I was reading (don’t ask me why) Ben Pile’s analysis of this whole Lukewarmer issue. If anyone wants an illustration of why I said things like
Apparently being a Lukewarmer also means that if you can’t actually find an explicit description of someone else’s view, you can just make one up…… Apparently, virtually everyone else is a Green activist….. Lukewarmers also seem to think that “play the ball, not the man” applies only to other people
in my previous post, Ben’s post is a good place to start. I wasn’t going to analyse his post, or discuss what he says – as that would be silly – I was simply going to comment on what Ben says in his update. Roger Pielke Jr appears to have objected to being a labelled a Lukewarmer, and so Ben updates his post with
Roger Pielke Jr. tweets that he rejects the term ‘lukewarmer’, and adds: “Distinguishing political perspectives according to ECS is antithetical to robust policy & inclusive politics”.
I don’t always see eye-to-eye with Roger Pielke Jr, but this is – I think – a very good point, assuming I’ve interpreted it correctly. Fundamentally, the evidence base should be broadly the same. What we decide to do, given that evidence base, is what we should really be discussing. That people seem to be arguing about, or defining themselves according to, something like ECS, rather than about what we should do given the range for ECS, is what lead to me to say
Lukewarmerism appears to be a way of attempting to justify a certain policy position, rather than a genuine attempt to develop a position based on a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence.
To be fair, I would dislike it if someone claimed that my scientific position was motivated by my policy preferences, so the above is – as should be obvious – a general impression, and is not aimed at any specific individual. I also realise that Lukewarmers are more diverse than my simple description might indicate. However, it does seem as though many Lukewarmers do define themselves according to what they think climate sensitivity (ECS) will be, and – typically – choose a likely/probable range that is not consistent with that presented by the IPCC/mainstream science.
Let me clarify a few things, though. Continuing to investigate climate sensitivity and trying to constrain the range more accurately is – of course – a good thing; that’s what science is about. Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the different lines of evidence is also a perfectly valid thing to do; again this is a fundamental part of science. There is a caveat, though; that’s why you talk to experts, they can tell you about the different lines of evidence and why some might be stronger than others. Also, you don’t simply dismiss – or accept – some evidence just because you can find an expert who supports that view; you typically try to get the views of a sufficiently large group of experts, like – oh, I don’t know – maybe the IPCC?
I’ll finish with a final comment. Richard Betts wrote a guest post here called label the behaviour, not the person. I agree with that general sentiment; discussing a particular viewpoint, or behaviour, is vastly different to labelling some specific individual. However, as Brigitte Nerlich points out, Lukewarmer appears to be a self-label, rather than a label generated by others. This makes it slightly tricky. It’s one thing to label others in a manner that they might find objectionable, but another to use one that they themselves have developed. The current objection seems to be that some – like me – are defining it incorrectly, but I’m still having trouble seeing how, as everything I read seems broadly consistent with my understanding of the general position.
Anyway, I’ll simply reiterate the point I was trying to make here, and which I think Roger Pielke Jr was getting at; we don’t get to choose our own evidence, and defining yourself according to some subset of the evidence is a poor way to ensure robust policy making. One might even argue that the attempt to develop a self-label is inherently political and divisive.
> I don’t always see eye-to-eye with Roger Pielke Jr, but this is – I think – a very good point, assuming I’ve interpreted it correctly.
Have you read all of Junior’s books, papers, essays, and editorials? I think not.
Then you certainly misrepresented to most misrepresented man in the history of ClimateBall, at least according to himself.
He’s offered me a copy of his book, but I declined – well, I was still anonymous, so it wasn’t clear how I would get it 🙂
If a certain group of people have called themselves ‘Lukewarmers’, then arguably it’s a title rather than a label. Unlike ‘skeptic’, ‘denier’ or ‘alarmist’, few seem to have a problem using it. I certainly don’t mind calling them Lukewarmers, if people who, seemingly irrationally, believe climate change won’t be bad—or who use economics to convince themselves that mitigation is a bad idea—want to be known by that title.
I guess now we need to start titling ourselves ‘Warmers’: if we mean by that, people who generally accept the IPCC’s reports as representing our best understanding of the risks inherent in humans adding additional greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Now we just need a mutually-agreeable title for ‘those-in-denial’.
You arrange to meet on a dark night in a carpark somewhere, with the book placed in a brief case on the ground between you while both parties’ henchman look on, nervously.
I don’t think there is any prospect of this happening.
paleo proxies have fundamental accuracy limitations
Modelling is constrained by computing power and fundamental uncertainty in processes such as nucleation
Observational estimates are constrained by historical data and the “one realisation” issue.
We have the knowledge now that we will have for the next few decades. It’s up to us what to do with it.
I broadly agree. I think that some of the work that’s being done on clouds could clarify things somewhat, but given that it will mostly be modelling work (or rely on models) means that it is no more likely to be accepted than anything else and is unlikely, to result in a major change. It might bring the high end down a little, maybe, but ECS ignores slow feedbacks anyway, so that isn’t much of a comfort.
I wouldn’t label Pielke Jr. a Lukewarmer. ‘Honest Brokers’ are a different category that I won’t go into (if you don’t have anything nice to say…). Lukewarmers are pretty specific in arguing for low sensitivity and thus no urgent need for action, which is not the argument Pielke Jr. makes.
Yes, I agree. I certainly wasn’t (hope it didn’t seem that way). I was more interested in his point about how one shouldn’t define oneself according to something like your view on ECS.
In the dialectic of scientific discourse, as in Jurgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis occurs in an environment of free-thinking and non-violent communications. This is how humanity has achieved its greatest heights in social and scientific advancements.
If, however one of the parties is NOT a participant in free-thinking analysis but is rather INTENTIONALLY skewing his anti-thesis in a form of violent compromise of the discourse, through intentionally misrepresenting what is known to be ‘truth’, then the process is destined to fail.
[Mod : In the, somewhat naive, interest of maintaining the possibility of discourse, I’m going to redact this last paragraph.]
Arguing sensitivity is as relevant as trying to decide under which conditions plateaux exist.
Don’t be suckered in by your curiosity and keep the eye on the ball.
Followers of the IPCC consensus
One of the 97%
Cassandras (she was always right, so is Ms. Rabett, but Eli believes her)
It’s pretty funny that RPJr. disagrees with Pile as to whether he’s a “lukewarmer” when neither of them (or anyone else) actually knows what the term means.
Yes, that does seem to be the case. They know that my description is wrong, but they don’t really have a consistent alternative.
Happy to send over copies of my 2 climate books. Plz email me with mailing address. Thx.
As I hinted at in a comment above, aren’t there two clearly defined and somewhat contradictory groups of people who think they’re lukewarmers? Namely people who believe climate change won’t be bad because sensitivity is low—for various reasons they have trouble explaining (eg, Ridley, Lewis)—and those who appear to use economics to convince themselves that mitigation is a bad idea (eg,Tol, Lomborg)?
Instructively, they never seem to argue with one another, even though they have very different reasons for their lukewarmism, and, perhaps even more instructively, some of them seem to believe that if it’s not one reason, it’s the other—or both at the same time… which could be possible, I suppose; and also really convenient.
“when neither of them (or anyone else) actually knows what the term means.”
Like conservative, liberal, socialist or patriot. It is a contrived term to cobble together an alliance of people. To polarise what should be a broad continuum of opinions.
“The consensus enforcers don’t even want there to be an index — admitting to an entire axis of perspectives would make the debate far more complicated than the simple matter of right-vs-wrong, good-vs-bad or science-vs-denial that they want it to be. The point of consensus enforcement is to sustain the polarised account of the debate.”
This observation I think is particularly enlightening as to what is happening here.
We all agree in principle that allowing ECS (or ECS equations) to define one’s politics is weird but in the wider world much weirder stuff is being harnessed to drive political polarity.
I’m wondering if Roger Pielke Jr. has had an epiphany? He dramatically announced he would lessen his climate research as the result of the hoohaa over Wille Soon’s funding but I suspect he’s keen to return and perhaps reposition himself.
If RPJ is not a Lukewarmer then we must assume that he accepts all or part of AR4’s range. For reasons of his own making Pielke has found himself a long way from the pointy end of climate research and policy. He’s mired in the flaccid lomborgian end and suffers the same funding stench. I think he might be ready to claw his way out.
If Pielke is not a Lukewarmer and has ambitions re policy influence, then the only place for him is the pointy end – mitigation. I look forward to his next paper.
> This observation I think is particularly enlightening as to what is happening here.
Must be the lack of solution to the Navier-Stokes equations.
” [Ben Pile’s] observation I think is particularly enlightening as to what is happening here.”
It is twaddle, as is to be expected from Pile.
That “entire axis” to which Pile belongs is comprised of climate crackpots of every sort, from the sky dragon slayers to Luboš Motl to Jo Nova to Lord Monckton. All fit on that infinitely commodious crank axis in comfort, tolerant of one another’s various dumb-to-crazy views but sharing a constant state of high dudgeon with respect to the climate scientists who comprise the current consensus and to the policy thinkers who accept it.
Pile’s straw men, the “consensus enforcers,” do not exist in reality. There are no thought police stifling serious positions on science and policy. There ARE many serious people who are bloody sick and tired of clowns like Monckton and ideologues like Pile wasting everyone’s time.
skylunatic: It is irrelevant to drop names of people you dislike. There is a broad range of opinion among real scientists as even the IPCC acknowledged when it increased its range for ECS in AR5 and refused to give a most likely value. What is your view on the use of uniform priors in ECS?
The science on CS is not settled, though you would never know that listening to DY.
What is your view on the use of paid stooges and crackpots to give the illusion of genuine scientific dissent, DY?
Would your list of “real scientists” include Willie Soon? Patrick Michaels? Ian Plimer?
The fact that the IPCC updates each report as new information emerges in no way implies legitimacy for the views of the cloud of crazies that swarm outside climate science. ECS is a serious issue upon which there are serious competing views, but nothing serious comes from the likes of Ben Pile.
Joshua, I think Mosher’s definition is reasonable. A lukewarmer is somebody who:
1) Thinks that the probability of an ECS of 3 or less is greater than or equal to 50%; and
2) The probability of and ECS less than 1 is less than 2.5% (my gloss on Mosher’s claim that climate sensitivity cannot be less than 1).
The problem lies not in the definition, but that in that people who are not lukewarmers by this definition still claim the title without any push back from those who are genuinely lukewarmers that I have seen.
By this definition, the IPCC AR5 fails to be a lukewarmer document only because it places to high a probability (<5%, 3.5% base on Rogelj's PDF of the AR5 ECS) of an ECS less than 1. Mosher may want to be more specific about the lower limit, and lift it to 5% to allow that the IPCC is not more conservative than those radical lukewarmers.
JCH, Yes the science is not settled. We are getting better though and there are a lot more recent estimates on the low side than on the high side. Perhaps they re all wrong, but it takes a special selection bias to not accept that they mostly use refinements on earlier estimates that you may have liked better but that had demonstrable problems such as the use of uniform priors. This latter issue I think is finally settled and I don’t expect many to go back to these poor statistical methods. Will they consult real 3rd part statisticians? I doubt it, but there is some progress at least.
Adam, You are the one who is bringing up people who I do not regard are credible. Why do you do it as it is irrelevant to what I said? Is this a straw man argument?
They’re using the AMO. I can’t imagine how uniform priors could be worse than that.
Assuming that your dialectical opponent has the same goals as you do (to seek truth) when that opponent is actually operating under different reward structures (financial benefit to cloud discourse for targeted outcomes) is what causes stagnation and eventual collapse of entire systems of complex thought. Some of these debates have long been abandoned and forgotten.
I think that the desire for amiable debate in the face of obviously bad-faith actors under normal circumstances is foolish, In the instance of climate change, it is prolicide.
Do you at least acknowledge some irony in both your viewpoint and in what Ben Pile said? I’m guessing “no” but you could try giving it some thought. Not only am I not trying to enforce some kind of viewpoint, I’m simply criticising some viewpoints. That you would whine about that and not see the irony in doing so is quite remarkable, but not surprising.
Hmmm, interesting. Do you really think that these “real scientists” each think that they’re right and that the others are wrong, or that these “real scientists” might actually realise that our overall understanding might be best described by an overall view of the evidence, rather than just by their own personal viewpoint?
Yes, I agree that Mosher’s definition is reasonable. I’m just not sure why this would be described by a word such as “Lukewarmer”.
Thanks, I will do.
Yes, I tend to agree. I think my main motivation is to avoid outright conflict. I don’t argue against others doing so, though, just not here 🙂
Your ability to miss the point is still evident. I don’t think anyone argues that the uniform priors were the right ones to use. I do think, however, that the supposedly uninformed (if I’ve remembered the correct name) priors have their own issues. Maybe you should consider the statement “estimates that you may have liked” could be directed at many. That you would use it without the self-awareness to recognise this, is in character, at least.
Well, if the Marotzke & Forster saga is anything to go by, I can’t see how it would be an improvement. Your faith in these mythical 3rd party statisticians is, however, somewhat comforting.
And then there’s James Annan on why Nic Lewis is wrong (his words, not mine).
For more, see the hallowed archives of this very blog.
Thanks, objective priors, not uninformed priors.
And then there’s some more James Annan on why DY, sorry, NL is wrong.
So close to ‘uninformative’ that there could be seepage…
Actually, it appears that “uninformative” was a term used to describe these priors.
Interesting. Could you send us a link to the literature survey which you used to reach this conclusion?
I have two preconceptions
– firstly that low estimates are all using the same methodology
– secondly that other methodologies continue to be published but receive less publicity
Your survey would be an excellent way of testing my preconceptions. It’s important to be self-sceptical!
Some of the other ones, apparently, use unsuitable methods, well according to Nic Lewis, that is.
What more can I say?
interesting. A shame Nic didn’t provide a citation.
But still, let’s see what DY’s literature survey showed. After all, he won’t have just been asserting something without evidence.
> You are the one who is bringing up people who I do not regard are credible.
That shows a crucial function of the lukewarm brand: DY can throw under the bus just anyone but the usual suspects, whom Adam may not know. Recognizing secret handshakes takes time and practice. Incidentally, this is relevant to Mr. Pile’s tepid remarks underlined by DY.
In a sense Nic has. If you look at his slides from the Ringberg meeting he does go through the various issues that he think apply to the other methods. Interestingly, none apply to his own and I’m not convinced that is quite correct. Certainly, I don’t think he can claim there is no influence from internal variability and, as we’ve already discussed, the issue of his choice of priors is relevant.
skylanetc and Adam R telling it like it is.
David Young is a concern t-roll who thinks because it is difficult to do fluid dynamics for aircraft simulations that this must translate to climate science. In fact, something like the dynamics of ENSO will likely end up being very simple to solve. That’s because scientists don’t listen to scolds who tell them they can’t figure out something because it is too h-a-a-a-rd (whiny voice).
Oh, and I point to this:
And I point to this:
That is all.
One of the founding fathers of the lukewarm church just issued an hypothesis that renders his faith more than tepid, but useless:
His 94 other hypotheses are forthcoming soon.
This change of faith has two crucial implications.
First, the lukewarm gambit is irrelevant for near-future policies.
Second, Matt King Coal and the Lomborg Collective misrepresent their credo.
Does it mean one of the founding fathers of the lukewarm church is switching to honest brokerage?
Stay tuned for yet another tepid episode of ClimateBall!
I wonder which door he will try and nail the list to?
> I wonder which door he will try and nail the list to?
As long as there’s an address attached to it, it comes with two free books.
Reading back Brigitte’s post, I note that the newly discovered hypothesis may be needed to patch this inconvenience:
The move in response is a main step in the honest broker dance:
Groundskeeper has been using this move all morning:
YOU MAKE THING UP
I don’t need to make things up,
you’ll do that for me.
You couldn’t get through one comment
without making things up.
It’s not the computing velocity or power, but
having to deal with the error messages your comments prompt.
This trope is one notch below the “you make no sense” line. Unsubstantiated mystification to break channels and look like one has responded. As the RichardB episode revealed, contrarians are not alone in using such a cheap trick.
And the first respondent’s list starts out with “do nothing” as #1 … though another poster (fuller doesn’t attract many) comes up with a fairly reasonable list for a self-proclaimed libertarian.
Though humorously that poster states:
“1) The president goes on television and announced a goal of having 10% of the workforce telecommute”
“Why didn’t Obama announce a goal of 10% telecommuting on his first day in office? Why don’t we do it now?”
Following up with:
“Government is at its worst when it mandates specific solutions.”
Such as … telecommuting? 🙂
Fuller, like Mosher, has been working overtime in recent years to try to appear to be reasonable. In fact, his approach to “lukewarmerism” has all along matched well with the mainstream, When pinned down in the early lukewarmer days, he stated he believed that the best estimate of ECS is 2.5C per CO2 doubling, not significantly different than NASA GISS Model E’s 2.7C which presumably Gavin Schmidt has at least some faith in.
I have always read “lukewarmerism” as being an attempt to discredit so-called mainstream views by focusing on strawman mischaracterizations of them. Lukewarmers call for sanity by rejecting the notion that ECS might be 6C, in a way that would lead the casual reader to believe that 6C represents some kind of mainstream view, while it clearly is an extreme outlier and appears to be held to be extremely unlikely by nearly all researchers in the field. “high sensitivity is mainstream alarmism, so abandon mainstream science and adopt the lukewarmer way”. Strawman at work.
I also think that Fuller and Mosher’s lukewarmer faith is rooted to some extent in their personal dislike of several prominent climate scientists, as demonstrated by Mosher’s “Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann” (oh, but it was just a joke!) and the book they collaborated on Climategate which, in their opinion, successfully trashed the personal reputation of the scientists who had their mail stolen.
They both separate themselves from certain mainstream scientists based on character differences – which I can’t disagree with, though I do disagree with their interpretation of whose character is more noble …
In which Willard makes me laugh out loud.
> Such as … telecommuting?
Adding percentages may be how we distinguish those who do from those who don’t.
Notice how, instead of facing the pragmatic inconsistency of the lukewarm brand, our dynamic duo turns it into a food fight.
There was certainly an element of “everyone’s been mean to us” 🙂
There’s no way our dynamic duo can respond to your symmetry argument, AT:
Way better to rip one’s shirt or make it about me instead.
I see that Tom F is falsely claiming that he was a 2.5C ECS fan 😉
It was 1.9C last time I checked.
When challenged, Tom descended into abuse (I became a ‘troll’ for asking him to reference his claim) and outright evasion.
I have all the links to back this up if necessary. Tom C is being mendacious at Judith’s.
I see that Fuller now claims his best estimate is 2.1C rather than 2.5C. I think that might be a reaction to people pointing out that 2.5C makes him a “warmist” rather than “lukewarmist” … 🙂 James Annan picks 2.5C as his most likely value, and is no “lukewarmist”, so I’m thinking Fuller needs to slide under that number in order to maintain his label …
Of course, if you engage Fuller for long, you’ll find out that he wouldn’t recognize science if someone slapped him with a textbook upside the head, so his “best estimate” is meaningless. In his world, I think it is simply a number of convenience, a way to stake out his position midway between mainstream science and outright denialism.
For instance, the “league of 2.5C”:
There were other places where TF stated that 2.5C was his best estimate (not simply a convenient planning target as he suggests now). The number itself isn’t particularly important, but the shift shines a light on the lukewarmer strategy, IMO.
though, just not here 🙂 . . .
What if I told you that we will experience a +0.4C jump in globally averaged temperatures this year and that the El Nino driven atmospheric water vapor feedback event of 2015-2016 will be marked as the point of no return in later decades?
What if I told you that ECS is actually 6C when arctic sea ice feedbacks are taken into account? That we will experience albedo-driven arctic May-Sept. temperature anomalies of 8C by 2025, when sea ice falls below 1,000 km^2 by Sept. 1st.
What if I told you that the arbitrary 2C dangerous threshold limit was based on a gross misunderstanding of the compounding and cascading nature of aggregate impacts of climate change and that we have already embarked upon the 6th global extinction event in the world’s oceans?
What if I told you that we are rapidly approaching a critical choicepoint where even the most aggressive, globally synchronous and altruistic efforts will not be enough to prevent total societal collapse and the deaths of 90% of humanity within the next 75 years?
“I see that Tom F is falsely claiming that he was a 2.5C ECS fan 😉
It was 1.9C last time I checked.”
He’s been all over the field with it, over time. As I mentioned above, he has never presented any reasonable science-based basis for picking one value over another.
So in 2010, as I referenced above, he was in the 2.5C camp (IPCC “best estimate” 3C). 2012 and 1.9C hmmm that could’ve been a reaction to Nic Lewis or another paper that some argued should lower the “consensus” range? 2.1C today … no idea where that comes from.
As I said above, I believe that he picks a number that places him above whackadoodle and below the mainstream view, in order to preserve the label “lukewarmer”.
in my more cynical moments, i might wonder whether “lukewarmer” just means “realises that the IPCC numbers are probably about right, but has too much invested in their position to say so”…
You’d be largely preaching to the converted. I might argue for an ESS between 4C and 5C. I agree that the 2C limit is not a safe limit. I would be reluctant to agree with the last point, but I do agree that we’ve left things rather late and that (as various people have been pointing out) we’re in the shit, whether we like it or not. The question I ponder, though, is what approach will be most effective, not what approach might be more outspoken, but fail dismally.
> “A lukewarmer is somebody who:
1) Thinks that the probability of an ECS of 3 or less is greater than or equal to 50%; and
2) The probability of and ECS less than 1 is less than 2.5% (my gloss on Mosher’s claim that climate sensitivity cannot be less than 1).”
Im a little surprised TC and attp find Moshers definition reasonable. Not saying it isn’t but that is not the impression I get. Main point below, but first I think the range is too big to describe anything – “greater than or equal to 50%” includes a lot of ppl including those I would call deniers.
As for “equal to 50%”, we are talking about the best estimate in the AR4 range (2-4.5). I have never gotten the impression by someone who self-labels as LW that they think there is a 50:50 chance of it being above a previous estimate of the IPCC.
If Mosher thinks that an ECS of around 3K is somewhere near the middle of the range (i.e., 2K – 4K or 1.5 – 3.5K, for example) then that seems reasonable.
Oops. Bedtime for me. I thought I read your comment but obviously didn’t.
> “Yes, I agree that Mosher’s definition is reasonable. I’m just not sure why this would be described by a word such as “Lukewarmer”.”
The 2nd part is what I was trying to say. Yes 2-4, 1.5-3.5 seems reasonable.
The question I ponder, though, is what approach will be most effective, not what approach might be more outspoken, but fail dismally.
you must watch this video
IIRC Steven originally wrote that he thinks ECS is 50% likely to be *less* than or equal to 3C, which isn’t the same as arguing that 3C is a mid-range estimate at all – is it?
I don’t know. Maybe I’m giving too much benefit of the doubt, but anyone who argues that we should be considering an ECS of around 3K is not far off the IPCC/mainstream position.
What if I told you that the delayed water vapor feedback response of 10 years due to the thermal inertia of the world’s oceans is being greatly assisted by the large volume of (temporary) anthropogenic aerosols. And, that these two factors are keeping current atmospheric forcing values at 1994 CO2e levels?
What if I told you that we are rapidly approaching a critical choicepoint where even the most aggressive, globally synchronous and altruistic efforts will not be enough to prevent total societal collapse and the deaths of 90% of humanity within the next 75 years?
Personally, I’d give civilization-as-we-know-it until about 2035.
The Four Horsemen:
1) instability among marine ice sheets, particularly the West Antarctic ice sheet;
2) positive feedback mechanisms in subarctic forests and arctic ecosystems, leading to rapid methane release or large-scale changes in the surface energy balance;
3) destabilization of methane hydrates (vast deposits of methane gas caged in water ice), particularly in the Arctic Ocean; and
4) feedback between biosphere and atmosphere that could lead to megadroughts.
When our expertly-managed derivative-leveraged portfolios go down, they will go down fast.
Assets will be ‘stranded’.
Margins will become ‘thin’.
Investor confidence will become ‘soft’.
Head for high ground.
Make sure you have access to fresh water.
Stock up on food.
Meanwhile, let’s continue to deliberate over the wording of the small print that may or may not capture the true essence of lukewarm belief-states.
Fuller is a salesman for his brand. You know what you do with salesmen? Ignore them. Did anybody ever buy something from the Fuller Brush Man when he came door-to-door? Only the gullible.
matt, Mosher’s definition of “lukewarmer” is a reasonable definition of the term because he, together with Tom Fuller invented the term, and they both appear to agree on that definition. Further, the most prominent participants in the blog debate on AGW who would normally described as “lukewarmers” do have positions that agree with that definition. That certainly includes Nic Lewis, Judith Curry, Lucia Liljegren and I believe (although he keeps his cards close to his chest) Steve McIntyre. It would also include most of the regular denizens at Lucia’s Blackboard and Climate Audit. Officially, I believe Anthony Watts subscribes to that view, but his posts on climate tend to be mutually inconsistent, so that sometimes he clearly argues for values (or positions that imply values) that would put him outside the lukewarmer community.
Unfortunately there is a clear tendency by some to try and redefine “lukewarmer” to mean anybody who rejects ECS estimates consistent with the IPCC or higher, and who accepts that increased CO2 will have some warming effect, no matter how small. Thus they want to treat Lindzen as a lukewarmer despite his estimates that ECS is 0.7 (0.5-1.3 99% confidence interval).
That’s on p. 30 of Groundskeeper’s political hit job.
On the first page of Tony’s, John Nielsen-Gammon is still listed as being lukewarm. I asked him about that a while ago. His response:
That was 2011. NG’s still listed in that category. We’re in 2015.
Tony’s might be a place where there are the most Pro-AGW commenters.
Lord Turnbull to the rescue:
The essay is over there:
Click to access lord-turnbull.pdf
Those who were convinced they knew about the lukewarm gambit might begin to say “hmmm”.
In the comment thread of the post I just cited, there’s this comment where the emphasized bit contradicts both Mr. Pile and Junior:
It also contradicts Groundskeeper’s definition in his political hit job.
Even when the data is free, like in my case with blog comments, processing and archiving it is non-trivial.
And of course Marlowe won that thread:
The first emphasis is mine. While I don’t think it’s correct to portray this as a bet (we might never know in due time the real CS), if given a choice, I would pick the bank’s role. The banks have a good score against betters over the years. Of course I’d make sure martingales are forbidden:
The second emphasis is Marlowe’s. As seen above, I disagree with it. I just don’t see a reason why I’d consider some such number for policy. There’s thousands of other ways to justify what we ought to do, but public health, security, and reinsurance should be enough.
N-G nails it.
Tom C. –
N-G nails it. Mosher’s definition might be reasonable, but there is no actual definition. People use the term to mean whatever they want, basically. There are infinite definitions. Look at how Fuller defines the term to elevate his self-identification, for example.
IMO, the most consistent attribute of how the term is used is that it is leveraged for justifying the mischaracterization of innocuous science as “alarmist.”
The term is completely unnecessary from a science perspective. Why is a label needed to describe a mathematical calculation of probilities? Particularly, when most of the people who self-identify with the term can’t actually do the technical steps necessary to derive an evidenced-based determination of sensitiviy? The term is used to signal “who I am,” not “what I know”: “I am a sensible person,who is persecuted for trying prevent children from starving in Africa. I am a victim.”
And the “who I am,” is actually more realistically (since there is no consistent deginition) “who I am not”: “I am not a crank and I am not an “alarmist.”
Once upon a time, when all was well and good, every rational entity in the world was lukewarm:
Bart R asked to be cast away as a nut. The Pope did not grant his wish.
As an aside, a small cameo about Judy’s conception of the Charney report:
Conceptions are even more important without reading harder.
“I asked him about that a while ago. His response:
Neven – You must be referring to Watts’ blogroll…”
Willard is Neven is Willard????
> Willard is Neven is Willard????
Good question. I emailed NG in March 2012, and he cited this response to Neven’s question.
Ah, OK. I could care less, but of all the people in the world who Wilard might actually be, Neven would be very low on my list of possibilities … 🙂
It’s important to remember that impacts of our CO2 emissions also include ocean acidification, which has been correlated with mass extinctions. Ocean acidification happens regardless of the exact values the real ECS, ESS, and TCR happen to be.
As I’ve explained, the Sky Dragon Slayers’ silly belief that climate sensitivity is exactly 0.0°C contradicts centuries of physics and even the existence of blankets. They’re the only ones who should oppose the reasonable risk avoidance suggested by Republicans Art Laffer and Bob Inglis:
And even the Sky Dragon Slayers should worry about ocean acidification because that doesn’t depend on climate sensitivity at all.
It’s time for lukewarmers to decide whether they want to share the legacy of the Sky Dragon Slayers.
A thread on the lukewarm gambit can’t be complete without something about the tail:
Willard @10:21 I think Mosher’s comments as quoted were intended as parody, and do not reflect his actual opinions.
Joshua, I don’t think it makes any substantial difference as a description if you describe the situation as one in which a term has a clear meaning which is ignored as a matter of rhetoric by many of its users, or we describe the term as having no clear meaning. However, if we accept the former description, which certainly has justification in the writings of Mosher (who has a very reasonable claim to have invented the term), it effects our descriptions in certain other areas.
For instance, it then becomes the case that the IPCC reports take a lukewarmer position on climate change. As the opponents of effective mitigation of AGW have built up a rhetoric about the lukewarmer position being very reasonable, even the most reasonable, that makes it difficult for them to reject the IPCC and shows them to be indulging in inaccurate rhetoric in calling the IPCC “alarmist”. It also means that if we emphasize the “not below 1C” part of the definition, people who want to identify themselves as lukewarmer will have greater difficulty treating the Nigel Lawsons, Bob Carters and Richard Lindzens of the world as adopting a rational view. Finally, it also makes it clear that the most archetypal “lukewarmers” are mostly distinguished by there far greater, indeed, dogmatic uncertainty relative to the IPCC. Lukewarmers like Nic Lewis and Judith Curry are in the unusual situation of both looking at far less evidence than does the IPCC in drawing their conclusions, but in being far more certain of those conclusions. That dose of dogmatism is not driven by science.
So this was the thread where David Smith was mentioned:
So we have Dick as the tepid God, David Smith as the first archangel, then Moshpit.
There was also something like a wiki on CA at the time, I believe, but it’s now lost. Perhaps there were additional details there.
> I think Mosher’s comments as quoted were intended as parody, and do not reflect his actual opinions.
You’re right. It doesn’t reflect his opinion, but it reflects the branding effort. If I may quote myself from the thread I’m glad to have found back:
Branding is seldom about content.
I agree totally with the 2nd para of your 11:30 which is why I think the definition is no good (forget reasonable).
> “it then becomes the case that the IPCC reports take a lukewarmer position on climate change… and shows them to be indulging in inaccurate rhetoric in calling the IPCC “alarmist””
> “Lukewarmers like… Judith Curry are in the unusual situation of both looking at far less evidence than does the IPCC in drawing their conclusions, but in being far more certain of those conclusions.”
funny that this is true given all her uncertainty rhetoric
thanks for those posts esp on moshers original definition
I just caught this: sorry for the delay.
you said, ” I might argue for an ESS between 4C and 5C”
I said, “ECS is actually 6C when arctic sea ice feedbacks are taken into account”
you are sorely mistaken if you think that we wont experience <1,000 km^2 of arctic sea ice by June 21 under 2XCO2 forcing. This means an additional globally averaged albedo feedback of about 0.23 watts per meter squared for each 1,000 km^2 (may be as high as 0.3 but I low-estimate) The 1970-1980 mean of ice for June 21 is about 11,000 KM^2 so this ice free state is equivalent to about 2.3 watts per meter squared globally averaged forcing feedbacks compared to pre-industrial.
Add that to the 3.7 of 2XCO2 and you get 6.0 Watts per meter squared without other feedbacks This calculation neglects the reduction of oceanic Dimethyl Sulfide production which is projected to yield (median) +0.3 C of warming feedback, as well as other feedbacks such as carbon cycle, frozen soils and far-infrared emissivity reductions and increased arctic algae blooms causing further albedo effects.
not to mention northern hemisphere snow-cover anomalies.
since our best estimate so far is 0.6C of globally averaged warming for each 1.0 Watt per meter squared that is 3.6C of warming just for CO2, WV/Lapse Rate and Arctic sea ice. Add the 0.4 DMS feedback, emissivity and algae bloom effects and you end up with 4.3C as a baseline response.
Then you can add cloud feedbacks, snow cover albedo effects, frozen soil effects and carbon-cycle effects.
as you can see the 6.0C ECS is a low-end estimate. This is why we will have to engage in geoengineering activities, including dimming and CO2 atmospheric extraction.
Pingback: Making Science Public » Lukewarmers
Pingback: Fact mongering | …and Then There's Physics
Pingback: John’s Audit | …and Then There's Physics