Tyndall Centre gives up on science

Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre, Britain's national centre for excellence in the study in climatology and its consequences doesn't seem to have got the memo about low climate sensitivity:

He recommended investment in public transport and renewable energy.

"The new president of the World Bank has said he expects to see people fighting for food and water everywhere.

"Hopefully we would be more organised and find a rationing system.

"We are not talking about many many generations away. We are talking about our own lifetimes and the lives of our children."

In the most likely scenarios, the Met Office climate change predictions for the Government forecast temperatures in the UK to increase from the 1961 to 1990 average of 10 to 17C in the summer to 15 to 22C by 2080.

Is this the result of one of those climate change communication strategy meetings? Louder! Longer! Pottier!

Take it away Kevin.

Update on Feb 6, 2013 by Bishop Hill

Richard Betts tweets that what Anderson says about Met Office forecasts is not true.

Ed Hawkins agrees.

+5C is just about seen in 2080 in most sensitive CMIP5 model & most extreme RCP emissions

Update on Feb 6, 2013 by Bishop Hill

No, this seems to be based on some confusion between global and UK projections. Global is 5 (allegedly), UK is more because land warms more than ocean.

Comments

[lapogus]

Prof Anderson - for some context on the pseudonym issue perhaps you will find the comment made by Prof Jonathan Jones on here a couple of years ago useful:

People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It's not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.

However, "hide the decline" is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don't know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren't speaking for me.

I have watched Judy Curry with considerable interest since she first went public on her doubts about some aspects of climate science, an area where she is far more qualified than I am to have an opinion. Her latest post has clearly kicked up a remarkable furore, but she was right to make it. The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.

Judy's decision to try to call a halt to this mess before it's too late is brave and good. So please cut her some slack; she has more than enough problems to deal with at the moment.

If you're wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.
Feb 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Unregistered Commenter Jonathan Jones

Source: The Beddington Challenge, page 2

[Lord Beaverbrook]

Well Anderson your disdain is misplaced by your very reply and the banality must be getting tedious with continuous reference to failed theory, which doesn't surprise at all in the general inapropriate use of terminology coming from the Tyndall centre amongst the theme of 'climate change'.

Illarionov had the right idea about Kyoto and now that that is all but buried we can see the immense waste of time and money expended by those on our behalf who would have their way with the world for their own benefit and belief.

[omnologos]

Seems we will have to wait until there are more net-aware people to talk to, like Betts and unlike Anderson.

I wonder if we all changed our pseudonym to profandersonisagreatguy things would change.

In the meanwhile, look who's in the Manchester papers today, surrounded by another bout of climate p-o-rn.

[lapogus]

Omnologos - those pictures of post-apocalyptic Manchester city centre, together with Prof Anderson's prediction of catastrophic climate change induced famine, rationing, and fighting in the streets, are truly horrifying. I liked the comment by Dermot Mitchell on page 2 best:

"So the city's not going to change that much then?"

[Kevin Anderson]

Just a note of caution - journalists are seldom if ever neutral stenographers - they have an editor to satisfy who has a paper to sell (and advertisers to attract). As with many of the Bishops Hill contributors, journalists, or at least editors, have a habit of losing the detail in order to polarise a story; it is therefore incumbent on the reader to apply a bit of discernment.

Better still, why don't Bishops Hill contributors comment directly on original sources written by those being criticised - not what a journalist wants you to read. Surely reference to newspaper stories should be the exception not the norm?

With less bile, a bit of humility and some courtesy (and more reference to original sources) Bishops Hill could be a really useful forum for debate and discussion around an area where uncertainly and different viewpoints will continue to prevail. I suppose it all depends on what is wanted from contributors - to develop a better understanding through frank exchanges of views, or to have a space to share vitriol with likeminded folk; I hope the former wins out - as I, for one, already have learned something from Mooloo.

Kind regards

Kevin

[esmiff]

Kevin

This is an ideal opportunity for you to tell us exactly how you would have liked to have been represented in that article. Have you written a letter of complaint to the journalist or editor in question ? If so, feel free to publish it here.

best wishes

Smiff

[Bishop Hill]

Kevin

What value of climate sensitivity are you using?

[lapogus]

Kevin, I take it that you must have missed my initial comment at the foot of page 1, which I considered polite and fiendly. I'll repeat it here in the hope that you will have the courtesy to answer my key question (in bold):

Prof. Anderson - thanks for popping in here, appreciated.

If I undertstand you correctly, you claim the 5C rise by 2080 is credible because the modellers have been using old emission rates, which are conservative compared with actual economic growth witnessed in recent years. Fair enough - but if that is the case it surely makes the disconnect between CO2 and average global temperatures even more stark:

http://s9.postimage.org/ktkpeaurz/IPCC_Pic_1.png

http://s9.postimage.org/bztsx77tb/IPCC_Pic_2.png

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/289514330087641088/photo/1

A 5C rise by 2080 is equivalent to 0.75C per decade. 2080 is still some time away, and most contributers and readers here will not be around then to see if your catastrophism is justified. Will you put on record what you think global average temperatures in a shorter time period, say 2025? Or may I ask you how more many years of stable or decreasing temperatures will it take before you accept that the CO2 hypothesis is failed, or at least that the climate sensitivity used in the IPCC's models bears no relation to actual observations?

[Kevin Anderson]

Hi Lapogus,

Bit swamped with other work – hence delay in getting back to you. For the record I didn’t make any comment on 2080 – that again was from the journalist and not me.

As for 2025 I can’t give you an answer other than I anticipate it will likely continue the upward trend (relative to the 61-90 average – see link below); what the increase will be depends on a range of climatic factors and emissions rates.

My research is primarily on emissions, but in terms of temperatures I use a range of pdfs, though typically Murphy et al (the same as that used by the UK’s CCC). As for emissions my estimate is that it is unlikely that we’ll do anything other than stay at or above A1FI (very similar to the new RCP8.5). In that regard, what emission scenarios, cumulative emission ranges (say GtCO2 out to 2050 from 2000) & pdfs do you consider when you estimate temperatures etc?

Whilst I see no evidence that global emission trends will fall below the very high RCP 8.5 pathway, I nevertheless choose to continue to work on emissions as I think we’re broadly stuffed if we don't dramatically reduce them in the short term. That said, my judgement is that I and colleagues will likely fail in persuading others of the veracity (in my view) of our arguments – and that the more typical thrust of Bishops Hill contributors will win out in terms of emissions – it is certainly much more attractive to policy makers, the public and commercial sector (as well as us privately) to conclude there is no significant problem (suggesting we need radical and urgent reductions attracts rebukes from all sides – and many very abusive emails – family threats and all the reasons others give for anonymity). I genuinely hope that those dismissing anthropogenic climate change as irrelevant are right and those taking my view have misunderstood the issues. But, as yet, I have heard very little that convinces me that the overall framing of the IPPC working group 1 allied with likely emission trends is anything other than the most challenging issue contemporary society faces. I realise you and many others draw a very different conclusion – and hence I really would be keen to see your emission pathways & budgets – and preferably the assumptions behind them; though if you take the view that CO2 is an irrelevant greenhouse gas regardless of concentration I can see why you have no particular concern about emissions.

In terms of the claim often made on Bishops Hill ‘that temperatures are not rising’, – the Met Office record suggests otherwise. What source do you use and is it significantly different to theirs (especially given choice of starting dates etc. - http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/david-rose/ - see the Ranking hottest & coldest’ diagram).

Kind regards

Kevin

Ps. For a broad view of my take on emissions – see http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html - though it is worth noting that energy-related emissions have already exceed the estimates we made for 2010/11/12 – though deforestation emissions are lower.

[Brian H]

It is telling that even the CAGW scenarios include little details like Bangladesh reaching current UK levels of living standard by 2100. Which will leave it, in relative terms, still unfairly and grossly impoverished, by their lights. Truly Max Whack.

[Kevin Anderson]

Hi Brian,

We didn't make direct reference to Bangladesh in our Royal Society paper (link in my earlier email), but we did very explicitly develop scenarios for non-Annex 1 nations taking account of their need to develop; in many respects that was the thrust of the paper. It was not possible in the space available or the time we have for research to unpick non-Annex 1 into all its constituent nations, but I have repeatedly and for many years made the point that the poorer nations need emission space to grow (and commonly refer to Bangladesh as an example) - and that in the short-medium term their emissions rising is a good indicator of improving welfare. However, to compensate for this within a given emission budget, Annex 1 nations will need to reduce at rates well above the annual mean. It is telling that some contributors do not carefully examine what is being said by others before commenting.

Kind regards

Kevin

[Messenger]

Kevin Anderson
Could I just point out that this blog is called Bishop Hill (not Bishops Hill)

[lapogus]

Kevin - thanks for taking the time to reply. I'll cut to the chase; the 15-20 stasis in global temperatures was discussed over at WUWT a few days ago, here's Jo Nova's summary:

Werner Brozek at WUWT went through the largest global temperature data sets:

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
Source: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/the-emerson-v-bolt-argument-on-air-does-emerson-not-know-statistics/

Even James Hansen of NASA GISS recently admitted that the increase in global average temperatures had ceased. Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson is also having his doubts -

We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic.

‘The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’

The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations is the only way to go.”

The fact is that CO2 emissions have increased significantly in the last 20 years from Asian growth, yet global average temperatures have not. Hence the IPCC's estimates for climate sensitivity are bollocks. It is time scientists started looking at real world observations and recognised that results from computer models are not data. I went along with the AGW for 20 years, the physics seemed to be accepted, and it all seemed to add up - the lack of cold winters in the 1990s etc. But in retrospect, a quick look at some climate history, e.g. 1750-1799 shows that none of the weather (mild winters, wet summers, storms, cold winters) we have experienced in the last 30 years is anything unusual or unprecedented. All we experienced was a run of mild winters in the 1990s, which can just as easily be explained by the AMO and PDO cycles, rather than the properties of an extra 100ppm of atmospheric CO2. The greenhouse physics itself is in general so badly misunderstood it is not wonder that the media have fallen for and played such an active part in the alarmism. But again scientists should now better, than to wildly exaggerate the effect of a little extra CO2, when they should know and explain that water vapour is the really significant greenhouse gas, and when CO2's logarithmic effect is compared to the role H20 plays in intercepting outward LW IR then it is really is negligible and a non problem.

[Kevin Anderson]

Ta for the reply.

Quick response:
1) what source is your alternative temperature record to the MET office one I linked to before - that data set demonstrates there has been some warming with the relatively small increase in CO2 over the past 70 or so years. I hear from you and many others that the temperature hasn't risen recently - so how do you counter the MET office record?

2) Please let me know the emission scenarios you consider when assessing future temperatures. Does your dismissal of anthropogenic climate change hold for say 700 to 1000ppmv CO2/CO2e? - as even at a lower sensitivity (say 1 to 2C) such ppmv/cumulative values will increase the temperature. I remain disappointed that seldom do those engaging on blogs discus emission futures/scenarios - surely this is part of the story that needs to be considered (and arguably dismissed) if those suggesting climate change is not an issue.

Kind regards

Kevin

[Brian H]

" Does your dismissal of anthropogenic climate change hold for say 700 to 1000ppmv CO2/CO2e? - as even at a lower sensitivity (say 1 to 2C) such ppmv/cumulative values will increase the temperature."

A bald and unsupportable assertion. The world is giving the lie to it. You and the rest of the Alarmist Cabal strive mightily to make it the default assumption, because without it your entire house of cards collapses.

What temperature increase has the last 100 ppm rise in CO2 caused?

[Entropic man]

Kevin Anderson

Welcome to the fantasy world of climate sceptics.

I use a pseudonym because my son and daughter prefer not to be publicly associated with a Dad whose hobby is to try and educate the sceptics. When I used my real name it occasionally popped up in Google searches by their business clients. I am a retired science teacher with no professional, political or financial axe to grind.

[Entropic man]

What temperature increase has the last 100 ppm rise in CO2 caused?

Mar 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM | Brian H

0.8C

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide.asp

[Bad Andrew]

"a Dad whose hobby is to try and educate the sceptics"

"I am a retired science teacher with no professional, political or financial axe to grind."

This is great except for the fact that there is no reason to believe any of this is true.

Andrew

[flaxdoctor]

Entropic Man,

So you're a retired science teacher are you? Wow, that's an impressive level of achievement from which to 'educate' us from. Maybe you've even got a bachelor degree?

What about a research and lecturing career? Any papers published? Some invitation platform papers at international conferences? Regular peer reviewer? Come on then - spill the beans about what equips you to 'educate' us?

Or is your 'fantasy world of climate sceptics' merely psychological projection?

[kim]

Take it given as said, nonetheless you seem to have a huge bend toward policy, perhaps from fear of catastrophe. Your curiosity is a plus, but does fear bar entry for it?
=======

[Entropic man]

Bad Andrew
"This is great except for the fact that there is no reason to believe any of this is true."

Believe or not, as you like.

Say No To Fearmongers
"Come on then - spill the beans about what equips you to 'educate' us?"

Given your inability to give references to support your arguments,your disdain for anything quantitative (which you have previously dismissed as handwaving), and your habit of telling me I'm wrong rather than showing me I'm wrong?
You argue like a politician, not a scientist. I regard you as a political sceptic, who may have had scientific training once, but has forgotten the underlying philosophy and ethos.

What equips me? Probably a better understanding of science than yourself.

kim

I do fear the outcome. One reason why I poke a stick into your cosy little nest is the fading hope that someone among the sceptics can convincingly falsify cAGW. Unfortunately most of what I get back is rudeness or the usual sceptic propoganda. The number of people here actually willing and able to discuss the science, I can count on one hand. Falsification has been elusive, though some discussions have broadened my knowledge.

[flaxdoctor]

EM, you are dishonest and you offend me. Science is *only* the pursuit of knowledge. It is entirely dependent on trust. If people behave dishonestly, they disqualify themselves. You have lied repeatedly about my conduct and I will have no further dealings with you. You waste my time and that of everybody else here. Observations will continue to falsify your world view.

No wonder home education is booming.

[Bad Andrew]

"Believe or not, as you like."

Does this apply to Global Warming claims too?

Andrew