An encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist

Watts Up With That ^ | February 1, 2013 | Anthony Watts

[Rocky]

Andrew Revkin published the email today at the NYT Dot Earth blog as a comment in that thread, so now I am free to reproduce it here where I was not last night.

Below is the comment left by Andy, quoting Annan’s email, bolding added:

The climate scientist James Annan sent these thoughts by email:

‘Well, the press release is a bit strange, because it sounds like it is talking about the Aldrin et al paper which was published some time ago, to no great fanfare. I don’t know if they have a further update to that.

Anyway, there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’

[Rocky]

Further down in the article, more from Annan, where he says that some AGW promoters have lied (I'm shocked):

The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. 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.

[nascarnation]

I doubt the climate change meme will ever be discredited in my lifetime. The progressives are “all in” on this because it presents more opportunities for statist control under the guise of “saving the planet”.

Pretty much every person under 30 yrs old has been indoctrinated in it through most or all of their educational experience.

[bboop]

Thanks for the laugh. I love it when Real begins to show.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Rocky.

[justa-hairyape]

Lying is one thing, but calling the people who pointed out your lies, deniers and Nazi’s who should be exterminated, is going a bit over board.

[TBP]

“the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm”

Darn you, Earth! Don’t you see we’r trying to control people’s lives here? Quit interfering!

[Rocky]

I doubt the climate change meme will ever be discredited in my lifetime. The progressives are “all in” on this because it presents more opportunities for statist control under the guise of “saving the planet”.

Pretty much every person under 30 yrs old has been indoctrinated in it through most or all of their educational experience.

I fear you are correct. The left has taken command of the mass media outlets and the educational systems. Since AGW serves their purposes, they will continue to push for government action to stop "climate change." But thank God for the internet, where the truth can get out there without huge financial hurdles.

[BlackVeil]

In some regions, the earth even seems to be getting colder - which is very stubborn indeed. Quite defiant.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping....time to see who else is commenting on this....

I suppose the grants will continue....someone call F' John Kerry.....he needs to know.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

JoNova has this:

Coldwave killing people in Russia, Britain, and the US

And a photo:

Norilisk, Russia. Photo from bigpicture.ru

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not sure when he added som of his updates......

******************************************EXCERPT*****************************************

UPDATE: over at Annans’ blog, now there is this new essay expounding on the issue titled: A sensitive matter, and this paragraph in it caught my eye because it speaks to a recent “leak” done here at WUWT:

But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. 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.

Readers may recall this now famous graph from the IPCC leak, animated and annotated by Dr. Ira Glickstein in this essay here:

IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).

Yes, the IPCC is “in a bit of a pickle” to say the least, since as Annan said in his comment/email to Revkin:

…combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

UPDATE 2: Annan also speaks about lying as a political motivator within the IPCC, I’ve repeated this extraordinary paragraph in full. Bold mine.

Note for the avoidance of any doubt I am not quoting directly from the unquotable IPCC draft, but only repeating my own comment on it. However, those who have read the second draft of Chapter 12 will realise why I previously said I thought the report was improved :-) Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat, let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication. The paper I refer to as a “small private opinion poll” is of course the Zickfeld et al PNAS paper. The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. 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. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”. It’s essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “la la la I can’t hear you”.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear…

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

229 Responses to BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC

******************************************EXCERPT*********************************************

• JC says:

  February 1, 2013 at 10:39 am

  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.

  I'm more interested in this bit:

  "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. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data."

  That's fraud. That's blatant fraud. Conspiracy theory my @$$.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments:

*************************************EXCERPT****************************************

Peter Miller says:

February 1, 2013 at 11:00 am

The Global Warming Industry’s gravy train just got another squeaky wheel.

Enough squeaks and hopefully it will seize up and fall off its tracks.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And More:

**************************************EXCERPT*********************************************

• Robin says:

  February 1, 2013 at 11:07 am

  Anthony–

  Your mention of Mann reminded me that these climate “scientists” are working most closely with research universities like PSU and Boulder that are simultaneously taking the lead on using their colleges of education and psych and sociology departments to change the focus of K-12 more to social and emotional learning and behavioral interventions that apply to all students.

  Given the expressed goal to change beliefs to accept the models via schools no matter what the temperature trends, it’s hardly coincidental that PennState is pushing Patterning Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) for All Students while Boulder is pushing Positive Behavioral Intervention Systems for All Students.

  Both Boulder and Penn State are determined to change the students since they cannot control the weather or the climate. Not that they recognize the difference much anymore.

[Marine_Uncle]

RE: "I suppose the grants will continue....someone call F' John Kerry.....he needs to know."
You are going to have to be sent to "sensitivity training school". :)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!

[Marine_Uncle]

On a serious note. I watched his lecture on global warming issues during his Senate confirmation hearing.
This guy is dangerous as hell on just that one issue alone. He actually thinks the science is settled on AGW and GW, and that people had better start to learn the facts.
The clown has been feed so much shit over the years that he actually believes in that stuff as being true.