I’m laying out the facts for you to consider and draw your own conclusions. The modeling community isn’t here to defend themselves either, but it takes little to look at their claims, compare to observations, and see that they diverge markedly.
davidmhoffer says:
March 9, 2014 at 4:06 pm: …You also have rain over large portions of the earth surface which puts energy (from evaporation) back into the oceans from kinetic energy being converted to heat when the rain hits…
+++++++++
Hi David: You’ve clarified a lot of misconceptions for me. I enjoy reading your comments and learn a lot from you! I think that rain is cooler when that water vapor gives off its latent heat energy by condensing into rain. I would posit that the condensation puts its energy into the atmosphere – higher up, where the energy can be radiated partially into space and partially into the atmosphere. As well, I think, as you do, that we must consider water vapor a GHG since it does keep our atmosphere warmer and with more energy than without it.
Another thing – dry areas have more extreme temperature fluctuation because without water in the air, there is far less latent heat energy that can be stored. On the net, could you tell me if drier areas average energy (throughout a 24 hour period) is less than humid areas with the same insolation?
Mario
Dear davidmhoffer,
I’m glad that to hear that I misread your “tone” at 5:13am and that you were not offended. And thank you for the clarification. So, we were talking about two different subjects. No wonder the communication road got a bit bumpy. My point in responding to Strangelove above was, (based solely on the water vapor-oceans position of K.) that it was grossly unfair to lump K in with someone as horrible as D. C-ot–ton (D. C. once even went so far as to imply that he was speaking for God in his rhetorical Q (paraphrased from memory):
———————————————————————
{Given my quoting of a bit of C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters “Old error in new dress is ever error, nonetheless.”} “Then you believe in divine inspiration… .” with the clear implication that God was inspiring him, D. C-tt–o-n.
————————————————
Thus, you and I have no major disagreement! #(:))
We simply disagree as to the degree to which D. C. and K-d are comparable.
I agree that K states his “net effect of radiative gases” point which you quoted above with unwarrantedly high confidence. He cannot prove his assertion. That CO2 has risen while temperatures did not since about 1997 is evidence only of lack of warming by CO2, not of CO2 causing cooling. (Thus, we should go with the null hypothesis v. a v. human CO2 and NOT DO ANYTHING (except to prepare for a colder earth just in case).)
Re: all those physical possibilities for how LW could warm the ocean, I will go so far as to agree that they are likely, but, they could so easily be cancelled out by wind and other forces of nature, that I cannot conclude that LW actually does have a NET warming (as opposed to maintaining homeostasis) effect over long time scales on the ocean to any significant degree.
I want to emphasize that I defer to your much greater knowledge, here. I am not attempting to refute you. I’m only telling you where my mind is on the issue at this time.
I promise to do my best to examine the evidence presented on WUWT objectively.
Thank you, so much, for trying to educate this non-scientist and for persevering in this likely to you rather frustrating correspondence.
Your Ally for Science Truth,
Janice
Mario Lento;
On the net, could you tell me if drier areas average energy (throughout a 24 hour period) is less than humid areas with the same insolation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First let’s get the terminology down. Do you mean energy, energy flux, or temperature? They are three different things.
FWIW, an area with high humidity will experience less temperature variation than an area with low humidity given the exact same insolation over a 24 hour period. The low humidity area will also achieve higher peak temperatures, but will have lower average temperatures. So say the theory, backed up by observation. Two computers ago I had links to same handy, but you can see it in the ERBE and CERES data.
davidmhoffer says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Mario Lento;
On the net, could you tell me if drier areas average energy (throughout a 24 hour period) is less than humid areas with the same insolation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First let’s get the terminology down. Do you mean energy, energy flux, or temperature? They are three different things.
FWIW, an area with high humidity will experience less temperature variation than an area with low humidity given the exact same insolation over a 24 hour period. The low humidity area will also achieve higher peak temperatures, but will have lower average temperatures. So say the theory, backed up by observation. Two computers ago I had links to same handy, but you can see it in the ERBE and CERES data.
+++++++++++
Regarding: “First let’s get the terminology down. Do you mean energy, energy flux, or temperature? They are three different things.”
I actually wrote my question wrong, and thank you for calling out the terminology – I should have used the word “temperature” instead of “energy” in my question. It should have been written: “On the net, could you tell me if drier areas average “temperature” (throughout a 24 hour period) is less than humid areas with the same insolation?
And you answered that question. It makes sense that the additional humidity on average, would retain more temperature – I imagine because of the extra latent heat energy being released to resist cooling temperature.
I’m tempted to give an analogy to how air conditioners benefit from the latent heat in state changes… but that might be a bit off topic here.
I imagine because of the extra latent heat energy being released to resist cooling temperature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Partly. It takes less energy to heat up dry air 1 degree than it takes to heat up moist air by one degree. So, deserts heat up faster and to a higher temperature during the day than a high humidity area like a rain forest at the same latitude. Then the sun goes down, and you have two effects of high humidity. The first is that, as you surmise, some latent heat gets released by water vapour back to the immediate surroundings. But you also have radiated energy from the ground. Deserts cool off very fast because they are very dry and the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other gases is pretty minor. But in the rain forest, there’s plenty of water vapour hanging around to intercept that radiated heat and send it back downward. Consequently, it doesn’t cool off as fast or nearly as much in the rain forest as it does in the desert, and the average temperature over the long haul is higher.
Of course there are other factors such as changing albedo, etc, but for a two paragraph blog comment, that’s pretty close.
In a desert, the very low humidity at night and low cloud probabilities in general combine with a low vegetation level: Thus, the combination means that the outbound longwave radiation is leaving the ground into a much lower temperature Tsky from a ground surface with a higher emissivity.
During the day, that same low humidity and generally cleaner skies mean more energy is available to heat the ground with short wave (inbound) radiation. So, the ground will probably be hotter in a desert, which means the air above that ground will almost certainly be hotter on average than the air above a field or forest.
Higher ground temperatures at the start of a clearer night sky means that outbound longwave radiation goes up:
Q longwave = SB * emissivity * (Tground^4 – Tsky^4)
emissivity up, Tground up, Tsky down. Radiation up.
So, the morning temperature of the ground in a low humidity desert will be less due to greater heat loss overnight.
Re: “… the greenhouse effect of CO2 … is pretty minor.” (davidmhoffer at 8:26pm)
Indeed. And, lest any AGWers take that line out of context to support their conjecture about human CO2…,
Here is a pertinent excerpt from John Hultquist’s comment on May 11, at 12:12pm:
(emphasis mine)
Link to Hultquist: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/#comment-1302578
davidmhoffer says:
March 9, 2014 at 8:26 pm
+++++++++
Everything you wrote makes sense, and nicely summarizes physics into plain English!
Janice: Indeed the delta CO2 from 280 to 400ppm has such a tiny affect that it gets lost in the noise… that so called Climate Scientists and the IPCC are so sure that most of the warming from the 70s to the late 90’s was due to CO2 as the driver is pure dishonesty.
Thank you, Mario. Thanks for taking the time to affirm that my post was worthwhile. I appreciate you!!!