Bishop Hill An unequivocal rejection of the scientific method
Sep 10, 2013 Climate: IPCC Climate: sensitivity Justin Gillis, the green guy at the New York Times, has an extraordinary take on climate sensitivity in his latest column. Discussing the upcoming Fifth Assessment Report he tries to claim that all the empirical and semi-empirical measures of ECS are "outliers"
...we have mainstream science that says if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, which is well on its way to happening, the long-term rise in the temperature of the earth will be at least 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, but more likely above 5 degrees. We have outlier science that says the rise could come in well below 3 degrees.
...the drafters of the report lowered the bottom end in a range of temperatures for how much the earth could warm, treating the outlier science as credible.
Now I must say, I thought that one area where there was agreement was that nobody seriously believed in values over 4.5°, let alone that that values over 5°C were "more likely". But to argue that a swathe of empirical estimates are outliers and then to fail to mention that the higher values are hypotheses generated by GCMs is extraordinary even by the normally abysmal standards of green journalism. It's theory trumping measurement - a simple, clear and unequivocal rejection of the scientific method.
No doubt this is Gillis generating helpful cover for the greens in the IPCC, who will argue that "extremists on both sides" were unhappy and that therefore they have got the balance about right. It doesn't give you a warm feeling about the report. And there are others sending out the same signal too. In her post last night, Judith Curry noted that the old-timer scientivists still have the upper hand in the IPCC:
When I first saw the list of IPCC authors for the AR5, I was excited by all the new names including some excellent scientists that are well known to me and whose integrity and honesty I trust absolutely. I ran into one of these scientists a few years ago at a meeting, and he said how excited he was to be a part of the IPCC, how a review on his topic was long overdue, and that he looked forward to the outcome of this review. I ran into another of these individuals at the AGU meeting last fall, who had become jaded by the process. He said it is a constant struggle between the newcomers, who want to ‘tell it like it is,’ versus the old hands who are worried primarily about what was said in the AR4 and not providing fodder for the skeptics. Even if the ‘good guys’ prevail at the chapter level, I have the sad suspicion that the people who are really in charge will be playing politics with the document whereby primary concerns are not providing fodder for skeptics and showing continued increasing ‘confidence’.
Everything is pointing to the continued corruption of the IPCC. It's looking very much as if AR5 is dead in the water.
Reader Comments (46)
Deformed hippies only like the science that says what they want it to say. They will throw science under the bus when it departs from their message again. Then it will be back to anti-capitalism and G8 riots again.
Is there a confusion caused by Justin Gillis talking Fahrenheit, and his Grace talking Centigrade?
Fahrenheit.
But your point still holds.
JonD : 'Is there a confusion caused by Justin Gillis talking Fahrenheit, and his Grace talking Centigrade?'
Beat me to it, 5 degrees Fahrenheit is just 2.7 degrees Centigrade!
Bishop Hill
This is a strange post, if I may say so.
Gillis is criticising the IPCC for being too conservative, and you're using it as as evidence of "corruption of the IPCC process". Why do you think his opinion carries any weight whatsoever?
Judy's entitled to her opinion, but she's only said she has a "sad suspicion". Again this isn't exactly evidence of "corruption".
Indeed, it's "old hands" from AR4 (and previous reports) who have published papers suggesting lower climate sensitivity. So, Gillis and Judy seem to be worried about the same people, but for completely opposite reasons.
That's a good answer, Richard, especially about older hands suggesting lower sensitivity. My own view is that the sheep and the goats cannot be separated merely through a metric of longevity with the IPCC! Seeing a New York Times journalist as part of the IPCC PR team is something to which I give more credence, given what has gone on in the past. But all these things will come out in the wash if there is genuine reform from within. I look forward to that day.
Gillis translated:
ECS will be at least 2 degrees Celsius, but more likely above 2.7 degrees. We have outlier science that says the rise could come in well below 1.67 degrees Celsius.
That's fairly current. I hope the NYT's insider connections with SPM drafters are reliable.
Did anyone serious believe that the IPCC apparatchiks who had built a reputation and position through alarmism, would easily relinquish their power?
Too many skeletons in the closet perhaps? Or the discovery of wholesale incompetence?
The AR5 will tell a story of "its worse than we thought" - real world data is just plain wrong!
"It's looking very much as if AR5 is dead in the water." - Sorry, Andrew, but if it's confirming and justifying the money being spent/wasted on climate change, I'd say it's very much alive. If you're a believer, it's what you want to hear, surely.
The wonder of it [IPCC AR5] is, that this UNEP-IPCC farce actually made it to a 'fifth assessment'.
Professor Richard Lindzen, did the right thing many years ago, he walked, because he recognized that, the whole process [IPCC assessments] was a scientific sham. Indeed, as has been shown and with the chief showman, soft porn novelist [Pachauri] still in charge - what hope of objectivity let alone good science - in the latest, "Ar5 and tales from the IPCC"?
When greenpeace, any old NGO are permitted to contributing IPCC reports and articles - it's not hard for us all to fathom Doctor Lindzen's repudiation.
It'll be interesting to see if, as Judith Curry says, the old guard squash the new guards contributions to AR5.
Maybe it'll be the final straw that will allow the silent ‘lump’ of non-believer scientists to raise their head above the parapet of job security and pension contributions and stick up for what is right.
We all know that whatever is written in the actual science, the summary for policymakers will be pretty hysterical, but it'll be interesting to see how the silent ‘lump’ react to having genuine science squashed.
Could be very very interesting.
Or as George Orwell so succinctly put it:
The argument that to tell the truth would ... ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect of the lies which they condone getting out of the newspapers and into the history books.
So the "old hands" are preoccupied primarily with defending their previous errors / lies, not with the actual truth, because the truth supports the position of their enemies.
Figures.
I know I keep saying it, but these people are fascists; they really are.
Just to reinforce the point I made above, check out James Delingpole's latest output. These people won't let facts get in the way; there's too much money and credibility invested.
Come on. The only difference between a Left (Green) drooling, barking mad dog out-in-the-sun-at-noon Englishmen and a NYT writer is location. Oh, sorry. The NYT writer is that way all the time.
Why TF does everyone get themselves so hot and bothered about climate sensitivity? A totally pointless metric derived with a dab of frequentist statistics, a sprinkle of Bayesian statistics and a splash of 19th century physics.
Ersatz science.
I thought it was well written, so I can't understand the Richard Betts point. The Gillis opinion on sensitivity and the Judith Curry opinion about old-timers and newcomers are two different stories. In summary, nothing has changed, the IPCC are not going to come clean. Where's the confusion?
Signs are far from uniformly good, spence, but I think Betts makes an interesting point about some older IPCC hands being involved in papers suggesting lower sensitivity. We know from the Climategate emails that some of the oldest knew many of the problems with the science way back. Perhaps we can hope for more candour publicly this time. Probably not but worth a farthing of hope, as Stuck-Record also says.
It is worth remembering that when alarmists put out these kind of numbers, with the reference point used back in the 19th century, it means that they are including both natural warming AND any postulated anthropogenic warming all rolled-up into one number.
That is disingenuous, to say the least. It is not “mainstream” science, but, borrowing from medical terminology, something rather closer to what I call “mid-stream” science.
So there you have it. It's outlier science versus outright liar science.
Richard B
Judith says more than just having suspicions. She reports views of insiders. So if we have some senior people following a political (don't provide fodder for sceptics) agenda, then it's corrupt. I'm not saying this corruption is throughout, but it's hard for those of us on the outside to say where it is. It seems fairly clear that we will be asked to accept the models over the empirical studies on sensitivity. If and when that happens, it will be conclusive.
Even if the ‘good guys’ prevail at the chapter level, I have the sad suspicion that the people who are really in charge will be playing politics with the document whereby primary concerns are not providing fodder for skeptics and showing continued increasing ‘confidence’.
Yes this will definitely happen. Consensus documents are political in nature, so political compromises, even ones damaging to the organization, will happen. Neatly put, the best interests of the senior members of the organization do not always overlap with those of the organization. For example, people will put their future funding in front of the best interests of the organization that they serve.
However, there are few fields where negative press can so radically affect your chances of future grant renewals. In effect, the greens have inflicted these circumstances on themselves and on the climate community as a whole.
Doesn't matter who gets the upper hand at chapter level
Trenberth has already said
Ha. That bears repeating. And a very good answer at 12:19 PM, if I may say so, Bish.
Carrick: The political pressure is not all one way any more though, with changes in Canada, Australia and even the UK evident and ongoing reasons for policy scepticism from China and the rest of the developing world behind China. This will no doubt take some time to have its effect - and old habits die hard in international institutions generally. Who knows if we will be able to detect anything this time. Even the recent Bloomberg report on questions being asked about the temp standstill could have been taken either way: "more propaganda please" or a genuine "you've not explained it and we're not satisfied". And that was very late in the day. Best to wait and see.
Slightly off-topic but relevant nevertheless - interesting to note that Ed Davey is off to China (article in The Sunday Times) in a desperate attempt to get some viable nuclear power stations built, in order to support his/the DECC's charge towards 'low carbon' electricity generation...
After years of 'renewables are the answer' - the penny is beginning to drop that its all going to go terribly pear-shaped any time soon...
Barry Brill says-
"ECS will be at least 2 degrees Celsius, but more likely above 2.7 degrees. We have outlier science that says the rise could come in well below 1.67 degrees Celsius."
Therefore, the IPCC AR5 transient climate sensitivity is at least 1.2 C, but more likely above 1.6 C.
The trend is clear- an asymptotic decay down to observation-based estimates.
The trick is to adjust the decay time to be of sufficient length that all desired regulatory structures are permanently ensconced at the national, regional and local levels before the majority of the proletariat realize they have been bamboozled.
Gillis writes:
"At the pace we are going, there is no reason to think that we will stop burning fossil fuels when carbon dioxide doubles. We could be on our way to tripling or quadrupling the amount of that heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. In that case, experts believe, even an earth that turns out to be somewhat insensitive to carbon dioxide will undergo drastic changes."
Is it necessary for me to explain that this statement takes for granted the ignorance of the public? To explain that it is designed to play upon the worst fears of the public? To explain that it is misleading with regard to the tiny bit of the science that actually is settled? To explain that this statement is pure propaganda for Alarmism?
If the notion of "climate sensitivity" is related in any way to the scientific method, then the relation has escaped me.
But, as I have commented before, it does seem to be unique amongst the things that have emerged from "climate science" as being something even many sceptics believe is in some way meaningful.
Martin A. I'm not dismissing climate sensitivity, it follows that the warmer it gets the more water vapour there will be and maybe more heat, but if the theory of positive feedbacks causing increased heating is correct wouldn't we have seen rises of 3C or 4C when temperatures rose 1C during the MWP?
Empirical = experimentally determined = real data.
Climate models = not experimentally determined = unreal (some would say "surreal") data.
Guess which type of data Climate Psientists, The IPCC and, tax-hungry Governments prefer?
"If the notion of "climate sensitivity" is related in any way to the scientific method, then the relation has escaped me.
But, as I have commented before, it does seem to be unique amongst the things that have emerged from "climate science" as being something even many sceptics believe is in some way meaningful.
Sep 10, 2013 at 6:22 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A"
First you create a computer model of Earth's climate. From that model you generate a graph which shows how much warming will occur this century. Then you do not compare the model output to observed data. Having completed these steps, you now may calculate a ratio that is based on the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and the slope of the line that your climate model produced. That is your climate sensitivity. No other considerations are relevant. We modelers don't need no stinkin' scientific method.
Seriously, climate sensitivity is a creature of climate models. Climate models are not constrained by observed data. Climate models are hopelessly incomplete and cannot substitute for a genuine physical theory of climate. There is no use of scientific method in calculation of climate sensitivity.
Hi Don
How did someone do an actual experiment to determine equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is defined as the long-term warming once the climate system has reached equilibrium following an instantaneous doubling of CO2?
Answer: they didn't :-)
Climate sensitivity is not something you can actually measure in the real world. We've not seen a doubling of CO2 during the time that we've been taking temperature observations.
Also, to do an experiment we'd need a control. Hard to see how we can do a controlled experiment on the Earth. We don't have a spare Earth that we can hold fixed while we study the effect of CO2 rise.
And in any case, an instantaneous doubling then stabilisation of CO2 isn't going to happen.
ECS was originally developed as metric for comparing different climate models. It's not a factor that is put into the models, it's just a number that helps compare the outputs of the models when they are run in a certain way.
It's useful and interesting to try to estimate ECS from observations (and the more relevant Transient Climate Response, which is the warming at the time of doubling CO2 during a gradual ongoing increase), as this gives us an estimate of the real-world response against which the models can be compared, but it's important to bear in mind that it's still only estimates and require some level of assumption to be made (eg: how to deal with ocean heat uptake). And since you can't do controlled experiments on the Earth to test out theories and improve understanding, the next best thing is to use models based on current understanding and compare these with observations to try to explain what is seen.
I'm not at all dismissing observationally-based estimated of ECS or TCR - they are an extremely important contribution to the science - but equally we should not dismiss models either. Or palaeo data. No single method is best, everything has a contribution to make, as long as you remain aware of what the different methods involve.
We certainly shouldn't rely entirely on models, that would be silly. But, sadly, observations alone aren't a magic bullet either.
geronimo (7:14 PM)
"if the theory of positive feedbacks causing increased heating is correct wouldn't we have seen rises of 3C or 4C when temperatures rose 1C during the MWP?"
That does not follow. The observed temperature rise includes any feedbacks. One would need to know the size of the various forcing factors at work during the MWP, which I believe is not known to any degree of accuracy. [In fact, I'm not sure the nature of any forcing during that period is known.]
Richard Betts (8:48 PM):
"We certainly shouldn't rely entirely on models, that would be silly."
But is not the IPCC's 2-to-4.5 K/doubling range for ECS -- plus the fat tail at even higher values -- derived [almost] entirely from models?
Hi HaroldW
No. See here.
What about this, Richard?
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
Uses real measurements and concludes
"ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models."
Richard
The paleo estimates reflect the priors more than the data. High sensitivity comes from two places - GCMs or the preconceptions of scientists.
I'm not dismissing climate sensitivity, it follows that the warmer it gets the more water vapour there will be and maybe more heat, but if the theory of positive feedbacks causing increased heating is correct wouldn't we have seen rises of 3C or 4C when temperatures rose 1C during the MWP?
Sep 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM | geronimo
Whatever boosted the temperatures during the MWP probably didnt last long enough. A few centuries is short compared with the ten thousand years needed to go from a glacial period to the peak of an interglacial. The direct increase in temperature of the atmosphere happens fast, but to bring the whole system (oceans, ice and atmosphere) to equilibrium takes a lot longer.
If you cant get Don Keiller's link to work, try this one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
If you cant get Don Keiller's link to work, try this one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
Don
Thanks for responding.
Lindzen and Choi still didn't do an actual experiment and didn't look at any large CO2 increases, they looked at 16 years of data of SST and outgoing longwave radiation and made an estimate based on correlations. There was a lot of criticism of the methodology and assumptions, and Lindzen and Choi wrote a further paper which was rejected by PNAS but published elsewhere. The review comments from PNAS explain the difficulties.
Richard Betts says-
" ...they looked at 16 years of data of SST and outgoing longwave radiation and..."
At least they had measurements of the two variables, as opposed to, say, paleo climate stuff.
Sep 10, 2013 at 11:53 PM | Richard Betts
Yes, but PNAS have accepted dreck in their time (e.g. Anderegg et al, 2010) haven't they?!
But that aside, you seem to be suggesting that because a paper was rejected by one of the crème de la crème, that this somehow casts a pall over it - even though it was published elsewhere.
If this is, in fact, what you are suggesting, would the same principle apply to PAGES 2K which, as you know, was rejected by Science but accepted (and presumably published) elsewhere? Or is this different, for some reason?!
And if it's not what you are suggesting, then why even mention it?!
Incidentally, somewhat O/T but speaking of the IPCC ... what do you think of WG1 Co-Chair, Thomas Stocker's plan (for which he evidently sought "permission" from someone - or some body - unnamed)
"to convene a public debate on the future of the IPCC at [...] the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)"
which (according to the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg, a considerably less than reliable source, I agree) he sees "as a chance to broaden the discussion on the future of the IPCC"
Goldenberg also quoted Stocker as follows:
It's funny, but I had the rather distinct impression that the determination of the "future of the IPCC" was the responsibility of the Panel, i.e. the governments, not WG Co-Chairs. Come to think of it, when I had asked Jonathan Lynn (IPCC Head, Communications and Media Relations) about any potential input from WG Co-Chairs and others, he responded by telling me that he didn't know but ...
[More details and source links available here]
I agree with Hilary that a rejection by PNAS per se isn't worth a hill of beans. But I think Richard's purpose in mentioning it was to link to the review comments. Didn't Lindzen say that the paper was improved in his own view as a result of some of the criticisms he and Choi received?
Scepticism of high sensitivity comes from the fact it arises solely (as Richard Betts explained nicely earlier) from the GCMs and certainly not from a very basic calculation of what we know of CO2 increase and temperature rises since the 1800s. There's also the four billion years of climate stability on earth to account for before that.
Scepticism of the concept of sensitivity itself is also fair enough, as Martin A and Theo make clear. But, as I've asked before, what would one then say to policy makers when they ask about the effects of increased emissions and increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere? Isn't sensitivity in a sense an artifact not just of GCMs but of those questions?
Hi Richard (B)
→Climate sensitivity is not something you can actually measure in the real world. We've not seen a doubling of CO2 during the time that we've been taking temperature observations.
Model simulations indicate that the global surface temperature response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing is almost linear. They also indicate that ECS estimates using non-equilibrium measurements that make allowance for ocean heat uptake provide a good substitute for estimates based on measurements once equilibrium is reached. I'd place more reliance on both those model simulation findings than on model estimates of ECS. Given linearity, there is no need to have a doubling of CO2 in order to estimate climate sensitivity from observational measurements. And by allowing for ocean heat uptake one can make estimates now rather than waiting for a thousand years or more.
→ Also, to do an experiment we'd need a control.
That comes down to getting estimates of the natural internal variability of the climate system. As I'm sure you are aware, it is standard in climate science to use long unforced control runs from coupled AOGCMs for this purpose. There is no doubt that such models have a useful role to play here. But where an energy balance approach based on ocean heat uptake as well as surface temperature is used to estimate ECS, internal variability has less effect since varying exchange of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere is captured in the ocean heat uptake measurements.
→ require some level of assumption to be made (eg: how to deal with ocean heat uptake)
Agreed, all estimates involve some assumptions. But far fewer assumptions are involved in robust observational methods of estimating ECS, such as using changes in the Earth's energy balance, than in very complex models like AOGCMs. Ocean heat uptake observational estimates have been improving, and within the next decade should improve significantly further as the period with good Argo coverage approaches two decades. Sure, ocean heat uptake wasn't really measured before about 1950. But it won't have been large between 1850 and 1900, and AOGCM based estimates can be used for that period without introducing much model influence into energy-balance based ECS estimates. And for estimating TCR, inaccuracy in ocean heat uptake estimates is of relatively little significance.
Hi Hilary - Richard D is right, I mentioned the PNAS rejection in order to point at the reviewers' comments. I agree with you that just because a paper is rejected by one of the top journals, this does not automatically mean it's junk. It's important to look at the reasons for the rejection.
Hi Nic - thanks for your response. Looks like we are in agreement that it is very hard, if not impossible, to have truly "empirical" studies of the global climate and hence of metrics such as ECS / TCR. Models of some kind inevitably play an important role at some stage.
Hello again Hilary,
Sorry, I realised I didn't answer your second question, about Tom Stocker convening a debate about the future of the IPCC at AGU.
You're right that decisions on how the IPCC works are made by the panel itself, which is indeed the governments. But presumably the AGU debate isn't intended to make any decisions on behalf of the IPCC - just to seek the views of people at one of the big conferences relevant to the subject area.