Bishop Hill Full retreat?
Apr 5, 2013 Climate: sensitivity Geoffrey Lean at the Telegraph has, somewhat belatedly, picked up on the low climate sensitivity news.
Yes, you read that correctly, Geoffrey Lean. Who will be next to turn sceptic?
The new research focuses on the arcane but crucial issue of “climate sensitivity”. This is normally expressed as the amount of warming that would eventually result from doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from its level before the Industrial Revolution – something which, on present trends, we will achieve in the next few decades.
The resulting increase has long been put at between 1.5C and 4.5C (the threefold range itself gives some idea of how little is known): the best guess has been 3C, which would be likely to have devastating effects on the climate. But the latest findings – which stretch over several papers from different, well-established scientists – suggest that the rise may be towards the lower end of that big range, possibly less than the 2C danger level.
When even zealots like Lean are in retreat it's fair to say that something significant has changed. One can only wonder whether this change of tune is a function of the Economist's coverage of the issue or of what Lean's contacts are whispering to him about the Fifth Assessment Report.
Either way, this is an interesting moment for those, like Joe Romm and Keith Kloor, who laid into Matt Ridley for saying the same thing.
Reader Comments (59)
I see this as a tactical retreat from completely indefensible and obviously ridiculous scaremongering to a safer position of more guarded scaremongering.
Mackay was mentioned earlier. With a lot of the delusions he talked about, there was a switch, from everyone believing to no one believing. With CAGW, there's a baggage involving taxes, taxes, jobs, scams and reputations which really isn't going to want to be abandoned.
I'm surprised that more effort hasn't been put into repurposing it as energy security or biodiversity. There have been attempts. Maybe it's that when a scare or craze is over, you absolutely can't breathe new life into it.
"Beginning around 2014 the average annual temperature will begin to drop, and by 2050 it will be about 1.5°C cooler than today when the low point is reached. Also the water temperature in the world’s oceans will fall about 1°C.”'
It's worse than we thought...
Has anyone got a transcript? The Telegraph is now hiding behind a restricted wall for me, and so far I haven't been able to secure '1 month free' on subs.
Cheers.
GL is holding on to his CAGW beliefs whilst writing this article through gritted teeth. He obviously doesn't want to admit that the climate is not obeying the models or his wishes, and he so clearly needs a physics lesson with regard to the Heat transfer properties of CO2 and thermodynamics. All warmists/CAGW adherents such as GL should be challenged directly to produce the evidence or else stay quiet, i.e. as John Major so famously said, "put up or shut up".
Roger Longstaff; 'It's worse than we thought...'
Most scientists are mistaken about radiative physics. It's taught wrongly and the meteorologists added their own mistakes. The crucial part is that heat transfer rate is the negative of the difference of radiative energy flux.
The recent warming was solar.
"The recent warming was solar"....
As will be the cooling that comes: quiet sun = more GCRs = more clouds = less radiation
Is this correct? I don't know. But at least there is some empirical evidence to support the theory, wheras there is no empirical evidence at all to support the (C)AGW hypothesis.
Roger: I have been [justifiably] put on Report for being a bit of a pain for my arguing against the IPCC's version of radiative physics. So, to be polite I shall state that there are 3 dreadful mistakes no professional should have made and 10 others some of which will not have been realised..
A satellite radiometer measures about half the irradiance for CO2 15 µm of an atmospheric radiometer.- they got the OLR completely wrong. That and the back radiation made for entirely false physics IMHO.
Amusing. Lean has a habit of recycling his articles onto his Telegraph blog. Usually notable for the number of tags he manages to add. His "CAGW demise" article has been copied across to the blogs but unusually the comments are disabled. Perhaps having problems with his new found fame. The new title does try to squeeze in a need for urgent actions (to do what one may ask) but then links to the original where many comments are calling for retribution.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100210900/now-theres-new-hope-of-avoiding-dangerous-climate-change-if-urgent-action-is-taken/#disqus_thread
The notion that "the climate sensitivity" exists as a scientific concept is untenable. This conclusion follows from the non-observability of the equilibrium temperature upon which the climate sensitivity is defined.