Monday
Sep232013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Climate's great dilemma
Sep 23, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: Surface Climate: sensitivity I have an article up at the Spectator's Coffee House blog on that awful dilemma for the IPCC:
It will not be an easy task. However the IPCC chooses to deal with the problem the repercussions are unpleasant. They might try to explain away the warming hiatus in some way: the in-vogue explanation is that the heat that should have been in the atmosphere has escaped, undetected, to the deep oceans. Evidence to support this idea is, however, scant at best, and going down this route is going to involve the IPCC admitting that there is much about the climate system that is not yet understood. This will be a hard act to carry off while simultaneously claiming that they are certain that mankind caused most of the recent warming.
Reader Comments (53)
The IPCC, the Met Office, the whole gang, have painted themselves into a corner.
The chronology in para 2 seems to have gone very wobbly. The First Assessment Report was in 1990, not 1998 and the Second was in 1996, not 2005. While the date of the Fourth report, 2007, is correct this clearly did not coincide with Climategate, which was in 2009.
Amazing that the Spectator should be capable of such elementary blunders.
WUWT has a post quoting IPCC saying The Great Cool is due to volanic activity that sort of accumulates somehow and serves as a damper to their model forcing but not to worry, the Earth will still melt precisely five minutes after Midnight, Sidney time, on January 1, 2100. No mention if you Y2K insurance will cover it. However, for a few pounds more per year, my Y10K policy will.
It's the classic liars dilemma.
Do you tell the truth now and accept the pain and embarrassment, or, add a new lie to ease yourself past this moment and kick the problem further down the road.
In 'real' life now is always the best solution.
The problem, in 'non-real' life; science, academia and politics, the denouement point when the lie is discovered is often decades down the road. And a little more obfuscation can always push it slightly further away. It's possible to build entire economic, scientific, academic and political careers and infrastructures in those extra years. Lots of money and kudos to be had.
So, the incentive for the clean sweep confession is always negated.
A possible answer, as someone mentioned elsewhere, is to appeal to the young Turks in the various fields. Being the ones responsible for paradigms shifts can bring even more money and kudos, if you're thick-skinned enough.
Well if the heat is miraculously disappearing into the depths of the oceans, which have an enormous heat capacity, then we have absolutely nothing to worry about. They can't possibly use an ocean heating argument can they? Surely not.
Agout is right - para 2 is a mess.
This is very unlike Andrew's normally meticulous accuracy. Did someone mess up at the Spectator?
Not only that humanity (let's be PC, shall we) caused the problem, but that humanity can fix it, thereby stating unequivocally that humans can and do control the climate. There is nothing.
Marvel at Houdini, the miracle temperature, for decades he's warming the atmosphere, the next he's miraculously escaped to the deep ocean and we didn't even feel it.
You seem to have a typo:
"Since its First Assessment appeared back in 1998.."
But as wiki reports:
"The First Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was completed in 1990"
Thanks
Have alerted Spectator. The error was mine.
A
You must be wrong because Robin McKie from the Observer writes
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-fossil-temperature
Some choice excerpts:
“In the past, these climate change deniers have insisted that variations in the sun's energy or fluctuations in cosmic rays could be behind the global warming that has been observed in recent decades. Both suggestions are dismissed out of hand by the new report.”
The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there," said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. "Global warming has certainly not gone away."
This point was backed by Professor Myles Allen at Oxford University. "We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming," he said. "Our climate models are robust and working well."
"One recent study found a way to assess sea ice cover in the Arctic over the past 1,600 years. At no point in that time were levels found to be as low as they are today. The current drop is probably the handiwork of human beings."
And the Observer is never biased and nor ever wrong!
It's amazing how the ocean must've suddenly changed to prevent atmospheric warming. I imagine this "ocean change" will require more research funds being extorted from taxpayers.
""The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there," said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. "Global warming has certainly not gone away."
This point was backed by Professor Myles Allen at Oxford University. "We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming," he said. "Our climate models are robust and working well."
Shepherd's quote seems as non-scientific as could be. However, maybe we can invite Myles (c'mon Myles, I know you are getting this) to show the working behind his statement. My null hypothesis is that it's straight from the gelder's bin, but what do I know?
Please remember, this is politics, not science. All they need is a claim of consensus carried by the BBC, ABC, CNN etc.
It has to be remembered that Prof Ted Shepherd is Grantham Professor of Climate Science at Reading University. He who pays the piper etc.
Rhoda
Yes it is amazing that certain people know that heat is going into the deep ocean, but can't measure it!
Perhaps they see it in the tea leaves!
This point was backed by Professor Myles Allen at Oxford University. "We have examined the forecasts made by climate scientists over the past three decades and they have been absolutely spot on in terms of predicting subsequent levels of global warming," he said.
So is this just a flat-out lie?
David Whitehouse also writes about the IPCC dilemma.
http://www.thegwpf.org/pause-thought/
"""The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the magic forest and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there," said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. "Global warming has certainly not gone away.""
There. Fixed that for them.
When they said "the science is settled" they meant, of course, that the heat has settled, deep into the ocean where it can enjoy the company of krakens, Nessie's cousins, Scylla, the population of Atlantis and, presumably, the crew of the Marie Celeste.
Hi would be interested to see Andrew's take on these two charts from Reuters (one on ave temperatures since 1880, which seems to show a warming trend that is pretty solid, despite the last decade's slight deceleration) and a pretty scary looking one on rising sea levels. Here they are:
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/RNGS/2013/APR/CLIMATE_OCEANS.jpg
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/RNGS/2013/MAY/SEA.jpg
TimC
Find yourself a long term graph of sea level rise and then work out where AGW kicked in.
Yes, the excuses are becoming more and more convoluted. Not only that, they can't seem to agree on which one is the official excuse. Now maybe the IPCC will act as arbiter and unify the cause once more.
As each day goes by the science becomes less settled, the press more inquisitive, governments more reluctant to invest in this theory. The end is nigh. No doubt though, the slimeballs will have to be wrenched out of their ivory towers.
Myles "11 Degrees" Allen plays very fast and loose with the truth.
The truth is that the range predicted by the whole flock of IPCC models encompasses a range so wide as to be meaningless. Since the Met Office came out with their updated forecast (on Christmas Eve 2012) of virtually no warming for the next five years, most bases are now covered. Yet only a maximum of one of them could be correct. (And quite possibly zero by scientific standards held in fields other than Myles Allen's)
So when the time comes, just pick whichever one you find most convenient, and ignore the rest. This requires almost no extra or unusual mental contortions for IPCC-type modellers: They live in a world where they are constantly re-setting their predictions and think nobody notices or cares.
The heat must be going into the deep ocean (by some unphysical, unidentified mechanism)
The heat is masked by reducing effects of aerosols (whose effect was supposed to be declining)
It's just noise. We'll know for sure after 5/10/15 more years of no-warming (unlike the preceding temp rise that had no noise at all)
It's still warming if we adjust for pdo shifts (which we had previously dismissed as inconsequential).
It's still warming if you use the Giss dataset (and only Giss)
It's still warming if we count in decades rather than years (despite us telling you thermageddon was 5 years hence).
Periods of non-warming are quite common (just ignore that we told you manmade CO2 was now dominating the climate)
Its just natural variation (that we had assumed was in decline in order to separate out AGW in the first place).
Never mind the pause, just look at the Arctic (but not the Antarctic because it shows no warming. Conversely you must look at the Antarctic to determine past climate but not the Arctic because that had an undeniable MWP).
Are you a climate denier? (jeez what does that even mean?)
The fact is that skeptics have been right every time while these toytown scientists have been wrong. It's bad enough that they cannot bring themselves to admit it but those who pretend they were right despite the glaring contrary evidence before them are not just deniers, they are outright liars.
If this was a mere academic dispute like dark energy or Higgs-Boson nobody would give a toss but every lie leads us towards energy supply problems and price hikes.
timc (Sep 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM) all these graphs is the long slow thaw out of the LIA. We don't need to look at sea level data to spot this - we have half a dozen old surface station records which show bugger all to worry about:
CET and 7 other historical datasets, (courtesy of NikfromNYC).
Or can you spot the CO2 signal?
Here's some sea-level links FYI, sorry, don't have time to make hyperlinks:
climate - sea level rise Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt review of tide station data which concludes no acceleration in rise since 1940. (ave. 1.6mm/yr) in North Atlantic). New Zealand, Arctic, Australia, Pacific, http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/13/german-survey-of-recent-scientific-literature-shows-no-signs-of-accelerated-sea-level-rise/
climate history - sea level Holocene to Roman essay by Tony Brown: from http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/ and http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
climate history - sea level reconstruction - Grinsted et al. (2010). which shows levels were higher in MWP. http://www.springerlink.com/content/527178062596k202/
climate history - sea level Paul Homewood essay - suggests satellites could be wrong - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
climate - sea levels 1890-2006 flat DMI gif graph - http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/ebovandstand1.gif (now a 404)
climate - historic sea levels (Holocene and before) - http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/03/constantly-changing-sea-levels-and-dwarka/
climate - sea levels, river levels, Iron Age - Roman Warm Period. RWP. Hasholme log boat in a farm field.
Scientists believe a cataclysmic flood between 800 and 500BC transformed the landscape from a low-lying area of woodland into open water. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Discovery-of-log-boat-shows.5537797.jp
climate fraud/junk science - Envisat Sea level data adjustment - http://www.real-science.com/sea-level-rise-retroactively-triples-at-envisat-overnight + blink graph - http://oi41.tinypic.com/2en2e6f.jpg
climate - sea level data adjustments - http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/09/more-monkey-business-with-the-mean-sea-level/
climate - sea level Alesund (Spitzbergen) 1976 to 2001 - http://www.john-daly.com/stations/alesund.gif shows max 5cm variability, usually 3cm each year
climate - IPCC predictions fail - temperature, sea level etc. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm
That's enough for now, sorry for OT.
JamesG, that's an excellent summary of what passes for climate science nowadays.
Funny - I was always under the impression that 'the science is settled'...
All prophetic doom cults fall apart when they inevitably go down the path of actually having to make real predictions that people can measure.
AGW cult leaders are facing the same fate.
Let's enjoy their machinations and posing for the great entertainment it is.
One additional problem for the IPCC is that the worth of their report will be judged not in 2013 when published but rather in 2015 when the next climate conference takes place. by that time, the temperature hiatus may have continued for a further 2 years, or if there is some cooling between no and then, the temperature rends could even suggest a slight cooling trend since about 2000 (don't forget that CET is showing a 0.5c drop since 2000, with the winter months shoing about a 1.5degC drop since 2000 and other temperature sets may bein to show this decling temperature trend if cooling more globally is felt over the next couple of years). this point may also impact on Arctic ice. i am not saying that one can conclude too much from this year's recovery, but again, the possibility exists that the Arctic will receive cooler weather and less storms over the next couple of years and if so, then by 2015 Arctic ice may not appear such a strong indicator for AGW as it presently appears to be the case (I am not ovelooking the fact thatbglobal ice is at its 30 year norm0.
As regards ocean heat, this claim throws into doubt the basic physics of CO2. The basic physics was that this trapped heat leading to a waarming of the atmosphere and that is how CO2 operated in the 1970s to late 1990s. However, it appears that the basic physics of CO2 has undergone a sea change 9excuse the pun0 and instreadt of trapping heat and warming the atmosphere, it no longer warms the atmosphere but now warms the oceans. What is this basic physics? How has it changes between 1970s to late 1990s and today? Basic physics does not normally change, what are the mystical properties of CO2 that cause the effect to flip in this manner?
This is a problem for the warmist argument that the recent warming is now hiding in the ocean made more difficult by the basic physics relating to heat content. The atmosphre has very little latent heat content compared to the ocean, such that the atmophere itself cannot have any significant heating effect on the ocean, still less the deep ocean. Coupled with the fact that the ocean warming does not appear to show up in the top 700metres and somehow by passes this layer un noticed going straight to depth, makes the argument at first and cursory glance an extremely weak argument from the scientific point of view and it is difficult to see how it can withstand scientific scrutiny if exposed to such scrutiny. We all know that there is a lack of scientific scrutiiny in the climate field but may be things are changing expecially if the media is becoming more sceptical and if governments cannot afford to run ith the green agenda.
Myles Allen is roh, roh, roh busted.
==========
Oceans cannot be heated by infra-red radiation which only penetrates a few mms below the surface ( from whatever source). So any increase in ocean heat content can only come from the sun. Yet they tell us variations in insolation are so small they can be ignored as far as climate and CAGW are concerned. Add to that a failure to demonstrate any rise in SST and the warmists seem to have an insurmountable problem.
BTW I seem to have missed reports of massive volcanic activity severe enough to affect temperatures.
One of the predictions that Myles Allen referred to may have been this one.
Despite the sophistication of their models, the prediction looks much like the extrapolation of the line through the last three decadal time-points.
This graph will be worth revisiting in 2020. But by then, I expect we will be told that no-one should expect a 1999 prediction to be meaningful.
The IPCC has served its purpose (along with several other bodies) in manufacturing the justification for the CAGW scare, the main attraction of which was to get the legislation in place for the taxes, non-jobs and rackets it's supported. The shrewder members of these bodies will be heading for the life boats now, so as not to be trampled in the crush.
I imagine they'll come up with some form of hand waving to get round the problem they have. The organisation will be de-emphasised.
If you have no way of measuring, then how do you know it is happening? Can anyone really accept that this is anywhere close to a scientific observation?
JamesG (Sep 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM): an excellent summary of the level of science involved.
"Evidence to support this idea is, however, scant at best, and going down this route is going to involve the IPCC admitting that there is much about the climate system that is not yet understood."
Brilliant work, Your Grace, brilliant. May I suggest that you add one thing. Whether or not there is evidence to support Trenberth's idea, the idea itself violates the fundamental assumption of all Alarmists, namely, that climate science is correct to use a "radiation-only" theory of warming. If the oceans can sequester significant amounts of heat that would otherwise have warmed Earth and prevented "the pause," the next questions are "how much" and "how long?: Those are empirical questions that must be investigated in the deep oceans and independently of Earth's radiation balance. Specifically, Trenberth must find mechanisms in the oceans that are characteristic of the oceans but not caused by changes in temperature or radiation at the ocean's surface. Otherwise, Trenberth would be arguing that radiation or heat forces its way into the deep oceans and does so as a linear function of what impinges the surface. However, if mechanisms in the oceans can sequester heat for decades or centuries then the "radiation-only" account is not just deeply flawed but false. Research must turn to empirical work on Trenberth's ocean mechanisms and the plethora of empirical phenomena that together determine Earth's temperature. That work could be relatively complete in a century. Computer models will be helpful in this research but unnecessary.
Radical Rodent
"....anywhere close to a scientific observation"
Perhaps Professor Ted Shepherd should be Father Ted! That would make more sense!
"So is this just a flat-out lie?
Sep 23, 2013 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka"
In the aftermath, he will call it a "bluff," as in card games. He will be reminded that he was not playing a card game.
"Despite the sophistication of their models, the prediction looks much like the extrapolation of the line through the last three decadal time-points.
Sep 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM | Registered CommenterRuth Dixon"
Spot on. The historical points give you the extrapolation of the line and the computer simulation gives you the error bars.
The heat is merely resting in the deep oceans.
If the missing atmospheric heat is in the 'deeps' how does it sneak through the sea surface without warming it?
Between a rock and a hard place for sure.
I liked the "liars dilemma", thanks Stuck-Record.
' The IPCC, the Met Office, the whole gang, have painted themselves
into a corner.'
Or Martin, you could just say it looks like they have got it all wrong. I do like the really scientific statements coming out of Reading University by the likes of Ted Shepherd.
Absolutely brilliant. You're on a roll, Bishop. You spelt it out clearer than a clear thing on the clearest... etc. etc.
Ralph Tittley,
"The heat is merely resting in the deep oceans."
Tee hee. :)
There is one question above all others that an interviewer, preferably someone like Paxman who likes to savage his victims, should ask the high-ups in the IPCC or the boss of the Met Office or any of the other leading alarmists. That is:
Is the science of climate change settled?
If they answer "yes" the obvious follow up is in that case how come you failed to predict the temperature standstill? A second follow up could be why should we spend millions on research in climate change when you already understand it all?
If they answer "no" the obvious follow up is why did climatologists ever claim that it was settled? A second follow up would be why on earth should we risk crippling the world economy, with all the hardships that would entail, on the basis of your recommendations when you admit that you don't really understand the climate?
W Bowie,
If the missing atmospheric heat is in the 'deeps' how does it sneak through the sea surface without warming it?
****************
That's a very good question and it underlines the need for further research not less research..................
There can be no question that the missing heat is lurking down there somewhere, because where else could it have got to?
It's just a matter of finding it.
Undoubtedly, computer models of the ocean thermal budget can be constructed which will shed light on this, at least by confirming it ought to be there, or will be there some time in the future, even if they don't precisely elucidate the mechanism by which it should have got there, or will get there.
Or, Cosmic, that it might never have got there in the first place. Not that that means it isn't there, somewhere, sort of, oddly, lurking, hiding in unknown ways. Just that, though it must be there, no one can know. But that doesn't mean it isn't there. It's just that because no one can know it isn't there, with the funny fishes that can see in the dark, you can't say it isn't there. Because after all, where else would it be?
That sounds reasonable enough to me. I'm persuaded.
James Evans at 6.19
We need the resurrection of Black Adder. What fun Ben Elton could have with the Lewis Carrol world of climate science.Shame so many of our writers and thespians are firmly in the warmist, antiscience camp.
Deep within its ocean lair,
The global heat that wasn’t there
It wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish it’d go away...