Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Andrew Montford and freedom of speech

Shub

Certainly. This was forseen long ago. From the seminal Charney Report of 1977 (emphasis added):

One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased heat into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer. The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well-mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so. It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical gyres lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermocline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.

Our estimates of the rates of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appreciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly. One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable. The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed.

All those years ago, before the politicisation, and before people like yourself decided to spend all day every day spreading misinformation via the internet.

Instead of using me as a free search engine, why don't you do some reading of your own?

This is all about the physics, Shub, and all the waffling in the world won't change that.

Oct 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

So, according to you with Charney in tow (with no context and pulling quotes from thin air as and when someone's questions arise), the atmosphere is not heating up, because the heat is escaping into the oceans. I thought 'radiative physics' 'heated the system'.

Firstly, if this is an example of 'physics', then God help us.

Secondly, I asked for a prediction of what you said, not some speculation. Additionally if Charney did indeed 'predict' this ages ago (as you characterize his poor words), all current GCMs should have been able to incorporate this and produce a corresponding closer temperature trend, no?

Oct 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Shub

Either you have not understood what Charney is saying, or you are refusing to accept it.

If you want context, google it.

A more balanced view of why the MMM is running slighly high should emerge. The notion that this is evidence of a serious flaw should disappear. As I have been attempting to explain for some time on this thread.

Oct 17, 2011 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

IIRC, just a little while ago, you were making fun of Atlantis being hidden in the deep ocean.

Oct 18, 2011 at 3:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I was making fun of the claim that extra-terrestrials moved continents around in the deep past like coins on a table.

What does that have to do with this discussion?

Oct 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD

You seem to want to lure Shub down a typical warmist-sophist direction with the RF bait. But you;ve already stated your position:

"energy is accumulating in the oceans (as predicted) and our measurements are inadequate to quantify this.

If you accept the radiative physics, then it looks like [this is true]."

Try baiting Shub into a browbeating over energy budgets if you like. Cutting to the chase, the radiative effects are not showing up as anticipated - under the roof of the greenhouse, on the thermometer by the workbench or in the surface temperature of the vast lily pond feature. Bit embarrassing, because it was meant to. So now, the only avenue left is to say it must have gone right down the well supplying the lily pond.

And you're dusting off the Charney Report is support of this? I hope you're wearing gloves to protect its venerable pages.

Oct 19, 2011 at 1:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

The Meehl - Trenberth "heat has gone into the oceans" fiasco is the worst copout, in terms of the attributional certainty, that climate science as an enterprise, suddenly imagined itself to possess. The mere fact that they had to make this up, after the fact, speaks against the completeness of their own mechanism-driven circulation model worldview.

Oct 19, 2011 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Gixxerboy

I expected better from you.

Either you have not understood what Charney is saying, or you are refusing to accept it.

More here.

Compare and contrast:

Scientific caution:

However, it is the case that none of these studies prove that these effects are happening in the real world – they are merely suggestive of what we might strongly expect.

Blog ranting - see any Shub comment above.

Shub's endless nonsense should convince no-one. It is incomprehensible, at least to me, why anyone takes him seriously. Just go back and read the last page or so of this exchange. Please.

Then read the RC article with an open mind. Think.

Oct 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD

Lower your expectations and free yourself from disappointment. :)

I'm not defending Shub's 'ranting', but I think you were deliberately trying to discombobulate him. And probably succeeding.

To get back to the point. As Gavin puts it: "none of these studies prove that these effects are happening in the real world – they are merely suggestive of what we might strongly expect."

The strong expectation is based on models. Lets be frank - this is Kev's 'missing heat' we're talking about. My point is that the AGW faithful assume all their other calculations remain broadly valid. So, with everything from what's happening in the troposphere/tropopause to STA to SST deviating from modeled path centre-lines, the finger gets pointed at deep OHC. Meehl's back-calculation of decadal variance seems plausible. The idea of an ocean flux, going back to Charney, is plausible, but in the Argo era it depends on selective 'down-welling' (despite Gavin's handwaving over temp v 'flux').

It's all possible. All plausible. Not proven.

Oct 19, 2011 at 11:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Gixxerboy

All I do with Shub is hold him to the central point under discussion. No tricks. It's all there upthread for everyone to see. Which is purpose of the whole tiresome exercise.

Why is GS handwaving over temperature and flux in the 700m layer? The argument makes exact physical sense. RP Snr's position does not. On the balance of probability, we are seeing thermal inertia in the climate system. What Trenberth said was: we need more measurements. Not: we need a new hypothesis. I agree with him.

Your reasoned scepticism is refreshing, but if you keep looking at Charney, you will see that the current situation was foreseen decades ago (got the date wrong btw - Charney et al. was 1979, not 1977. Mid-exchange with Shub, I may have been thinking of Never mind the B*ll*cks)

Oct 20, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"I may have been thinking of Never mind the B*ll*cks"
Oct 20, 2011 at 12:56 PM | BBD

Now that's what I call music. One could be thinking about a lot worse.

Oct 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

"All I do with Shub is hold him to the central point under discussion. No tricks."

Heh.

You drove the Svensmark thread off-topic for hundreds of comments, based on your off-topic introduction of the 'tallbloke hypothesis', more specifically, your understanding of it.

I can here to ask the one single question you successfully evaded: how come you whopeed about the 4 years worth of 'divergence' as shown in the Agee et al paper, when close to 32 years worth of 'divergence' in a different area - doesn't seem to bother you that much.

[1] I have your answer on that: "because it is just a model".

[2] There was another breakthrough in your monotonic droning of "physics, physics" when you offered the Charney report as a citation for a 'prediction' that deep oceans will swallow heat.

When heat 'disappears' into the ocean, and I ask for a citation for a prediction of this effect, what I am looking, or anyone who asks the question is looking for, is a climate model that showed this to take place, **before** it took place. Not some hand-waving bullshit from famous people.

[1] and [2] amply demonstrate the stupidity of the consensus climate position. There is no need to consideration of any hierarchy in evidence, there is no need for any intellectual honesty in confronting any question: just make up ad-hoc explanations for every question, 'plug the holes', and make a lot of noise - that is the strategy. A strategy you have been honing at the cost of others' time and commenting space, in threads which have no relation to your favourite topic - how the consensus is right.

You may imagine that everyone is discussing what you want to talk about. Indeed that is your central trick - each and everytime. On the thread about John Cook's rewriting business, you tried to turn it into a discussion about nuclear power advocacy. Who gives a flying f whether John Cook supports or objects to nuclear power?

Even here, you imagine we are discussing some imagined, fundamentally answered question in your mind: "does RF heat the blah, blah?" We are not. The full answer to such a question is dependant on characterizing once and for all, what type of a system, the earth's climate system is. I have looked at the papers of paleoestimates, and I have studied the nature of climate models. Both do not permit the type of categorical statements that you make, all the time.

Interestingly, historically speaking, H Lamb - the grandfather of the CRU propounded an observational, descriptive approach. He promoted the idea of a warm medieval period, as opposed to meteorologists who believed in a more static picture and opposed him. Paradoxically, things have come full circle now. Having swallowed the "we know everything that there is to be known" myth, climate modelers find themselves in the distinctly unphysical position of making up ad-hoc explanations for every episode of 'cooling' or 'warming' as and when they occur.

Oct 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Gixxerboy

Trenberth, Pielke Sr and Schmidt are all in the same position: facing a need to reconcile what they said will happen, why they said that would happen, and what has actually happened.

Their moving of chess pieces from inside the system - is not science. This type of thing happens all the time, and the ongoing nonsense are the moves and readjustments of science careerists, not truly scientists.

Oct 20, 2011 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Shub

I can here to ask the one single question you successfully evaded: how come you whopeed about the 4 years worth of 'divergence' as shown in the Agee et al paper, when close to 32 years worth of 'divergence' in a different area - doesn't seem to bother you that much.

You misunderstood my commentary on the Svensmark thread, and now misrepresent it here.

When heat 'disappears' into the ocean, and I ask for a citation for a prediction of this effect, what I am looking, or anyone who asks the question is looking for, is a climate model that showed this to take place, **before** it took place. Not some hand-waving bullshit from famous people.

Charney et al. (1979):

It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical gyres lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermocline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.

Your goal-post shift is transparent. It's been known for decades that thermal intertia might lead to periods of flat or even negative SAT.

The next time you characterise a respected study as 'hand-waving bullshit from famous people' or similar, I am going to ask for moderation. I am fed up with this.

You make no valid points, and have no coherent argument to advance. As per.

Oct 20, 2011 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"t's been known for decades that thermal intertia might lead to periods of flat or even negative SAT."

You made this up ad-hoc.

If what you say is known, how come the IPCC runs from the GCMs did not predict this?

So the position any observer is left with is: if it warms up - it is blamed on ('attributed') to CO2 (and not any other mechanism), if it does not warm up, it is attributed to 'thermal inertia'.

Do you know how fradulent that sounds?

Oct 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Shub


You made this up ad-hoc.

No, I didn't. Just read Charney. I've picked out the essence for you and quoted it twice.

If you don't understand what is being said, fair enough, but it's time to stop pretending that you do.

For example, you last paragraph is nonsense.

Recent warming of the climate system is forced by an increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2. The rate of energy accumulation in the ocean will modulate SAT. Therefore there will be periods when SAT does not increase in line with modelled projections. This neither invalidates the hypothesis that RF from CO2 heats the climate system nor modelled approximations of that process.

Oct 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"All I do with Shub is hold him to the central point under discussion."
Now which central point would that be?
The thread topic "Andrew Montford and freedom of speech"
or
"Does RF from CO2 heat the climate system? (Y/N)"
or the Charney report about heat going into the ocean?
And then you accuse Shub of moving the goalposts???

Oct 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPuzzled

Puzzled

Take a moment. Go back to the beginning of the thread and read my initial comment, and first few responses to others. I tried to keep it on-topic.

Then Shub comes along, and off we went.

We are now here.

When you are up to speed, join in. Otherwise, you will be... puzzled. And that may lead to to make pointless interjections like the one above.

Oct 20, 2011 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"I tried to keep it on-topic.

Then Shub comes along, and off we went."

It is true, that 'I came along and off we went', because you can't take being corrected or questioned.

Oct 20, 2011 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

It was a simple question and you did not answer it. Try again. What is the "central point under discussion"?

Oct 20, 2011 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPuzzled

Shub

Please stick to the matter under discussion and refrain from yet more personal attacks.

Puzzled

I have just suggested that you read the thread and answer your own question. Why are you back repeating yourself?

Oct 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD