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.”
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!!!