BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a 'hockey team' scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC

You forgot to bold:

“….combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade,….”

“‘I do wonder though, if he’ll start calling James Annan a “denier” as he has done in other instances where some scientist suggests a lower climate sensitivity?”
Can you please provide reference for this statement (i.e, who did Mann call a ‘denier’ for opinions on lower sensitivity?) I don’t doubt it, but I am curious as to who he was calling out.

Mr. Mosher,
I’ve always respected you, please clarify your post… I have no idea what you’re saying.
Thanks,
Mike

“….combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade,….”
What is instructive to observe, ever more often recently, is the dissapointed tone with which the AGW faction respond to every bit of good news about the climate. They really do not give a fig for the climate. They just use it as a device for their other ends.

Well, I think any discussion on here about ECS even approaching 2°C is a major step forward. Is lukewarmism the new normal? Actually that’s major progress.

Good for James Annan.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
― John Maynard Keynes

“…stubborn refusal…to warm”? Sounds like correction is called for.

He is still sticking to a sensitivity of 2 to 4 whichis still much higher than noted elsewhere.

0.1 degree here, 0.1 degree there…..for us Norwegians the only consequence will be that they change the name of some tax. Yesterday there was a tax per horsepower on your car, then they changed the name to CO2 tax. What it will be tomorrow? NOx-tax? Window tax? Beard-tax?

Connections:
Al Gore can read, he may be an ass, but, he knows the jig is up that is why he took the oil ticks money.He knows the CO2 well of cash has caved in. So he starts to cash out.

I am ready for The Nuremberg Trials: Climate Change Edition.
Anyone who knowingly perpetrated lies to world governments is highly culpable.
Anyone who did so also willfully (as opposed to under orders or by association, e.g. ‘consensus’) demands a heavier sentence still.
I fear far too many involved will slowly “come out” with reserved back-walking statements such as this to cover their butts when consequences will finally fall.

As was noted at Bishop Hill, don’t confuse James Annan with Caspar Amman, the Texas Sharpshooter

Ahhh, the forces of Chaos are at it again!
Missed it by THAT much, Chief!
http://youtu.be/oPwrodxghrw
My personal favorite…
http://youtu.be/gvZinTjPtyY

Many years ago my high school math teacher set us to “squaring the circle” and “trisecting an angle” – two of the three classical problems. Thus, when James Annan writes . . .
“they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be”
. . . I doff my hat in this man’s direction.

Philip Finck says:
February 1, 2013 at 10:56 am
“James Annan is to be commended. He has looked at more recent peer reviewed literature, assessed it on its merit, and offered a revised personal opinion on the climate sensitivity issue.”
Maybe just a quibble, but if he assessed it on its merits then he offered more than a personal opinion. He offered the best that his science has to offer.

Oops! My comment above was in response to Robin:
Robin says:
February 1, 2013 at 11:07 am

“Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.”
Not sure how you read this, but I read it as: Now that it’s “within our reach”, let’s go “all in”

The 95% consensus of climate scientists is breaking up.
Almost down below the 50%

Wamron says: “What is instructive to observe, ever more often recently, is the dissapointed tone with which the AGW faction respond to every bit of good news about the climate. ”
A point their faces need to be rubbed in, as in BOLD headlines.
The “stubborn refusal of the planet to warm …” should also make interesting fodder for start of questioning on a witness stand.

Francis says:
February 1, 2013 at 12:31 pm
What does he mean by “Lindzen strategy in reverse”? I mean, what is “Lindzen strategy”?
Assume the value of sensitivity has a peak and two tails, one high, one low.
“essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values”
He means he (Annan) believes Lindzen is picking from the “low” tail and the other side is firmly lodged in the “high” end of the tail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Bryant says:
February 1, 2013 at 10:56 am
Mr. Mosher,
I have np (sic) idea what you’re saying.”
[Reply: I fixed the original -ModE]
Steven wrote
###
Lukewarmer
But don’t expect him to come back and explain. However, “lukewarmers” seem to believe that climate change is happening and humans are responsible and, therefore, some things can be done now, including significant restraints on CO2 release. Some think “adaptive” strategies will be sufficient without drastically reducing use of energy. For example, stop building houses on beaches. Skeptics do not believe there is a looming catastrophe. Follow up on this and many believe the world has serious problems – providing clean drinking water and low cost energy to folks, among others – and that such problems ought to be addressed directly, not by severe damage to the current means of accomplishing these things. Then there are the ‘catastrophists’ – not relevant here.
Mr. Mosher has just said (after the quote) that the person is not a skeptic of catastrophic anthropological global warming but more in the ‘lukewarm’ camp.
Recognize that it is always dangerous to impute meaning to comments where meaning is not clear. By doing so we might get a clarification. Or maybe not!

Walls Come Tumbling Down – The Style Council
You don’t have
To take this crap
You don’t have
To sit back and relax
You can actually try changin’ it
I know we’ve always been taught to rely
Upon those in authority
But you never know until you try
How things just might be
If we came together so strongly
Are you gonna try to make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Yes they do, yes they do, yes they do
The competition is
A color TV
We’re on still pause
With a video machine
That keep you slave to the H P
Until the unity is threatened by
Those who have and who have not
Those who are with and those who are without
And dangle jobs, like a donkey’s carrot
Until you don’t know where you are
Are you gonna get some realize
The class was real and not mythologized
And like Jericho
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
We’re tuning to fight it, well united, well united
Are you gonna be threatened by?
The public enemies, No 10
Those who play the power game
They take the profits, you take the blame
When they tell you there’s no rise in pay
Are you gonna try an’ make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
Yes they do
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Walls Come Tumbling Down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/the-style-council/walls-come-tumbling-down-4bd6af4a.html

“Walls Come Tumbling Down” – The Style Council
You don’t have
To take this crap
You don’t have
To sit back and relax
You can actually try changin’ it
I know we’ve always been taught to rely
Upon those in authority
But you never know until you try
How things just might be
If we came together so strongly
Are you gonna try to make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Yes they do, yes they do, yes they do
The competition is
A color TV
We’re on still pause
With a video machine
That keep you slave to the H P
Until the unity is threatened by
Those who have and who have not
Those who are with and those who are without
And dangle jobs, like a donkey’s carrot
Until you don’t know where you are
Are you gonna get some realize
The class was real and not mythologized
And like Jericho
Yes, walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
We’re tuning to fight it, well united, well united
Are you gonna be threatened by?
The public enemies, No 10
Those who play the power game
They take the profits, you take the blame
When they tell you there’s no rise in pay
Are you gonna try an’ make this work?
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see, things can change
Walls can come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
Yes they do
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
Governments crack and systems fall
‘Cause unity is powerful
Lights go out, walls come tumbling down
http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/the-style-council/walls-come-tumbling-down-4bd6af4a.html

As others have said, most interesting quotes from Annan. My favorite: I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

I’m sure the rapid response behavioral adjustment team are en route to Annan’s home as we speak. Annan will be returned to “climate abnormal” by mid week.
In other news, the rapid climate response team are busy putting the cookie back together.

http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/the-style-council/walls-come-tumbling-down-4bd6af4a.html
Comments won’t accept the full text. So please look it up yourself at the source mentioned above.

Steven Mosher: But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.
Which comments are “crazy refusals over radiative physics”? Plenty of people write about non-radiative heat transfer processes, and the non-equilibrium, non-steady state, non-stationarity of the overall system than make inferences from simple radiative models suspect. Don’t even lukewarmers have to drop the (crazy ?) refusals to acknowledge these limitations of the science?

Annan doesn’t seem to be suggesting that CS is < 2, but rather that it isn't above 4.5. I'd bet he still thinks it hovers around 3.
Actually, what he says (if you read it) is that the data is suggesting that it is less than 2. It’s not completely unreasonable for people to have a bit of inertia in their former opinions (and to cover their asses, and to hedge their bets) and not jump all the way from prior belief to exactly what the data says (Bayesian thinking supports this). But there is no doubt that the higher values are now very unlikely, as I and many others have been saying for some years now in this forum. Regardless of your prior beliefs, not to alter them given contradictory data (in some smooth way) is to abandon reason.
From what I’ve heard, AR5 was going to drop its central estimates of sensitivity to just under 3 — 2.7 or 2.8. However, I think that there is enough pressure and data that it might go down by more to the 2 to 2.5 range. I don’t expect that they will go all the way to sub-2 in one jump, but the fact that it is going down at all is a sign that there are, in fact, plenty of honest scientists involved in the process (as well as some openly dishonest ones).
The evidence itself (IMO, for what that is worth) supports a central estimate of 1.2 to 1.4 C by the end of the century, 0.2 to 0.3 of which has already happened. But the error bars are still large enough that they include anything from 1-2 C lower temperatures to 3 C warmer. We simply don’t know enough to do any better.
rgb

February 1st and rats are lining up.
2013 is very entertaining so far, I expect some major rat outs this year, Al Gore has rubbed the faithfuls face in it, David Suzuki has interesting demands for female students and the Obama has glommed onto Global Warming with perfect timing.
The EPA is attracting serious scrutiny at last and the overt power grab thro regulation is going to hit more of the faithful in the wallet.
As the gaps become undisguisable, the team will be racing to rat their comrades out.

“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Michael Jankowski has already quoted Steven Schneider at February 1, 2013 at 2:32 pm .
I’ve always seen Schneider as the organizing force behind the CO2AGW consensus / IPCC push for global transormationo / exploitation of taxpayers. I guess during his lifetime the most dangerous place on Earth was between him and a TV camera.
He was part of the Our Endangered Atmosphere conference in 1975 where he, Holdren, Lovelock and Mead chose the Arrhenius hypothesis as optimal vehicle for their future ventures.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
Compared to Schneider, Hansen and Mann are just water carriers. And without Schneider, they can’t coordinate well enough anymore to get their bogus story straight, and defections like Annan happen. Or the defection of Lovelock himself, having earned enough money, he chooses to be honest instead of efficient now.

[oh, shut up with your whining – mod]

Wow. That’s a big deal. This guy has published with Mann, Jones, Trenberth, and Schmidt. This is a major break in the wall of “the science is settled” orthodoxy.

I think most skeptics are “lukewarmers”, even if they don’t use the term about themself. I’ve never heard Anthony or Steve McI say anything that would exclude them from the lukewarmer camp, and much that would imply they are in that camp whether they use the term about themself or not.

“Oh dear oh dear oh dear …”. Charles, the Waterman’s Arms, Barnes. RIP you old rogue.
Pointman

She sure seems to dish it out with delight, at times.

I’m sure I’m going to regret asking, but what is it with the default hostility everybody seems to hold towards Steven Mosher? I never seem to catch him saying anything particularly outrageous and I’ve been quietly puzzled about this for quite some time now. I mean, is he a bad guy in everyone’s eyes because of BEST, is that what it is? I’ve heard him defend adjustments to temperature records, often stating that you could take the adjustments out and still get the same answer, is it about this? I get that he can be annoying as hell, is that what it’s about? I ask mostly because he impressed the heck out of me by deducing Gleick’s involvement in the Heartland business, after which I started paying attention to his posts, and I’ve failed to see since what it is about the guy that gets everybody so riled up.
Just asking, if it’s all the same to anyone who wants to clue me in, I’d just like to add that I’m asking honestly, no particular need in my eyes to hand me my own decapitated head in your answer.

Climate sensitivity is often expressed in a distribution function (long-tailed) like this one.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/fig2.jpg
But this long-tail distribution is not based on actual data. It is just garbage guestimates.
The actual CO2 sensitivity throughout history going back 545 million years looks like this. This is the real distribution.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1391/co2sensitivitylast545my.png
What it shows is that there are two dominant factors – Earth’s Albedo and GHGs.
Earth’s Albedo can dominate over certain periods and the CO2 sensitivity appears to anything between +40.0C per doubling to -40.0C per doubling in these periods. In other words, irrelevant.
And there may be periods when not much Albedo change is occuring and 1.5C per CO2 doubling seems to be the dominant factor.
For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone can produce a long-tailed distribution when the actual data does not support this at all. Even the modern period of temps and CO2 support 1.5C or less let alone the paleoclimate throughout history. One would have to be just making up one’s facts as one goes along to come up with a long-tailed distribution. Well, there is your answer isn’t.
Throw out the fake data and start using the actual type.

Being wrong is 95% of a scientists job description after all.

One of the sociological facts of science is that certainty is highest the farther someone is from the heart of the controversey. [Google the “Golem series of books by Harry Collins who mostly studied scientists working on gravitational waves.] Another sociological fact is that it’s possible to keep supporting ideas that have been pretty much proven wrong.
So I’d expect to see only a few more defections but at least some from deep insiders. The people on the outskirts are still arguing that the only thing that warmed during the Medieval Climate Anomaly was Greenland and western Europe. The fact that climate is a matter of globally correlated weather patterns (and so is extremely complicated to predict) hasn’t diffused out yet.

Mark Bofill says (February 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm)
I’m sure I’m going to regret asking, but what is it with the default hostility everybody seems to hold towards Steven Mosher?
——
None here. I’ve asked questions of Steven, and he’s always given full and courteous replies, despite his fierce reputation.
Steven Mosher says (February 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm)
Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.
——
Nope. I’d be happy with 1. That means climate sensitivity ~1.2C, doesn’t it? Any figure below 1.5C is perfectly acceptable to this sceptic.

Mosh, I still don’t get why you think the lower bound for climate sensitivity has to be the 1.2K “no-feedbacks” value. Accepting the logic of radiative physics does not speak to the question of whether net feedbacks will be negative or positive, the answer to which will have a meaningful impact on the lower bound, right?
Observations to date seem to point to net feedbacks being negative over many differing timescales. Just saying….

Ahh, sensitivity. Sorry, Mosh is including the feedbacks there, so I get the distinction now. So in the Mosher definition of “lukewarmer” you’re allowed to posit some negative feedback, but a relatively modest amount (less than 17%).

“Lindzen in reverse”????
Is that sour grapes I’m seeing from Annan? That’s pretty bold given that LIndzen’s work batter matches reality.

partial pressure dictates that adding CO2 will drive H2O out of the atmosphere. Since H2O is a stronger GHG than CO2, the CO2 sensitivity is at best 0.
the notion that you can add CO2 to the atmosphere and not immediately affect other gasses is a nonsense. Long before CO2 results in added warming, the reduced H2O will have prevented the warming.
this in no way disputes that CO2 is a GHG and can potentially warm the planet – all things remaining equal. What is disputed is that “all things will remain equal” if you add CO2 to the atmosphere.
If you add CO2, then the atmospheric pressure goes up and it is harder to evaporate water, so water vapor decreases, restoring the original pressure. This leads at best 0 warming as you add CO2.
Thus, the warming of the past 300 years is no different than the medieval warming, the roman warming, or the minoan warming. Nothing to do with CO2 then, nothing to do with CO2 now.

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:29 pm
…”Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.”…
==========
because CO2 theory assumes that you can add CO2 to the atmosphere without changing the pressure of the atmosphere. this is a nonsense. adding CO2 must increase the atmospheric pressure which will reduce the evaporation rate of water, which will reduce the amount of water in the atmosphere.

Paul O says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Mosh, I still don’t get why you think the lower bound for climate sensitivity has to be the 1.2K “no-feedbacks” value. Accepting the logic of radiative physics does not speak to the question of whether net feedbacks will be negative or positive, the answer to which will have a meaningful impact on the lower bound, right?
———————————–
Thanks Paul O, that’s my position too. I think of myself as a skeptic rather than a lukewarmer because I don’t see a persuasive case either way on even the sign of the net feedbacks. Maybe I’m making a philosophical error but I don’t feel like I can honestly state I think we’ll see +1.2C when I don’t have the slightest clue whether or not feedbacks will swamp that number under or over.
Thanks D.B. Stealy, E.M. Smith, and cui bono for answering my earlier question. 🙂

As I said after the release of the FOD that there is a hint of objectivity starting to emerge, and this recent event definately means it is gaining some momentum.
Interesting times. I love following this debate. I know I am not alone. After a decade, one might think I would get bored by now.
Thanks again to all you folk for all the hard work you all do. You know who you are!

quoting climate scientist James Annan, who one could call a member of the “hockey team” based on his strong past opinions related to AGW and paleoclimatology paleophrenology.

Fixed it for ya. 🙂

If you’re not giving an indication of scale then you’re just guessing. This applies to statements like “if X increases then Y must decrease”. If I take the spare tyre out of my car it will weigh less and hence I will use less fuel. Will I notice that I notice that I’m getting more mileage from that?
Small additions of mass to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 will enhance it’s effect. It’s presently about 391 ppm (parts per million). Go work out how much atmospheric pressure increases if we add the additional mass to make it 800 ppm, then comment on evaporation.

I might also note that you cannot target an Infra-Red heat-seeking missile through a relatively thick cloud layer either.
And clouds only absorb about 30 W/m2 of IR emitted by the surrface.
And relatively thick clouds represent about 30% of atmospheric conditions versus CO2 at just 0.3%. And relatively thick clouds absorb about 100% of the IR emitted by the surface when present (check Modtran and turn on the low level clouds option which results in the atmosphere becoming a perfect blackbody spectrum).
So 0.3% of the atmosphere absorbing just 2% of the Earth’s IR emissions somehow create 3.7 W/m2 of reduced emissions when the concentration rises to 0.56%. In fact, according to Lacis of GISS, the 0.3% is responsible for 150 W/m2 of the greenhouse effect.
Yet low level clouds at 100% emission reduction when present 30% of the time provides just 30 W/m2.
The math doesn’t work in case you were wondering where I was going.

E.M.Smith says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm
@Mark Bofill:
As an example of the “barb factor”:
“EM
You can question radiative physics all you want. You just wont be building a device that works.”
Goes right to the “insult the person” with derision. Now I’m willing to accept that if Einstein might question Newton maybe it’s OK to question “well understood” physics. Highly unlikely either that I’ll find something, OR that I’m the next Einstein; but I think it fine to question. Maybe even 100 times.
———————————————————-
I understand what you’re saying. It also helps me see why I don’t notice so much; I didn’t read him that way, but then I’m told I’ve got an abrasive way of expressing myself as well (shocking, I know, but people really do tell me that 🙂 ) and that I’m usually offensive when I think I’m being funny. But I’m not here to try to defend, excuse, or justify anybody; I was just curious and I do appreciate your answer.
BTW – I couldn’t agree with you more about the value of questioning anything and everything, particularly the stuff most taken for granted.
Best regards.

Steve MOsher writes:
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”
What breathtaking arrogance. And yet, so utterly typical. I have no reason to doubt that you mean well, and I also appreciate you’re quite a smart fellow, The only inference left is that you suffer some sort of pathology. I have a brother with delusional disorder. He has an IQ of 145 and yet is also convinced that the FBI is following him. Sad.

Darren Potter says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:41 pm
“Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Are we looking at a crack in the dam? Leaky statement that could implicate a few Hockey Stick players with knowingly committing government fraud, crimes against humanity? Resulting in them turning State’s evidence with plea bargains, leading to even more of GW Alarmists going down.
——————-
Great plot but I’ll wait for the movie.
cn

pokerguy says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Steve MOsher writes:
“I dont think most skeptics are lukewarmers. I don’t think they have thought about the science in a way that allows them to agree with any aspect of it. Its mostly knee jerk contrarianism.”
What breathtaking arrogance.
>>>>>>>>>>
I object also to this characterization Mosher. As you no doubt are aware, I tend to react rather negatively when someone makes bizarre claims such as “back radiation” not existing, or the even more absurd “it exists but it doesn’t do anything when it reaches the surface”. These claims simply defy common sense versus easily understood examples such as the earth being warmer than the moon despite getting the same average insolation.
By your definition, I’m a lukewarmer. But I define myself as a skeptic. Not because I don’t understand or accept the physics though. When one defines themselves as a skeptic, one must ask the question; skeptical of what? I’m skeptical of the C in CAGW. I’m skeptical of the order of magnitude and sign of feedbacks. I’m even skeptical of the direct effects of doubling of CO2 because the value of 1.2 degrees per doubling is calculated against an air column in which water vapour concentration is uniform, no such air column exists, and I’m not convinced that the effect will be linear when extrapolated to surface temps (and I have sound physics upon which to justify that skepticism).

The problem is they say she’s a witch.
We say she is not a witch.
But they say she’s a witch.
And even though we’ve proven there’s no such thing as witches they say she’s a witch.
They’re gonna burn her at the stake with our tax money.
And what could we do about it?
cn

davidmhoffer says:
February 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Yet another smashing, first rate post by davidmhoffer. He was responding to the following:
“Steven Mosher;
Its pretty simple. We have radiative physics. that physics is used to build sensors, to build cell phones and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and well, its good enough to defend our country, so I suppose, you’ll have to point out where it doesnt work.”
It always saddens me to respond to Mosher on physics. Seriously, it makes me feel like I am punching a six year old. Time and again he has made it clear that he believes that the physics of AGW is sound because it is written down in a text somewhere when the text addresses none of the issues that challenge the AGW thesis, issues such as forcings, and addresses no important empirical claims about the environment whatsoever. Mosher clearly believes that because programmers and climate modelers have taken a course in physics or read a text that the physics in climate models and climate science generally must be sound. Such thinking betrays an ignorance of physics, computer models, and climate so profound that I cannot imagine how to explain it

Mark Bofill says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm
I’m sure I’m going to regret asking, but what is it with the default hostility everybody seems to hold towards Steven Mosher? I never seem to catch him saying anything particularly outrageous and I’ve been quietly puzzled about this for quite some time now. I mean, is he a bad guy in everyone’s eyes because of BEST, is that what it is? I’ve heard him defend adjustments to temperature records, often stating that you could take the adjustments out and still get the same answer, is it about this? I get that he can be annoying as hell, is that what it’s about? I ask mostly because he impressed the heck out of me by deducing Gleick’s involvement in the Heartland business, after which I started paying attention to his posts, and I’ve failed to see since what it is about the guy that gets everybody so riled up.
Just asking, if it’s all the same to anyone who wants to clue me in, I’d just like to add that I’m asking honestly, no particular need in my eyes to hand me my own decapitated head in your answer.

I have no hostility towards English majors like Mosher. I do have a problem with those who take what he says seriously without knowing his background; Mosher’s educational background consists of BA’s in English Literature and Philosophy. His “scientific” background involves bringing MP3 players to market for Creative Labs as a marketing director.
It is no coincidence that an English major would be the one to deduce Gleick’s involvement in the Heartland scandal since it involved recognition of nuance in written language. How that translates into caring what he has to say on scientific issues I have no idea.
Mosher frequently posts nonsensical “riddle” like comments here and rarely responds to criticism. When pressed he usually disengages and runs away. His comment tone reflects a superiority complex, believing himself to be the true “rational thinker”. He also frequently throws Anthony and other skeptics under the bus at other websites.
I also suspect he was the one behind the fabricated Muller as a recovering skeptic meme in the NYT op-ed. Which was easily crushed. His commenting is largely manipulative and or trolling. Manipulation of skeptics is the goal of those associated with BEST and people like Judith Curry. They want to siphon off the huge number of people who became skeptical after climategate to their brand of “luke warmerism” just with no change in policy proposals. Unfortunately too many people are naturally inclined to “moderate” type arguments but only so long as you can stereo-type those who disagree with you as “fringe”, peer-pressure does the rest.

Poptech
Before Mosh worked in Marketing, he was writing code for aerospace simulators. I don’t know if it’s on his resume or not. He has written his own temperature index code before he joined the BEST team. Attempting to disparage his qualifications based on his college major is just ignorant. Argue with his points, his style, his sloppy extra line breaks, but there is nothing wrong with being self-taught in science or computer programming and to attempt to belittle him this way is less than petty, it is simply juvenile.

Jeez, I am very familiar with computer programming resumes and Mosher does not even list a language he is proficient in. He has no formal training in anything computer science related. “Written code” can mean anything, including writing scripts or customizing pre-made files.
His resume specifically says, “Developed computer simulation models for aircraft systems and war games.” and “Created and coded data collection and analysis systems.” That can mean anything and looks like resume padding. Why did he not list the language he “coded” in? Programmers who actually write software are much more clear and detailed about what they actually did. People who give ideas about what should be in a simulation can claim to be part of the “development team” that does not mean they programmed anything. You can claim to “create and code data collection and analysis systems.” by writing a script to extract data from a DB. None of which is a scientific credential let alone the backbone of a computer programming resume.
Only non computer science academics would fall for it. Conveniently this makes up the entire BEST team.
He explicitly sells himself as a “Marketing Consultant”. Marketing and Sales are the two most frequently used words on his resume.
Those who think they are programmers is one of the things wrong with climate science,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html
Yes there is a lot of things wrong with selling yourself as something you are not and I do not consider an English major to have any relevant scientific credentials no matter how much he pads his resume.

The words ‘climate’ and ‘sensitivity’ form an oxymoron.

davidmhoffer says@: Steven Mosher; We know from first principles, verified by testing, that doubling will get us to 1.2C.
Yes we do. In an atmospheric air column with constant water vapour
concentration from top to bottom and no feedbacks. No such thing exists.
Thank you David–I was going to ask what “testing” could verify that? It’s certainly not being verified out in the atmosphere! But I thought, and rightfully so, that I am not qualified to ask even that. So you did it for me!
What I am going to ask, and still not qualified, is about the adjusted surface temperature being pretty correct within .2C. Mosher says, : Well, its pretty easy to test. I take a random sample of around 300 stations. I construct an estimate for the temperature at other locations. i used my sample of 500 to predict the other locations.
Guess what? damn, those estimates of out of sample cases are always bang on.
How come when the JMA doesn’t use the value added temps, they deviate so much from the climatological party line–or is their purple line within that .2C correct margin? It’s a .25 degree difference–so if that is “probably correct,” as Mr. Mosher says, then move along, nothing to see in the CLIMAT report data without adjustments. Means nothing. Is that what he is saying?

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Well, its pretty easy to test [i.e. the claimed accuracy of surface station records].I take a random sample of around 300 stations. I construct an estimate for the temperature at other locations. i used my sample of 500 to predict the other locations.
Guess what? damn, those estimates of out of sample cases are always bang on.
Wanna know something even better. So, you might think you’re right. I used to think that too. But, I pulled out my feynman, tested your idea and had to give your idea up.
go figure.
I think you will find that what you are testing here is the consistency of the temperatures, not the accuracy. If you added 1 degree to all of the temperatures, you would get the same result. I suggest you might do better to take into account Anthony Watts’ findings aboiut station siting and perhaps also compare surface station records against satellite measurements.

Mosher, you said
“…you can change the consensus from inside the tent rather than attacking everything and everyone. Focus on sensitivity, work to refine that. You see there is a debate in climate science, its a debate about sensitivity.
When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents)
then you will see changes.”
OK, but a month ago you said that debate was over and the topic had shifted to mitigation/adaptation. Those are the answers wanted by POWER. Not other natterings.
Not any more.
.

ferd berple says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:17 pm
“Partial pressure dictates that adding CO2 will drive H2O out of the atmosphere. Since H2O is a stronger GHG than CO2, the CO2 sensitivity is at best 0.”
That is a very good argument, easy to be forgotten in the heat of the argument. ( haha )
But Ferd, it is a long time since I had Gas Law stuff at school, ( 30 years ! ) so certain details are forgotten…. How do we know that it is H2O that is driven out, and not N2 ? Or a combination?

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:15 pm
“DirkH.
You have the process all wrong. The effect works by raising the ERL. Dont believe me, it was DOD research prior to AGW that settled that issue. Take it up with Christy or Spenser or Lindzen and explain to them why they are wrong about radiative physics. or write a paper an collect your nobel prize.”
First of all, nothing of what I said was wrong – or maybe something was but you didn’t show what.
Second, why are you trotting out an argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy. There’s no need for that.
Third, Spencer has written about the speed of radiative cooling with his box experiments.
Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Fourth, about the raising of the ERL, that’s a good point and it might increase the number of absorptions and re-emissions for an IR photon in the CO2 absorption bands slightly. But that opens up the interesting question, what happens with the postulated never-observed water vapor feedback? Will water vapor concentrations in the stratosphere rise as well as a consequence of rising CO2?
Why has the lower stratosphere dried out? Article from 2010:
http://www.economist.com/node/15443791
Is there a constructal law at work; shifting the distribution of water vapor as a consequence of the very slight shift in energy distribution through the antropogenically modified CO2 GHG?
Has any GCM ever predicted the observed drying out of the lower stratosphere? Not to my knowledge. Shouldn’t this be top on the list of failures that the climate modelers should be looking into? Shouldn’t they have admitted complete and utter defeat the moment this unsimulated drying out was observed, and begged for another 30 years of comparison between model runs and real temperatures before one draws any conclusion?
There’s so much more to say but I’m running out of time…

Steven Mosher says:
“1. We are not prepared for the storms and weather of our grandparents. Regardless of the cause of Sandy, we should see that such storms are to be expected given the past. Perhaps things will get worse, but remember the evidence shows we are not prepared for the storms of the past much less the storms of the future.”
Steven is spot on.
Tokyo is well prepared for the storms of the present and is likely prepared for the storms of the future regardless of what they might be. My home is located in a section of the city that would, without an elaborate system of locks and barriers, be underwater at high tide for many, if not most, days. While major typhoons cause local flooding (typically at points in the local area below sea level) even the strongest of storms pass through here with little or no significant impact. In addition, all electrical poles are constructed either out of reinforced concrete or steel (mostly the former). Such structures hold up to the strongest winds and are designed to hold up to major earthquakes. As a result, there are few, if any, power outages here from even the strongest of storms.
The Tokyo subway system is also designed to be secure even in the face of the strongest of storms. Subway entrances, especially in areas at or below sea level, are usually raised above the street level. This helps keep rain water from penetrating into the subway system. In addition, subway entrances can be completely sealed off in the event of a flood, further protecting the system from flooding. It is also important to note that the Tokyo subway system tunnels, especially in the part of the city I live in, travel under large rivers and underneath an intricate system of canals.
In contrast, New York’s protection against major storms is a complete joke. There are no significant seawalls protecting any part of the city potentially exposed (except, perhaps, for the east side along the FDR Drive in the Midtown area). Forget about the Queens and Brooklyn shore completely exposed to the Atlantic. And lower Manhattan had nothing to protect New York’s (and America’s) second most important office area from the storm surge that has wrecked so much havoc and which has caused so much economic damage. Tunnels such as the Brooklyn-Battery, were also completely flooded.
The city’s subway system was similarly unprotected as water poured into tunnel and subway entrances. The resulting subterranean flooding shut down the subway system for days. But remember that NYC’s subway system was shut down a few years ago by a summer downpour over about two hours of about 2 inches (5 cm). Water poured down unprotected subway entrances completely innundating the system for a number of hours. New York can’t even protect itself against heavy downpours, forget major storms.
Then there is New Orleans which was devastated in 1965 by Betsy and which learned nothing from that storm. In spite of warnings, the city was essentially unprotected when Katrina came in 2005. Pre-Katrina, officials in Louisiana actually boasted that the levees protecting the city were world-class.
Babbling about climate change is, in the end, an excuse to not build adequate infrastructure to protect against existing storms. Rather, it is an excuse to tax and spend the money on something else because the tax itself is its own defense against “climate change”.

There is nothing extraordinary about Annan’s comments.
A 2008 review of sensitivity by Knutti and Hegerl says:
“Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html
Annan offers his opinion that if outside this range, it is likely to be on the lower rather than higher end::
A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’

rgbatduke says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Actually, what he says (if you read it) is that the data is suggesting that it is less than 2. It’s not completely unreasonable for people to have a bit of inertia in their former opinions (and to cover their asses, and to hedge their bets) and not jump all the way from prior belief to exactly what the data says (Bayesian thinking supports this).
— Nope. I was correct in my earlier statement. Below is a direct quote from Annan himself:
“Yeah, I should probably have had a tl;dr version, which is that sensitivity is still about 3C.
The discerning reader will already have noted that my previous posts on the matter actually point to a value more likely on the low side of this rather than higher, and were I pressed for a more precise value, 2.5 might have been a better choice even then. But I’d rather be a little conservative than risk being too Pollyanna-ish about it.”
As I said before, Annan is *not* suggesting his best estimate of CS if less than 2… at least not yet.

For humor, I enjoy reading the English major Steve Mosher’s ramblings. So far in one post he has proclaimed himself the spokes person for the “lukewarmers” (whomever they may be) which cannot include Richard Lindzen since he supports too low of a climate sensitivity (<1c) and it cannot include Steve McIntyre because he supports Lindzen's position on climate change. Which is all rather confusing since he refers to some poll over at Climate Audit.
To be part of the "lukewarmer" Mosher cult you apparently cannot question the "consensus" view on the surface record, radiative physics, solar influences on the climate, climate models or anything but climate sensitivity. And you must fall within his pre-defined range or be banished. Apparently you change things from the inside by being an English major and not publishing anything in the scientific literature, who knew?
Just so people are aware Mosher is also a master of the strawman argument, religiously attacking everyone who does not support his self defined lukewarmer cult as a "Skydragon" skeptic. It all gets very old and boring.
The irony of all of this is neither Lindzen, Christy or Spencer supports his views on climate change let alone policy, yet he trumps them out as if they did to manipulate those who do not know any better.

Anthony, just a suggestion. Rather than having this as the Mosh-bashing thread, why don’t we WUWT readers have a poll on climate sensitivity. Not, obviously, to determine what the value *is* (only the IPCC could be that dumb) but to test Mosher’s statement “Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.”
Most of the WUWT readership are sceptically inclined, so (providing there is no mass influx of trolls) it would give a good measure of the bounds of scepticism, from ‘CO2 has no effect’ to ‘lukewarmers’.
Merely an idea.

Poor Mosher. He’s a Lukewarmer but communicates like an Alarmist. Think about it for a second. What characteristic do almost all Alarmists share? It is the inability to communicate. They are unable to state their position without the listener wanting to box their ears for it. Mosh is probably correct in the radiative whatever. So what? Why obsess about the exceedingly small subset of humanity who bickers about it? I blame his peer group. One just doesn’t save the world with a sneer on their face.

cui bono says:
February 2, 2013 at 4:22 am
“Anthony, just a suggestion. Rather than having this as the Mosh-bashing thread, why don’t we WUWT readers have a poll on climate sensitivity. Not, obviously, to determine what the value *is* (only the IPCC could be that dumb) but to test Mosher’s statement “Most skeptics however are certain it is less than 1. they think their science is settled.””
That poll would tell us nothing that refutes Mosher’s statement. I think that the sensitivity to CO2 is close enough to zero to be impossible to be determined experimentally or observationally. At the same time I don’t know WHY this is so. Why did the lower stratosphere dry out? Dunno. Is the Svensmark mechanism working? Dunno. And so on.
Mosher’s statement implies that people who think that the sensitivity is under 1 C also think the science is settled. Mosher’s statement does not apply to me. I just think that the last 15 years of stagnating temperatures SHOW that CO2 does not cause warming to any discernable extenct. Beenstock et al have analyzed the time series and come to the conclusion that there is no causation; the CO2AGW theory is not working as expected; that is sufficient for me to discard it.
I do NOT have to know what is the correct mechanism that drives temperatures to be able to come to this conclusion. Mosher’s statement is a non sequitor.

This violates my 2013 New Year’s pledge, but…
Poptech says:
February 1, 2013 at 9:00 pm
I have no hostility towards English majors like Mosher. I do have a problem with those who take what he says seriously without knowing his background; Mosher’s educational background consists of BA’s in English Literature and Philosophy. His “scientific” background involves bringing MP3 players to market for Creative Labs as a marketing director.
—
Hmmm. Didn’t know that about SM. I had supposed that he had studied radiative heat transfer at the graduate level in college, like I did when when I was getting my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. Or advanced numerical analysis, computational fluid dynamics, partial differential equations, convective heat transfer, thermodynamics… He seems like a good guy, though, when he not ranting about skeptics.
OK…back to my New Year’s pledge…

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1391/co2sensitivitylast545my.png
Bill Illis whats the source for this graf? this graf pretty much summs up what made me a sceptc when I looked at the long term temp/co2 record and as a engineer could not get it to fit with the “consensus” theory.This also shows that co2 concentration is far from the whole story I mean there is no way there could be a -+40 degree sensitivity, magnitude is way to big to make sense. I.e. somthing else is going on.
One other thing why does people assume that the feedback from co2 is static? I suspect it pushes the temp both ways with variable force depending on the temp, high temp negative feedback, low temp positive feedback.

Steven Mosher says:
February 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm

” Ok, Mr. Mosher, but are you absolutely sure that all of the additional CO2 is from humans and not some natural response to a warming earth?
Are you sure you’ve got it right?
######################
Since science only deals in the likely and unlikely there is no proof in science and hence no certainty. Adding GHGs to the atmosphere is more likely to warm the planet than cool it. there is no science suggesting otherwise. Regardless of the source of all the extra C02, the real question is
1. is it safe to continue our geoengineering project of adding more c02?
2. How safe?
3. how do you know?

Easy, Mr. Mosher: You haven’t shown anything to prove it’s unsafe–except you have completely misrepresented carbon dioxide in number 1 above by using a little c, a zero, and the number 2. It should be CO2 (carbon and two oxygen atoms), Steven, but then, you don’t have anything else right, either.
So burden of proof that additional CO2 is unsafe is still in your corner. I can’t find anything that shows CO2 at this or projected future levels is unsafe, so I have to conclude it IS safe.
However, I will list several huge benefits: Earth is greening up. Foodstuff production is up because of the additional “geoengineered” CO2. Trees grow about 30% faster now than they did 50 years ago. So since you completely ignore this fact, you aren’t an environmentalist at all–you aren’t willing to admit to any benefits at all because it would severely weaken your arguments of gloom and doom.
But here’s why I dwell on the “safety” aspect of your CAGW cult:
All you’ve been able to present, Steven, is a bunch of scaremongering from the same ilk that have caused the deaths of millions of people over the last several decades–one estimate as high as 500 million!
Now, if that’s the result of implementing your brand of scaremongering on a global scale, I’d say you are part of a HUGE problem, Mr. Mosher, and should be held accountable. You blather on and on about hypotheticals but the implementation of your beloved cult has been an unmitigated disaster for the human race, and there’s no relief in sight as long as you and others hold to such a facinorous cult.
You say you don’t like to talk about the politics of global warming, and now everybody can see why–because if you’d get out of your extremely myopic box of global warming, you’ll find the policies based on your cult are demonstrably and completely unsafe. Anything that reduces mankind’s ability to cope with life and causes numerous deaths should be charged to the perpetrators, and that includes scoundrels like YOU!
So yes, CO2 is safe. It is Lukewarmers like you who have made the world far less safe, especially for those least capable of coping with life. I’m cheering for CO2 as part of the solution; you are fighting it–the implications are clear.
Words cannot convey the measure of disrespect I have for people with such blatant disregard for human life.

S. Mosher, you are too fixated on radiative physics. In a control loop, the, say, 1.2 degrees could easily be cancelled out by clouds. Which Roy Spencer clearly has demonstrated.
So even though if radiative physics says, perhaps 1.2 degrees, (and it is logarithmic, where most of the warming has already taken place) , the system consists of many control loops, with couplings, and they are not linear; In other words; humanity cannot model the system today.
As time goes by now, it would not surprise me if the global temperature will curve downwards the next 20-30 years maybe half a degree or so.
And people will look back at this period of history, wondering why some very few people were so scared. And managed to scare the whole world with their computer models.
Lindzens words, more or less.

J Martin says:

For your edification,
According to Physicist Bryce Johnson;
If we took the entire know reserves of fossil fuels and converted that all to co2 and put it all in the atmosphere in one go that would lead to a warming spike of 3 degrees which would very quickly drop.
The worst that man can do would be half a degree at best.

I am properly edified: I see that one can find claims on the internet that happen to match what one wants to believe. Your reason to believe that “Physicist Bryce Johnson” knows better than the rest of the scientific community…including those who actually publish in the field…besides the fact that he is telling you what you want to believe?

So what if this news adds to the huge body of evidence against the alarmist point of view… all I hear from world leaders is retrenchment, not retractions.
Did you hear the US President in his state of the union speech? Hear him backing down on statist/warmist rhetoric? How about from NY mayor Michael Bloomberg?

John F. Hultquist says:
February 1, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Many years ago my high school math teacher set us to “squaring the circle” and “trisecting an angle” – two of the three classical problems. Thus, when James Annan writes . . .
“they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be”
The problem the ancient greeks had was to construct a square equal to the area of a given circle using only straightedge and compass. The problem was finally proved to be impossible in 1882.
It can be done, but only by ” cheating”- not following the Greek geometers’ requirement of using just a straightedge and compass.
Create a wheel of the same size as the circle and which is half as wide as the circle’s radius.
Cover the side in wet paint and make it revolve over a flat surface exactly once.
This leaves a painted rectangle with the same surface as the circle.
Finish up by squaring this rectangle (this step can be done even with straightedge and compass).
So if “they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be”, they are admitted cheats.