Shameful Behaviour at WUWT - Not Asking the Right Question

My heart goes out to everyone in Oklahoma and to people everywhere who have lost loved ones and homes in weather disasters.

I wasn't going to write about weather disasters today, out of respect for the people who died and those who have lost everything in Oklahoma.  However I changed my mind when I saw the way Anthony Watts was using the disaster to push his barrow of science denial and rant against doing anything to ameliorate climate change.  Like many readers, I know people who've lost their lives and homes in recent weather-related disasters.  Those close to me lost their father, grandfather and friends.  There is a point to standing up against those who deny what is happening to the world.

So please forgive me if you find this disrespectul, but in my view, something needs to be said.

Anthony Asks the Wrong Question

Anthony Watts is busy stirring up the mob over at WUWT.  He really hates it when extreme events happen.  He know that every time a weather-related disaster occurs, people think again of climate change.

What Anthony does knows is that if we don't rein in carbon emissions, there will be more droughts, floods, wildfires, heat waves and other weather extremes and disasters.  That's why he insists on asking the wrong questions, like:

Tell us, what could any tax, law, edict, or protest have done to stop yesterday’s tornado outbreak?

 If they had a shred of human decency, what Anthony and his mob of Dismissives would be asking is:

Tell us, what can we do to limit future weather disasters and prevent the worst excesses of climate change?

Rajendra Pauchari: Pinning the Oklahoma tornado on climate change is wrong-headed, un-scientific

Dr Pauchari points out what is often emphasised by other scientists, that from a scientific standpoint it's just not possible to relate a single event like the Oklahoma tornado, Superstorm Sandy, Katrina or Cyclone Yasi to human-induced climate change. From The Times of India:

Pinning the deadly tornado in the US state of Oklahoma on climate change is wrongheaded, even though the world is set to see a rise in high-profile weather disasters due to global warming, the leader of a UN body said on Tuesday.

Almost every scientists will tell you the same.  What they can and continue to investigate is the extent to which the world will see more and worse events of various types, such as tropical cyclones, hurricanes, extreme droughts, paralyzing blizzards and massive floods.

Michael E Mann: The wild-card is the shear

On tornadoes in particular, this is how Professor Mann responded when asked, from Take Part:

“As far as climate change is concerned, there will likely be a greater clashing of cold air masses from the north with even warmer, even more humid air masses coming off the Gulf of Mexico—conditions that are favorable for breeding destructive storms,” says Michael Mann, climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University and author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

“The wildcard is the sheer—we don’t know with certainty whether that will increase or not in the key regions for tornado formation as a result of climate change,” Mann continues. “But if one factor is likely to be favorable, and the other is a wildcard, it’s still more likely that the product of the two factors will be favorable. Thus, if you’re a betting person—or the insurance or reinsurance industry for that matter—you’d probably go with a prediction of greater frequency and intensity of tornadoes as a result of human-caused climate change.

Kevin Trenberth: Chance Effect of Weather - The climate change effect is up to 32% in terms of damage

Professor Trenberth is reported by The Brad Blog as responding to a question from Peter Sinclair, saying:

Of course tornadoes are very much a weather phenomenon. They come from certain thunderstorms, usually super-cell thunderstorms that are in a wind shear environment that promotes rotation. The main climate change connection is via the basic instability of the low level air that creates the convection and thunderstorms in the first place.

Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air.

The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10% effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 32% effect in terms of damage. (It is highly nonlinear).

So there is a chain of events and climate change mainly affects the first link: the basic buoyancy of the air is increased. Whether that translates into a super-cell storm and one with a tornado is largely chance weather.

What can we do?

We don't have to go and live in a cave.  That would do no good at all.  What we can do is change our own behaviour and lead by example.  Where possible we can use energy from renewable sources not fossil fuels. We can favour energy efficient appliances.  We can vote for representation by people who will put policies in place to hasten the shift to clean energy.  And we can urge others to do the same.

Help the Snowshoe Hares

Pretty animals, aren't they.

Not that we can do much in the short term, but couldn't we try a bit harder to give them a few extra days protection each year?

Color-Changing Hare Can't Keep Up With Climate Change

Photo credit: D. Gordon E. Robertson adapted by HotWhopper.

Mills et al Camouflage mismatch in seasonal coat color due to decreased snow duration
PNAS 2013 110 (18) 7099-7100; doi:10.1073/iti1813110

I was wrong - maybe

When you get one out of three wrong, might as well admit it.  When you possibly-maybe-could have got two out of three wrong, might as well delete the post altogether :)

Sorry folks. My fault.

While I slink off to cogitate on the perils of rushing in, go read Victor Venema's latest article - it's a good one. And then read Greg Laden's second latest - it's well worth reading as well.

Today's Menu from Anthony Watts - Fruitcake (Nutty As)

Special of the Day from the WUWT Monckton Nuttery.  Your waitperson is Anthony Watts.

Fruitcake with nuts - and with icing on top. 

We call it the Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Special - Viscount Edition.

Want a slice?

Nutty Fruitcake with Icing on Top

More denier weirdness - Anthony Watts praises a paper as a sea change, but sneers at the author's findings

How Watts Praises a Paper

Watts writes a headline about a new paper (discussed here):

Why the new Otto et al climate sensitivity paper is important – it’s a sea change for some IPCC authors

How Watts decides what the paper means

With the modest rate of warming stated by Otto et al, the impacts of global warming are more likely to be positive than negative for humanity in the foreseeable future; increased crop yields for example.

Oh yeah? Pull the other one...(and the old "CO2 is plant food, praise the lord"? Sheesh!)

How Watts tells his readers to ignore the authors of the paper he praises

Watts tells his readers to ignore those silly old authors. "Oh, Sure" he sneers!

Anthony snorts: The BBC says they had it all covered before and this new paper is “consistent” with previous works. Oh, sure.

Quoting the BBC:…when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

“It is a bigger range of uncertainty,” said Dr Otto.

“But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn’t.”

How Watts looks like a fool (again)

The lead author, Dr Otto responds to a question from the BBC:

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

Anthony Watts thumbs his nose at the authors and decides to take comfort anyway: "Meanwhile, in lower sensitivity land, “the pause” in global temperatures continues, and is approaching the Santer definition...If “the pause” reaches 17 years, what then?":

On Climate Sensitivity, Otto and Hansen - and Exaggeration from WUWT

Update below: In which Anthony Watts tells his readers "she'll be right, mate" and to take no notice of what the lead author himself says.


Today WUWT has picked up another article on climate sensitivity.  The authors, Otto et al, seem to have taken a not dissimilar approach to Lewis (2013), in that they based their workings on surface temperatures in recent decades including the temperatures of the most recent decade.  Unlike some other studies of climate sensitivity, the work does not appear to refer to evidence from past climatology, prior to the period covered by instrumental records.

The authors provide best estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity as 2.0 °C based on 2000-09:

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5–95% confidence interval of 1.2–3.9 °C, compared with the 1970–2009 estimate of 1.9 °C (0.9–5.0 °C). Including the period from 2000 to 2009 into the 40-year 1970–2009 period delivers a finite upper boundary...Observations of the energy budget alone do not rule out an ECS value below 2 °C, but they do rule out an ECS below 1.2 °C with 95% confidence. The upper boundary is lowered slightly, but is also very sensitive to assumptions made in the evaluation process (see Supplementary Section S2). Uncertainties include observational errors and internal variability estimated from control simulations with general circulation models.

And of Transient Climate Response at 1.3 °C (0.9–2.0 °C) based on 2000-09.

This is lower than estimates derived from data of the 1990s (1.6 °C (0.9–3.1 °C); yellow, or for the 1970–2009 period as a whole (1.4 °C (0.7–2.5 °C).

Here is the write up by the Guardian, and from the BBC.  The opening paragraphs from the Guardian are:

Some of the most extreme predictions of global warming are unlikely to materialise, new scientific research has suggested, but the world is still likely to be in for a temperature rise of double that regarded as safe.

The researchers said warming was most likely to reach about 4C above pre-industrial levels if the past decade's readings were taken into account.

That would still lead to catastrophe across large swaths of the Earth, causing droughts, storms, floods and heatwaves, and drastic effects on agricultural productivity leading to secondary effects such as mass migration.

Let's moderate that with a dose of stark reality from Dr James Hansen, the "grandfather" of modern climatology.

The Exaggeration? (Yes, but maybe not so much as I first thought - see update)

Nic Lewis in his WUWT article says this new work is a : "new peer-reviewed climate sensitivity study published as a Letter in Nature Geoscience".  The article itself, however, is not published as a Letter.  It is published as "Correspondence", which is described as "Correspondence provides readers with a forum for comment on papers published in a previous issue of the journal or to discuss issues relevant to the geosciences."  There is no indication that the work has been peer-reviewed (see following Update). Describing the article as a Letter, when it is in fact Correspondence is still wrong and arguably an exaggeration, but not the double exaggeration I previously and erroneously thought it might have been.  Not really worth quibbling about after all - see following update:D

Update: This from Nature GeoScience: "Other types of Correspondence may be peer-reviewed at the editors' discretion". Nature has since advised me the article was peer-reviewed.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not doubting the rigour of the analysis.  And I would welcome any news that climate sensitivity is lower rather than higher.  On the other hand I'm not about to accept estimates based largely on recent instrumental temperature records as the final word on the matter.  Particularly not when there are other studies of actual past climate change that suggest climate sensitivity may well be at the high end of the scale.  (Notice how Anthony Watts went all Dunning Kruger when he wrote about that paper).

Thing is, not one of us will be alive to see what is equilibrium climate sensitivity.  Some of us will, sadly, probably get to find out the transient climate sensitivity - at the time of doubling of CO2.  The medium and longer term effects we'll be leaving for future generations to grapple with.

Another Oddity

Another thing that's decidedly odd when you think about it.  Only a couple of days ago Anthony Watts was telling big fat lies about the 97% scientific consensus on global warming, trying to claim that more papers disagreed that humans are causing global warming than agree.  Now he seems to embrace a paper that assumes humans are causing global warming.  He also shows no lessening of his efforts to send us hurtling at warp speed (geologically speaking) towards a world that is too hot to handle.

I'll leave you with a comment from Anthony, whose frantic advocacy efforts to heat the world take him beyond rationality and morality.  Does he also lack any self-awareness?  Anthony Watts says:

May 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm  @Mosher I agree. Cook and Co. are advocates, so like Romm, they tend to do those sorts of things. Now, it appears Cook and Nuccitelli have reached the level of paid advocates.

Update: Watts tells his readers to take no notice of the authors

In a follow up article entitled: "Why the new Otto et al climate sensitivity paper is important – it’s a sea change for some IPCC authors" there is more ridiculous wishful thinking from Anthony Watts.  As if to prove the denier watcher's correct he writes:

With the modest rate of warming stated by Otto et al, the impacts of global warming are more likely to be positive than negative for humanity in the foreseeable future; increased crop yields for example.

Watts lauds the article, calling it a "sea change", but at the same time he dismisses out of hand what the lead author himself is quoted as saying with a sneering "Oh, sure":

Anthony snorts: The BBC says they had it all covered before and this new paper is “consistent” with previous works. Oh, sure.

Quoting the BBC:…when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

“It is a bigger range of uncertainty,” said Dr Otto.

“But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn’t.”

Let's add comments from Dr Sherwood, who is urging caution about assuming low climate sensitivity just based on the past decade:

Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.

"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.

And finish with the final remarks from the lead author, Dr Otto - from the same BBC article - aimed squarely at deniers like Anthony Watts who wrote: "Meanwhile, in lower sensitivity land, “the pause” in global temperatures continues, and is approaching the Santer definition":

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

WUWT Gets Weirder by the Day - Now burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

A new bout of craziness has broken out on WUWT, this time led by Girma Orssengo, PhD.  Girma posted an article entitled:  Claim: How the IPCC arrived at climate sensitivity of about 3 deg C instead of 1.2 deg C.

Girma's sixty year cycle based on sixty years of observations!

Nice headline.  But Girma proceeds to do something else entirely - as many commenters point out.  He reckons there's a sixty year cycle, based on his 'analysis' of temperatures over the sixty years between 1940 and 2000 or thereabouts.  I kid you not!  I won't try to delve more deeply - that should be enough to give you the picture.  If you want to know how the IPCC report deals with climate sensitivity - click here.

What's even more ridiculous is what happens in the comments.  Based on the comments, Girma Orssengo, PhD, in one of the most convoluted cases of circular reasoning one can imagine, believes:

• Burning fossil fuels doesn't produce carbon dioxide
• Carbon dioxide is being outgassed by the oceans (oceans in fact are absorbing CO2)
• Temperature is rising by magic
• Climate sensitivity is the doubling of temperature from a rise in CO2 that is being outgassed by the oceans as a result of the rising temperature (and that are in fact absorbing, not emitting CO2).

Burning fossil fuels doesn't release CO2 - what?

After writing his article and making numerous follow up comments explaining how he works out climate sensitivity (to CO2 forcing), down in the comments Girma makes this statement - pretty funny for someone who stresses his PhD (my bold):

Girma says:
May 18, 2013 at 8:59 am
Don Easterbrook
I am not saying CO2 is causing the warming. I believe it is the warming that is causing the increase in CO2 concentration, as the vostok ice cores show. The CO2 concentration will drop when the temperature falls.

What I'm trying to figure out is how that works.  First of all one has to decide that the following chemical reaction doesn't happen:

hydrocarbon + oxygen ---> CO2 + H2O

How is the rise in temperature increasing CO2? (In Girma's reality - not yours and mine)

Then one has to figure out how the warming is causing the increase in CO2 concentration.  Girma explains:

As the temperature increases, more CO2 is released from the oceans (where it is about 50 times than in the atmosphere) increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmospheric.
As the temperature decreases, more CO2 is dissolved in the oceans decreasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

When temperatures change as a result of forcings other than CO2, carbon dioxide does outgas from the oceans as they warm.  Small perturbations in temperature from orbital changes can produce much larger shifts in temperature because of this CO2 feedback - ending an ice age or plunging into one.  Read more about the greenhouse effect in this booklet from the Bureau of Meteorology.

But that's not what's happening now.  The oceans aren't releasing CO2.  They are absorbing about half the CO2 we pour into the air each year at the same time as they are warming up.  That's evidenced by the fact they are getting more acidic.  However, Girma doesn't even seem to think that burning hydrocarbons produces carbon dioxide and he's ignoring that little detail of ocean acidification.

So how does Girma explain the rise in temperature?  Well, that's a puzzle.  He refers back to his oscillation - but as Russ R. says: Shouldn’t the trend over a complete 60 year cycle be zero? Otherwise, it must be magic.

Just what does Girma mean by climate sensitivity?

Next one has to try to figure out what Girma's original article on climate sensitivity is all about.  Climate sensitivity is the rise in temperature from a doubling of CO2 (in this case).  Given Girma has said that it's the temperature increase that's causing more CO2, then his climate sensitivity can't be a measure of temperature rise from a doubling of CO2.  Maybe it's the doubling of CO2 from a given temperature rise?  Weird.

The Usual

More fun from the comments:

Slayer Graham is outed by Anthony Watts when he says:

May 18, 2013 at 5:57 am  All sensitivity figure are wrong, because there is no linkage between CO2 and temperature.
REPLY: John O’Sullivan, leader of the Principia cult, there’s no need to hide behind a fake email address. We always know who you are here....(inserts email rejection etc here)...Anthony.

Emeritus Professor Don Easterbrook is getting nuttier (and shoutier) by the day if that's possible.  Despite apparently also denying greenhouse gases (like the slayers do), he remains a favourite of Anthony - and says:

May 18, 2013 at 6:51 am  What ever happened to ’cause-and-effect’ in science? Just because temperature went up and CO2 also went up over the same period doesn’t make a basis for calculating how much temperature will go up as CO2 increases! This whole analysis is based on the false premise that temperature is a function of CO2. Why don’t we do the same analysis for the period 1945 to 1977 and calculate how much COOLING occurs with increase in CO2? And why don’t we calculate for the period 1880 to 1915 how much COOLING occurs with increase in CO2? And why don’t we calculate for the Maunder Minimum how much COOLING occurs with increase in CO2? You get the idea–the notion that temperature is a function of CO2 is invalided until you first show a cause-and-effect relationship between the two!

Richard M is in some degree of chaos and says:

May 18, 2013 at 8:14 am  Climate sensitivity is not a constant. It is variable and dependent upon other factors. That is due to the chaotic nature of climate. When near an attractor state it will be small. The further away it gets the higher it will be for any forcing.

A History of "Cyclic" Girma

Let's finish with a bit of history from Girma on realclimate.org. I suspect Jim thought Girma was sending up deniers.  We now know Girma was being Very Serious :D

Girma says:

7 May 2011 at 4:43 PM

Global mean temperature pattern is cyclic as shown in the following graph!  http://bit.ly/cO94in

CO2 emission has nothing to do with global mean temperature as its patterns before and after mid 20th century, before and after wide spread use of fossil fuel, are nearly identical.

[Response: Brilliant in all regards.--Jim]

Here's his 'following graph' (click to enlarge, if you dare!)