That’s what we are getting: coal lumps.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2007/12/10-f.html

Warming: Do not trust environmentalists like Romm — they are as unscientific as “skeptics” and stretch the science for the purposes of their own agendas.

First off, readers of this blog or my book know I’m not an environmentalist.

Second, readers know that I am scientific and don’t usually make major scientific mistakes — and I didn’t here, as we will see. I am, unfortunately, quite confident that if we continue on our current emissions path and the forces of denial and delay triumph, the country (especially the relevant part!) will be 10°F warmer (or more) by century’s end — for two reasons.

The second reason I am confident of this is that, as I have blogged many times, the planet is clearly showing evidence of global warming at the high end of the climate models — and the sinks are saturating. If we don’t stabilize below 500, we’ll probably hit 750 ppm this century, and some studies suggest 1000 (if we lose the Amazon).

But the first reason I am confident of this is that I did NOT make the claim that you criticize me for making. The claim I made is in fact considerably more likely than your simple analysis would suggest. I’m not going to explain this further right now — since I have already explained this in a previous blog post! (Hint for those curious about what simple mistake David made — do a search on this blog for “continental United States.”)

I see you are a science journalist. You should not be as quick to assume a scientist does not know what he is talking about.

One final note: You outrageously — and I hope you see now unjustifiably — imply I am a liar on your website. An apology would be nice, both on your website and here.

Yes, I think you’re a liar on the par with the worse of the climate skeptics. You clearly imply in your post a 2100 warming of 10F+, far beyond what science projects. You claim that somehow your analysis is more worthy than that of the world’s climate scientists, but provide no proof.

> If we don’t stabilize below 500, we’ll probably hit 750 ppm
> this century, and some studies suggest 1000 (if we
> lose the Amazon).

You have no proof of ANY of this — it’s all just words and speculations designed to scare people. That’s what makes you an extreme and dangerous environmentalist.

You’re just another extreme environmentalist looking to sell books, no better in that regard than Fred Singer or Pat Michaels or John Christy. You’re just as unscientific as they are.

Peace and Joy to all.

On the substance, a quick look at WG1 Chapter 11 finds for mid-range A1B (a little eyeballing is needed for this) about 7F for CONUS + Alaska and maybe 8.5F for all snowy areas. That is indeed less than 10F, but we should bear in mind a couple of things in addition to the A1B problem noted above. First, the IPCC explicitly excludes carbon feedbacks (e.g. ocean sink saturation and Amazon die-back as mentioned), which is why these results are called projections rather than predictions. Second, the IPCC projection for Arctic sea ice, a metric important to North American climate, already has gone spectacularly off the rails. Given all of these, the 10F starts to sound about right even relative to the AR4.

On the other hand Joe’s “or more” implies that the 10F is a basement, which while fair enough as one scientist’s opinion seems definitely out in front of the IPCC (noting again that the IPCC wasn’t mentioned).

Summing up, would it be better if Joe were to note that he’s doing so (and why) whenever he makes a prediction that exceeds the IPCC’s? Arguably. Does not doing so make him any kind of liar? No.

Regular readers of this blog know where I’m coming from, but new readers don’t. So I guess the question is — do I have to provide links to a bunch of my previous posts in every new blog post, just so people like Appell will understand the basis in the literature. As you can see, Appell isn’t open to the facts, so I’m not certain what that would get me. But I suppose I can provide “related posts” at the end more consistently.

Appell is a journalist who just doesn’t know the scientific literature. The Hadley folk have published a peer-reviewed article running their model with the Amazon dying that ends up with 980 ppm in 2100. Is it fact? No. Is it possible? Damn straight!

I normally would delete ad hominem rants that mischaracterize what I and others have said – but I thought we would benefit from seeing what we are up against. And again, for the record, I’m not an environmentalist – nor have I ever been one. I am a physicist.

The main difference between me and Fred Singer or Pat Michaels or John Christy (giving them the benefit of the doubt on their motivations) is that they have been wrong for 20 years, and I and the people I rely on, like Hansen, have been right for 20 years. Other than that, I guess we’re the pretty much same.

If Appell is so certain that the IPCC is the gospel, then I assume he would be willing to jump at my bet the Arctic will be essentially ice free by 2020. In fact, since as I recall the most aggressive IPCC model says 2040, and most of the rest are many decades later, I’m sure Appell would be delighted to split the difference and bet $1000 the Arctic won’t be a ice free by 2030. If he won’t take that bet, and my guess is he won’t, then he has no business calling me a liar.

Joe,
I do think you need to provide more backing in the here and now for your 10 degree rise prediction. You would support your position better if you offer a range that has at least some overlap with IPCC or show exactly what the IPCC is overlooking. To simply assert you are a scientist is not enough. I would expect you as a scientist to speak in terms of statistical probabilities and confidence intervals.

David Appell,
You have every right to call attention to Joe’s claims but then to call him “names” is counterproductive. If you are in agreement that warming is serious we should try to minimize name-calling on all sides. I do think the charge of “hysteria” is serious and needs to be looked into but in an atmosphere where cooler heads prevail.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

To expand on this point: The part of this country that currently gets much snow is part of a mid-latitude landmass, which is typically predicted to experience a temperature rise about 50% higher than the global average (basically the land typically warms more than the oceans, and the warming is greater the more north or south you go).

That means most of the United States will warm 10°F if the planet as a whole warms 6.7°F — pretty much in the middle of the projected range — and this is especially true if you throw in Alaska! So Appell is just wrong.

I perhaps should have added in the original post that this is especially true for winter temperatures. Indeed, a 1999 report by Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research found, “The northernmost states, from North Dakota eastward to Maine, are expected to warm as much as twice the global mean during winter months.”

So yes, the states that currently get snow are probably going to get a lot less by century’s end if we don’t take action soon, even if the IPCC models are basically accurate.

But I probably post at least once a week observational evidence or a new study that strongly suggests actual observed climate change is either at the high end of the IPCC models or exceeds them — and/or that correctly modeling carbon cycle feedbacks (which the IPCC models by their own admission do not do) leads to much higher future values for warming than the IPCC models now project. Again, that doesn’t make it true, but it certainly renders Appell’s accusation even more untenable.

I repeat — he owes me an apology, and not vice versa. As for speaking in “tatistical probabilities and confidence intervals” — that is for RealClimate and Hansen. I’m writing for a general audience. This was, after all, a post labeled “humor” — so I think I’m entitled to make a few generalizations for the sake of brevity. I stand by my original post.

I will, however, write another clarifying post on the IPCC models in January that points to many of the previous posts on this topic, so I have a handy reference for new readers.

The AR4 WG1 SPM discusses the basics of this, and I strongly advise those who have yet to read it to do so. Actually what I would really suggest is to read, in this order, the FAQ, the SPM, Chapter 1 and finally the Technical Summary (all at the above link).