Tuesday
Jul232013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Your ship is sinking. Will spin help?
Jul 23, 2013 Climate: sensitivity This is a hypothesis that the Met Office seems to be testing in the series of papers they have released today. There are three documents:
- Paper 1: Observing changes in the climate system (PDF, 2 MB)
- Paper 2: Recent pause in global warming (PDF, 1 MB)
- Paper 3: Implications for projections (PDF, 664 kB)
Having focused on climate sensitivity in recent months, as far as this blog is concerned it's the third paper that is most of interest. As readers know, there is a surfeit of new observationally constrained papers that have found low climate sensitivity. Strangely, the Met Office authors only consider the Otto et al study, which had a relatively high ECS estimate - a function of the ocean temperature dataset used. As we know, if any other dataset had been used then they would have got an estimate in line with the other recent observational estimates.
Sure looks like spin to me.
Reader Comments (235)
The problem is not that Richard Betts doesn't come on and answer my questions even when restricted to the science. He is not obliged to, after all. He doesn't work for me, except indirectly. The problem in my mind is that he has posted twice on this thread but only about bloggish things. What other commenters wrote or how he sees sceptic blogs and their paranoid fancies. I note that he had the opportunity to answer my questions in a sentence and did not. I repeat, he is not obliged to, but he could have and did not. Hence my Clausewitz quote which was evidently too cryptic for EM.
(Here's EM re a previous question I asked: 'You are betting the future of civilization on an abstraction for which you have no evidence.' In fact, Rhoda is not in control of the future of civilization. Sorry. )
Your Grace,
Can you do us all a favour and disclose that troll's IP, whereabouts and all other identifying information? Doing so will be in public interest and will definitely not be a breach of privacy. Let's name and shame the bastard. He cleary has a lot of time in his hands and absolutely no self respect. I am truly sick and tired of that pest.
SHx
She, not he.
Laurie Childs
Thank you. I'll check them out.
David Salt
1) The deep warming hypothesis is new science. The Argo floats have generated 10 years of data down to 2000M. The deepest temperature data is still dependant on spot readings. As the timeline lengthens , we should get confirmation or falsification.The best way of measuring changes in total oceanic energy content may be by back-calculating from volumetric expansion due to warming. I've been thinking about such a calculation myself. I'll get back to you on that.
There are two main import mechanisms for deep heating. The vortices spinning off the Greenland gyre carry relatively warm saline water down into the thermohaline circulation. Warm saline water also pours off the edge of the Antarctic continental shelf. There are downwellings linked to cold water upwelling such as the Humboldt(?) current. All are measurable given time and rsources.
2) Look in marine sediments for changes on oxygen isotope ratios and plankton species ratios. Both are temperature proxies. Step changes in sea temperatures would show there.
3) What do you mean by indefinate? Years, decades, centuries, millennia? If the thermohaline circulation is the main absorber, the process can continue for a thousand years. If it's the Pacific Decadal oscillation, we might see extra heat surfacing as soon as the next El Nino. Too early to say.
Note that the Met Office itself clearly identifies these uncertainties. Part of its task is to give governments advice, including these uncertainties. The policy response is up to the politicians.
It is human nature to do nothing until in immdiate crisis, but is that wise? I'm not a great one for standing on the railway tracks and then trying to hurl myself aside at the last moment when the train arrives.
jferguson
The troll is a he, I reckon. No woman can be that ugly.
Rhoda
Unfortunately I understand your reference well.
I used a fencing analogy earlier. Too often I have attempted to cross swords, only to have my opponent back up and wave his sword at me from a distance.
Jul 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM | Registered Commenter Mike Jackson
Very well said, sir :-)
And how very, well, convenient, I suppose that Richard Betts waited until he could gather and embellish enough little chinks of pseudo-armour around himself - to justify his failure to even acknowledge those comments which should have been right up his "scientific" alley.
But this seems to be his preferred pattern of "engagement", doesn't it?! It's perfectly OK for him to make a federal case based on his unfounded "assessments" of the comments of others (as you had demonstrated wrt his somewhat warped - if not self-serving - take on Andrew's initial observations). But Gaia forbid one should find fault with papers and/or pronouncements from this "jewel in the crown, of British science and global science", eh?!
I would have thought that at the very least he would have had the decency to respond to Nic Lewis' observations of Jul 23, 2013 at 9:51 PM, which included:
So once again, I find that one can learn so much more from that to which Betts chooses not to respond, than from that to which he does. As Laurie Childs observed above [Jul 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM]:
Indeed. He's certainly demonstrated often enough that he performs well on the whining front; but on the careful reading and responsive reply front, not so much.
Entropic Man (Jul 25, 2013 at 12:58 AM), thank you for at least trying to answer my questions... I assume Dr Betts would concur.
However, I note that the Executive summary of Paper 2 says 'Observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the additional heat from the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has been absorbed in the ocean and has not been manifest as a rise in surface temperature', which certainly does *not* reflect the current high level of uncertainty that surrounds this hypothesis. As far as I understand it, there is no real-world evidence to support it, just sufficient uncertainty/noise in the data to not rule it out completely... please correct me if I'm wrong.
As for not "standing on the railway tracks and then trying to hurl myself aside at the last moment when the train arrives", it would be equally unwise to prescribe surgery followed by chemotherapy whenever someone discovers a new freckle on their skin.
EM
Your suggestions about the increased heat in the oceans are interesting. However they are all predicated on the supposed heat being provided by CO2 forcing. This of course is an effect that is uncharacterised and frankly hasn't been demonstrated. Note the subtle difference here between greenhouse gases (i.e. absorption and thermalisation effects) that have been tested. The crux of AGW is that all of the "back-radiation" is re-absorped by the surface.
The other thing is that there needs to be an experiment or set of conditions to falsify the "extra heat in the oceans hypothesis". At the moment it is just an idea but it appears that it is being used to misdirect people from the real issue: it looks as if the original AGW hypothesis is not correct and we don't understand why the temperatures are what they are. If we assume that CO2 forcing does what it is theorised to do, then a possible explanation is related to heat in the oceans.
But that is a stretch too far.
The MO should be focussing on pinning down why AGW does not work or in other words, do some actual science.
Hilary: You didn't think of apologising to Richard then? I mean, once you'd read:
Just on that narrow point. I think that would have helped the process along. Because mrsean2k hit the nail on the head for me in another post on CA:
The ranting really doesn't help, in other words, and we need to disavow it, for the reasons mrsean2k gives.
I'm also grateful for Martin A's fascinating explanations yesterday:
and
So, Dung was criticising Richard Betts for not taking as a joke the idea of the murder of him and all his colleagues, and was ascribing that 'joke', quite wrongly, to a person using their real name on Bishop Hill.
As OneTrophyWin said, we need to know when we are being played.
Putting aside the diversions, may I suggest that someone (the bish?) writes to the Met Office and requests a correction to paper 3?
Jul 25, 2013 at 8:04 AM | Registered Commenter Richard Drake
Setting aside the fact that you seem to have overlooked the possibility (if not probability, considering that the thread had been more or less dormant since July 19) that I had no reason to continue following the discussion ...
I should apologize to Richard Betts because on July 15 he broadcast to 2600+ followers a declaration that Steve McIntyre was "wrong" and chose not to engage Steve's arguments directly on his blog?
Well, at least not until the light evidently finally dawned on Jully 22 when he proceeded at great length to provide - as Steve remarked in reply - a comment that:
I'm quite prepared to concede that this might well be a perfectly acceptable posting pattern according to Richard's Rules of Order™
But I am under no more obligation to follow Richard's Rules of Order™ than I am to accept Richard B's all too familiar posting patterns. And I have absolutely no intention of apologizing for his choices - and increasingly lame and much belated excuses.
Indeed not. Nor do the supercillious pontifications and pronouncements deriving from Richard's Rules of Order™
Hi Hilary
I've no intention of trying to impose "rules of order" :-) This is not my blog, it's only lightly moderated and people have every right to say what they like. I was just explaining which kinds of conversations I feel it's worth my while joining, and which not. You say what you like, I'll join in when I feel like it and keep away if I don't.
On your remark about my "broadcast", the way Twitter actually works is like this: if you tweet to someone with their name at the front, as in my tweet to Anthony Watts, this is not automatically seen by all your followers. It's only seen by people who follow both you and the person you named.
So, my tweet above was not a broadcast to all my 2,600+ followers - if I'd wanted to do that, I'd have put another character (eg a dot) at the front, which would have made it a general tweet to all. In fact, I consciously chose not to do that, because I didn't want people like Steve Bloom piling in and chastising me for daring to even speak to Anthony Watts!
Richard Betts
I am certain that Hilary Ostrov's reference to "Richard's Rules of Order" relates to Richard Drake and not to yourself, one of the few comments that did not relate to you recently. ^.^
Richard Drake
In relation to the post by Philip Bratby and the comment by our resident troll, I had a senior moment in as much as I had forgotten exactly what Philip posted and wrongly took my cue from Zebedee's suggestion that Philip wanted them all shot. I therefore got the whole thing wrong. However all my comments were to the effect that there is no way Philip would seriously propose shooting everybody at the MO so where is the problem bud?
However I note that you are again raising the issue that I do not post under my real name. The last time you raised this issue you (and I) were informed by the Bish that it was not appropriate in the main blog so why don't you go and start another discussion where you will be able to talk to yourself about it ad nauseum.
You miss the point again. I was emphasising that your error meant that a casual reader might think that a person using their real name had said something this crass. This would affect that person's reputation. That's why in my view you should have addressed your remarks to Phillip Bratby and they should have included the words "I'm sorry."
Hilary: I've indicated what I think you ought to have done, because it was fine for Richard to use Twitter to say what he did, in response to Anthony. It's what he said that matters. I do hold sceptics to higher standards in this area, because too often our opponents wriggle out of more important points through such minor ones. We have to be whiter than white. That for me goes with the territory.
Richard Drake
I am happy to apologise to Philip Bratby in the unlikely event that I have in any way damaged his very solid reputation (which I was defending). Philip Bratby's post stands untouched in the blog and demonstrates that he made no such comment so how can his reputation be damaged? The accusation that he wanted them all shot was made by the resident troll.
However I here and now apologise profusely to Philip if I have in any way offended him or caused him any adverse effects.
Martin A pointed out within about 6 posts that Philip made no such comment and he also tried to indicate that I must have somehow got it wrong which I did.
OK good.
David Salt
There are two different issues here.
1) What is happening?
Measurement of volume reduction of glaciers and land ice sheets indicates that about 500 cubic kilometres of meltwater enters the oceans each year. (Arctic sea ice is floating and therefore not a direct factor).
Expansion due to rising average sea temperature, generates about another 600 cubic kilometres/year. Think of it as like the mercury expanding in a thermometer. Each mm of sea level rise needs 360 cubic kilometres,
Other factors such as changing rainfall and geological sinking/uplift tend to be self-cancelling over timescales beyond a couple of years. Land and air energy absorbtion are small by comparison, so the oceans and the ice are the main energy absorbers.
Both the thermal expansion and melting absorb energy. The size of that energy uptake can be calculated and is consistent with the energy imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation. All of this is based on measurement and straightforward physics. There is a lot of arguing room in the detail, but the basic pattern is sound. To take a simple analogy, all these different jigsaw pieces fit into the same pattern.
2) Why is it happening?
The conventional climate scientist's explaination is an increasing greenhouse due directly (and indirectly via climate sensitivity) to increasing CO2. This may be correct, part of the explaination or wrong. For most climate scientists the sums from energy absorbtion on the one hand , and the greenhouse effect on the other, match well enough for them to accept this as their main working hypothesis. New data coming in tends to be consistent with the hypothesis and improves confidence in it. Aerosol data, for example, suggests that increasing 3rd world pollution is having a cooling effect by increasing albedo, but without changing the underlying physics.
If CAGW is wrong, something else on the same scale is necessary to explain the observed energy flows. Nothing has shown up yet.
Lovely comment here.
Micky H Corbett
Sorry, my 3.57 post should have been addressed to you.
Falsifying climate change hypotheses is unfortunately, very difficult. Applying the standards of laboratory physics to climate science, we would really need multiple Earths as controls and a time machine to collect the results.
Until then all we can do is follow Newton's 4th law of inquiry and provisionally accept what the data tells us until more information is available. Similarly, the working hypotheses the scientists use will continue to be applied until something which fits the data better emerges.
Wassat? Was he here again? And only talked about twitter and who owes who what reply? Oh well.
To whoever is pulling the strings of Entropic Man this week
Have you ever read Svensmark? He will supply you with something that fits the data better.
Have you looked at the ice core records? Please explain why other interglacials were much warmer than the holocene but with lower CO2 levels than today.
Do you deny the benefits of rising CO2 (whatever the cause) in terms of increased crop yields?
Do you understand how close we are to the levels of CO2 at which all our crops would fail?
Can you explain why in the ice core records increasing levels of CO2 never preceded warming?
Do you understand that changes in the daily measure of atmospheric CO2 are not even vaguely connected with daily human CO2 emissions?
Dung
I dont like Gish Gallops.
Choose one question and we'll discuss it.
Choose one question and he'll change the subject.
Is R. Drake from the MO? If so, his remark that "careless talk costs lives" contains weaponised levels of irony! I prefer the aphorism "all lies lead to murder", and agree those MO liars should be brought to account.
-------------
'The ten hottest years on record globally have all been since 1997'
I would like to see the proof of that claim, since;
I suspect the 1930's were warmer,
all weather station temperature series use different stations in different places
with different adjustments making those two decades uncompared (if not incomparable),
and the MO has ceased recording weather: with computerisation, they've ceased to make daily paper records. The can prove what the temperature was at many stations in the 1930's, but not in
the 2000's.
----------------
@ Zed. The MO can't sue for libel as they're a taxpayer-funded gov.t agency - it would stifle free speech, which is incompatible with democracy.
Mr Betts might be able to sue for liable - if he could show he had a reputation to protect. Libel laws serve the famous, not the infamous, nor the "unfamous".
(Iana lawyer.)
Entropic Man (Jul 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM), a valiant attempt to 'educate' me about the various physical factors that drive changes in global sea level. Unfortunately, you again avoided the question about how well the real-world data supports the MO's hypothesis.
Simply stating that "If CAGW is wrong, something else on the same scale is necessary to explain the observed energy flows. Nothing has shown up yet" does nothing to address the fact that CAGW theory is on the verge of being falsified by real-world data and that the rushed excuses for this situation only serve to raise more question about it and thereby further undermine ordinary people's faith in 'climate science'... well, what little they still have.
EM - "I symathise with Richard Betts. Like myself, he came here hoping for a discussion of the science. Unfortunately the discussion here is mostly political."
********
Science only discussion available here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/about/
Cheerio.
SteveM talking straight to Richard Betts:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/15/nature-hides-the-decline/#comment-428285
edit - see the full exchange at CA.:
//
Unfortunately, too many people in the climate community share your belief that this sort of sharp practice is acceptable and this diminishes the ability of the public to rely on statements from your community. I’m sorry to be so blunt since you’re a welcome participant here, but I think that you should understand why this sort of answer is perceived as weasely and inadequate.
//
Roger Longstaff - re: the Met Office - did they supply the PRL references you requested on model validation? Apologies if I've missed them.
nby - not yet. I have reminded them once.
I think that they are allowed 30 working days, and all that I wanted were references to the published literature that Baroness Verma has assured the House of Lords validated GCM methodology!
FOIA if nothing arrives.
Sleepalot:
That way madness lies.
nby: "SteveM talking straight to Richard Betts" with link for the hard of hearing. For my money it's because Steve avoids the smaller niggles that he lands such a powerful and satisfying blow this afternoon. Not for the first time.
I suggest the long and torturous MO process that fails to put refuting spin on the observationally verified pause in surface temps is consistent with Jerome Ravetz's pseudo-science process that he calls Post Normal Science.
My premise for that hypothesis is they both ideologically / politically hold a non-scientifically derived 'a priori' presumption of a catastrophic problem with burning fossil fuels.
I think if you consistently practice PNS in wrt climate science then you must necessarily arrive at a institution like the MO.
John
Thanks Roger - I'll keep an eye on the "Answers, non-answers" thread.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/5/answers-non-answers.html
"That way madness lies." Or more succinctly "that way, lies".
I liked "madness lies" even more, because in it we have both delusion and design. Something for everyone.
Madness is a defence. Even they-who-shall-not-be-named didn't plead insanity.
My own view is that both are in view in global warming obsession, at pretty much every level. "Deceiving and deceived" as an older writer put it.
For data on sea temperature changes to 2009 try:
ftp://140.90.235.80/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
David Salt
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SMC-Briefing-Notes-Recent-Slowdown-in-Global-Temperature-Rise.pdf
Note the graph at the bottom of the page. This matches the model predictions against the observations. The model hindcasts from 2007 and forecasts from 2007. The two would be regarded as diverging significantly when the upper 95% confidence bound of the observations and the lower 95% bound of the model no longer overlap. By inspection of the graph I estimate that this would occur about 2025 if the temperature remains at current levels. Shall we resume our discussion then?
If the temperature remains stable until then you will be right. If warming resumes you will be wrong. Pity we have to wait 12 years to find out.
Incidentally, for those out there who claim that the models do not match the observations, could you please explain how the graph supports your position?
"Thanks Roger - I'll keep an eye on the "Answers, non-answers" thread."
nby, that thread is long gone. I'll post on "unthreaded" when I get a reply, along with the original statement in the HoL, and my question. If the bish wants to make a new thread about it, that could be useful.
EM, you know all that statistics jargon. Perhaps you can tell me how they derive 5-95% confidence levels out of a model output derived from an ensemble. Or if not that, from one model run many times. And if you were able to clear up a long-standing question, do they throw away results which are obviously daft or unpalatable?
You see, it's my impression from behind this pile of ironing that you do that stats stuff on data. That's data, not GIGO programmers' prejudices.
rhoda,
All you need to know is in the IPCC's AR5 (draft) figure 1.4 (never mind the cherry picked, adjusted nonsense from Allen et al):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
Everything else is just conversation.
Entropic Man (Jul 25, 2013 at 8:15 PM), would I be correct in assuming that the models used to generate that plot were 2007 'state of the art' and so did not accounted for significant sequestration of heat in the deep oceans because this was probably before the Willis corrections and certainly before the two Levitus papers (2009 for 0-700m & 2012 for 0-2000m)?
If so, it would suggest that the apparent accuracy of the hind cast is purely illusory because, unless you assume that the mechanism is triggered by (and governed by) anthropogenic CO2, it must have existed before hand; its effects being mis-accounted within the model's energy budget. Moreover, the apparent rise in ocean temperatures (0-700m) seems to have started around 1970…
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-0-700m.gif
… which begs the question as to where the energy was coming from beforehand? It also suggests there’s no reason for it not to continue for many decades or even centuries to come since we’re talking about a rise of less than 0.2C rise over 30 years in the 0-700m layer, which I assume is now being sequestered below 2000m or more.
All I can say is that, if it’s real, the sequestration of heat in the deep oceans seems to be mechanism that raises more problems for CAGW theory than it solves… but, then again, what do I know?
I reproduce below a letter from last Friday's Spectator, apologies if someone already commented on it. It actually shows RB in a good light by comparison ^.^
Dave Salt, Rhoda
I'm not an MO insider, but my impression is that the models in this case were those used to generate the probability distributions for AR4., and therefore would not have solar, albedo or oceanic data such as Levitus 2009 and 2012, not available in 2007. The ocean has always been the main energy sink. What seems to be changing in recent years is the pattern of ocean circulation and the way in which the heat is being distributed.
This would not have been incorporated in the 2007 models. It could be argued that since the models hindcasted accurately without them, but failed to accurately forecast, that these are recent effects. It will be interesting to see how the updated models used in the compilation of AR5 perform.
95% confidence limits come from three main sources.
The temperature and other measured data have their own 95% confidence limits based on the variability of the data.
The individual models are run repeatedly and 95% confidence limits derived from the variability of the different outcomes.
The outcomes from different models are then combined and 95% confidence limits calculated from the variability of the entire outcome set.
Details of how the three are combined is a question for the modellers. If they follow standard practice, code and data should be available. It certainly is for the GISS models.
Essentially 95% confidence limits tell you that if the entire exercise, from data measurement on was repeated independantly 100 times; about 95 of those repetitions would produce a mean for a particular temperature value within the 95% confidence limits, about 5 repititions would be expected to produce a result outside those limits. They are designed as an indicator of the uncertainty of the output.
Regarding daft and unpalatable results. A daft result, such as boiling seas in 2015 would indicate a problem with the design of the model. Just as there is no point taking horsepower readings on an out-of -tune -engine, there is no point taking data from a model which is not functioning.
An unpalatable result produced by a functioning model should be left in. Remember that from a scientific viewpoint unexpected results are often the most informative. Look at all the new information coming in as the data on the recent slowdown in the rate of warming is analysed.
There's no point in generating false results. They always show as false eventually, because they stand out as incompatible with later evidence. As Feynman once wrote "Nature cannot be fooled."
Entropic Man (Jul 26, 2013 at 1:53 AM), you say "There's no point in generating false results. They always show as false eventually, because they stand out as incompatible with later evidence" and I would agree if this were just about the science. Unfortunately, there's a lot of vested interest to extract as much PR value as possible out of the data in order to 'verify' CAGW theory in the eyes of the both the general public and, more importantly, the politician. This is why I view much of the conclusions drawn on this subject as “the prostitution of science in the name of political correctness”.
You also mention that Feynman once wrote "Nature cannot be fooled" and again I agree. However, people can be fooled “for some of the time”, though the result is that it usually ends in tears. Remember that at the end of the story of ‘the boy that cried wolf’, the wolf turned out to be real… and no one believed him!
EM, nice summary, sincerely appreciated. However, on a point of logic, the idea that if there is a hitherto unseen effect going on that because the hindcasts are good it must be new is a less likely conclusion than that all models which do not include it cannot be right. This is the cleft stick I mentioned. You cannot, in science, just conjure up a deus ex machina to explain observations without including the mechanism in your models.
On the availability of code, one asks what the code does because of the difficulty of going over a million lines of code in an obsolete language written without proper procedures by enthusiastic but untrained scientists which has grown unchecked for decades. It would literally take years. That's why I ask how the CS gets in there. As a constant, as a parameter, or derived from first principles of radiative physics? If the latter, how do they..well, there are lots of questions.
"...or derived from first principles of radiative physics"
rhoda, if the MO published the code, and we found that it modelled the Earth insolated at quarter power 24 hours a day, that would be it - game over.