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)
A very and uncannily similar echo - of my sentiments Martin A.
This is terrible stuff. Any doubts I had that the Met Office scientists and management are little more than a bunch of environmental global warming activists have now well and truly disappeared. The scientific role should be abandoned and the Met Office set a target of getting weather forecasts right.
Mick J says, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:52 PM
That Gurdain article is hilarious.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study
Four years ago the wheels had clearly fallen off the cAGW wagon and the predictions were getting desperate.
The sad thing is that the comments then were lively and educated; the switch from ice extent to ice mass was new back then and the debate picked it up.
Now, no debate is allowed.
The Guardian has fallen faster and further than the Mean Global Temperature in the last four years.
Figure 13 from paper 1 – ‘The overall moistening of the atmosphere is clearly evident..’ Yes, and it appears to coincide with the lack of warming. So is water vapour causing the cooling? Not the positive feedback that we were promised? Is this consistent with the robust robustness of the AGW theory?
And no mention of albedo as far as I can see. Did not read all 3 papers but Roger Tallbloke touches on the importance of albedo upthread.
And they just can't actually bring themselves to admit that there has been no warming. Again from paper 1:
Truly pathetic.
So, these models. Does any one of them actually allow for heat to go into the deep ocean? Further to my previous comment, it now seems to me that it would have to include a mechanism, programmed in explicitly, for the 'excess heat' to get down there, and presumably to emerge at some other time. If it isn't programmed in, it can't happen in the model. So you can have the ocean conjecture, and throw out all the models, or say the models are working and rely only on what they say, which does not allow for the ocean heat. You really can't have both.
And of course if you surmise the deep ocean is warming that must have a consequence in terms of its work as a CO2 sink or source. That affects your carbon cycle calculations. The met are undermining the whole canon with these daft excuses.
Jul 24, 2013 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered Commenter M Courtney -
Re: Guardian article and moderation policy - yes. Very sad that a paper with such a liberal tradition has sunk to such Orwellian depths of dogma and censorship.
Meanwhile the Independent's Steve Conner was happy to spin the Met Office's junk models and heat-sinking ocean science - Has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans, but over 3000 comments, debate permitted by mods, and from a quick look through the recent comments most are dissenting.
Thanks lapogus. I was interested in this bit of the main article:
"However, measurements from hundreds of ocean floats released over the last decade, which descend and drift to depths of up to 2,000 metres, show that huge amounts of heat from the sea surface is now being transferred to the deep ocean, with unknown consequences for the environment, the scientists said."
I presume that he's referring to ARGO, but I wasn't aware that its measurements had shown anything like that at all, and indeed thought that it was simply a new network of sea surface temperature buoys. Does anyone know of any Argo-related work out there? Thanks all.
"Judith Lean" - I thought, hmm either the solar physicist, or another moniker for widow Twanky from the Telegraph?
Quoting stuff from the graunida - who knows - I oft ponder on why, widow Twanky doesn't return to his real home - London N1 9GU - after all, he is an Islington CP 'space cadet' like the rest of them.
Jul 23, 2013 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.
Going with the former, she does have her own "gate".
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/ipcc-consensus-on-solar-influence-was.html
Although later statements are also of interest. Featured in this NASA report at http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
"'Solar constant' is an oxymoron," says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. "Satellite data show that the sun's total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount."
Mick.
It's just an outright lie, stun. In fact the ARGO network does not show that deep transport of heat and is widespread enough to show it if it were happening. Pielke Pere is all over this, and there are discussions on the internet he's had with Josh Willis and Kevin Trenberth about this.
=========================
@Athelstan
Coming late to the party, but I fully agree with you. The Met Office is stuffed with Civil Service jobsworths, Betts being a prize example. No science or original thinking required, merely more of the same.
:thumbsdown:
Pielke Pere is all over this, and there are discussions on the internet he's had with Josh Willis and Kevin Trenberth about this.
=========================
Jul 24, 2013 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim
There are some thoughts by Trenberth here reflecting on the range of uncertainties involved and the robustness of the OHC datasets, it is from Jan 2012, Some of the comments are useful also.
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/trenberth-response-to-todays-loeb-et-al.html
Do you have links for the Internet discussions that you mention?
Well, Richard, here we all are. Do you want the ocean get-out-of-jail free card, or to claim the models are not invalidated? Unless they DO include that mysterious mechanism, in which case you'll be able to give a reference.
stun (Jul 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM) not exactly what you wanted, but here's a couple of links to articles by Dr Roger Pielke Sr. that discuss ocean heat measurements and the idea that the missing heat is being sequestered in the deeps...
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/grappling-with-reality-a-comment-on-the-skeptical-science-post-by-dana1981-modeled-and-observed-ocean-heat-content-is-there-a-discrepancy/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/publication-of-reply-to-comment-on-ocean-heat-content-and-earths-radiation-imbalance-ii-relation-to-climate-shifts-by-nuccitelli-et-al-by-douglass-an/
As you will see, the ideas being pushed by Nuccitelli are, at best, 'fragile' and his arguments founded upon misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the data... which sort of sums up the Met Office's position, too.
Richard Betts
If you appreciate humour then why did you not laugh at Philip Bratby's post or do you seriously believe he would have you shot, hmmmm?
Although there are many people here who do seem to want a sensible discussion, there are unfortunately still too many who rant and rave to make it worth getting involved in a conversation
Many people on this blog would like the chance for a sensible discussion but can not find anyone wishing to engage with them. Many serious points have been made in this thread about the Met Office, I notice you are not responding to a single one of them?
You are not able to accept anger, you seem to have no concept of the damage and suffering the MO is causing to the UK economy and population.
There's a basic mistake in the first paragraph that I've seen Dung make before. If the object of your 'humour' doesn't find it funny then it's not - not if you're trying to continue dialogue with that person, with integrity. (One wouldn't feel the same about a Josh cartoon making fun of Michael Mann - because by now it's gone way past the point where Josh or I or Montford or McIntyre have any realistic chance of dialogue with that person. Even then there are strong limits on what is acceptable.)
I specifically called out one of Richard's critics out on Climate Audit a week ago for over-statement. It was interesting that Steve chose to remove the offending comment but left my riposte. I appreciated that.
In this climate game we need to cultivate our enemies particularly well. We need the best of enemies to get anywhere. Richard has fronted up more than most. Where he's wrong history will judge, hopefully in the not too distant future, before those contracts for difference kick in. But careless talk costs lives, as always.
Many people consider most, if not all, of the models to already be falsified by standards commonly held in non-climate science fields.
The Met Office appears to be asserting that the models are not falsified, yet recently revised their projections downward (*see note below). Thus the pausing is forecast to continue, and, ironically, the Met is now forecasting the continuing falsification of the same models it is currently defending.
The slight of hand lies in the updating of both data and hindcasts. It's 'hindcasts squared'.
Failed predictions are rarely voluntarily discussed by stock-market "gurus" either. And certainly not transparently, even with a little arm-twisting. They prefer to move on to the new predictions. That's what pays the mortgage, not picking over the carcases of previous triumphs.
*The revision was surreptitiously slipped out on Christmas Eve. Is it also a coincidence that the appearance of these reports coincided with the birth of an heir to the British throne? Whatever. I can think of another throne where this excuse for science should be placed.
Your final comment makes me flushed with embarrassment Michael.
The MO has consistently put propaganda ahead of science. And continues to do so. A national disgrace and one with real consequences for the wellbeing of the citizens of this country. It is no wonder that people feel angry and betrayed. People who have been forced to choose between heat or eat don't do sensible discussions with their oppressors.
Richard Drake says we need to cultivate our enemies. Richard, more than that, you need to know when you are being played.
Troll comments and follow-ups removed.
Hi Dung
I'm afraid it's quite clear, from both Bishop Hill's own post speaking of "spin" and the numerous comments below talking of "generous bonuses" (Ha! I wish!!), "criminals", "propaganda", "national disgrace" and various other things, that this particular conversation is starting from the premise that the Met Office must be doing something wrong. Nothing I say will be taken at face value, even if I try to stick to the science. It will obviously be an utter waste of my time and effort to try to take part in good faith.
I don't even know which "ship" the Bish thinks is sinking, nor why he thinks citing the Otto paper (with its lower bound of 0.9C for the 5-95% confidence interval of equilibrium climate sensitivity) is somehow an inappropriate thing to cite - especially odd since Otto was lauded here and on WUWT and other places not so long ago. Now somehow it's "spin" to cite it.
So this conversation is clearly a political one not a scientific one. That's fine, go ahead and talk amongst yourselves, you've got every right to do so. But as far as I'm concerned, I'll wait for another occasion when we can talk science objectively.
PS. Michael Hart, thank you very much for this:
I told colleagues here yesterday that someone was bound to say this, and they laughed in disbelief. I guess it proves that I know the sceptic blogosphere better than my colleagues....! Hopefully one day we'll meet at the BH Oxford pub get together and I can buy you a pint.
See you on another thread sometime...
Cheers
Richard
OTW: In an ideal world one is able to detect when one is being played. In the real world even Winston Churchill was duped on occasions. Get it wrong the other way and you can isolate and destroy someone who would have been of great value to truth and freedom. Winston got the overall story right and that's the most I ever expect to achieve. And to be as courteous a human being as possible, within those constraints.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Martin A, Athelstan, Geronimo, Hector Pascal and OneTrophyWin
Here, here.
But why? (Orders, coercion? 'Cos they'd have to do what they are told, if they were.)
It is not a premise that the MO must be doing something wrong, it's readily apparent from the weather forecasts of the past week that faced with a slow moving high pressure system they really haven't a clue what it will do next. Forecast wind SE 2-3, actual NE 3-4, to quote just one example. Their models are useless.
There's a basic mistake in the first paragraph that I've seen Dung make before. If the object of your 'humour' doesn't find it funny then it's not
Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM Richard Drake
Very well put. It's like (for example) telling the victim of a practical joke that they the reason they don't find it funny is that they have no sense of humour. I always thought it was insulting the victim to say so and Richard makes it clear why.
However, Richard Betts and Dung seemed to be replying to a comment by a troll which misrepresented what Philip had said. Dung was obviously not commenting on what Philip actually said, which was clearly not intended to be taken as a joke.
Richard Betts's position is that he is a scientist and wishes to confine his discussion to science.
However, there is no escaping that the Met Office is a political entity whose major role was facilitating the Climate Change Act and which continues this role in supporting the DECC in its implementation of the CCA.
If staff of the Met Office wish to kid themselves that they are pursuing science and have nothing to do with politics that is up to them.
However, the Met Office and its management retain a major responsibility for the harm the CCA has caused and continues to cause. In the heady hockey stick 1990's there might have been some excuse for the misuse of science but to maintain now that the science is settled (give or take a few loose ends), all evidence to the contrary, increases their culpability.
Richard
I am more aware than most, of the jokes that only amuse the joker. However you would have to have been lobotomised to take seriously Mr Bratby's post about shooting everybody at the MO ^.^
Do lighten up a bit.
RB, it is crystal clear from Andrew's post that his concern is that only the Otto paper is cited, not all the other recent ones that show lower CS (see his letter to Slingo for the list).
It's not a political thread, there are many serious scientific issues raised by Mike Jackson, Roger Longstaff, Michael Hart, steveta, Nic Lewis, rhoda and others.
Thank you Richard Betts, I hope I get the chance to take you up on the pint. On the thread "Science Media Centre spins the pause", in a reply to jamspid, I also speculated thus:
Jul 22, 2013 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there is anyone in the UK with news that they would prefer buried at the bottom of page 93, then the birth of a royal baby is a good time to release it."
The daily moderator accidentally deleted it, and has (only partially) replaced it. Think I'll buy myself a pint. Thank you, Michael. You're welcome.
"If there is anyone in the UK with news that they would prefer buried at the bottom of page 93, then the birth of a royal baby is a good time to release it."
A good time to bury missing heat. Or sink it.
Mr Bratby's post about shooting everybody at the MO ^.^
Do lighten up a bit.
Jul 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM Dung
He said no such thing, if you are referring to the same comment as I saw. He said "It's time for the criminals at the Met Office to be indicted ..."
A bit harsh but not the same as advocating murder.
Roger Longstaff (Jul 24, 2013 at 3:12 PM) I don't think the thread has been 'derailed' since it has raised many questions and provided some substantial facts concerning the validity of the hypothesis that deep ocean energy sequestration is the 'cause of the pause'.
That Dr Betts was offended by one rogue comment, highlighted by the resident troll, while never making even one attempt to explain/defend the MO's position speaks volumes for the scientific validity of their statements... and thereby justifies the Bishop's original observations and concerns.
"It's time for the criminals at the Met Office to be indicted for causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people in fuel poverty and for causing misery for the rest of the normal folk in the UK."
Jul 23, 2013 at 7:47 PM | Phillip Bratby
There rants a true zealot, one assuming the MO will be a lot nicer than him and not take him to court under libel laws.
Let's ignore for a moment that Philip is one of those nutters who claim the basic greenhouse effect (which we've known about for over a century and can be demonstrated in any school lab) doesn't actually exist.
The interesting insight into Philip's mind, is that percentage of energy bills attributable to combatting climate change, is much smaller than that which makes up energy company profits. Yet Philip starts frothing at the mouth over those trying to look after the environment, not those lining their pockets. Completely daft.
Richard Drake
in the real world people are suffering as a result of the policies imposed upon them by successive governments aided and abetted by the MO. You refer up thread to 'this climate game'. Whilst I know this is just blog talk we do very often betray our approach to the subject matter in the language we use. It may be a game for some Richard but in the real world it has real consequences.
By way of an example, I have my most recent electricity bill to hand for one of the businesses in which I have an interest. There is an item that reads 'Climate change levy £355.05.' That is for one month. Over £4k for the year and this is a cost that increases with each passing year. At some point it will reach a level where the business becomes non-viable. The business will close and a dozen people will lose their jobs. This is inevitable as sure as night follows day in any energy intensive business. And the same story will be played out a thousand times over in this Green and crucifix-scarred land.
And what benefits do we have for the financial sacrifices we are making? What benefits can we expect going forward? Even if we were to accept the MO's view of the CO2-controlled world, the sacrifices being made by the citizens of this country will have no measurable impact on the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity. Without the whole world signing up to emission reductions we are pursuing worthless vanity policies. So if Richard Betts wants a sensible discussion can he start by accepting (as a fellow citizen and not as an employee of the MO) that our current energy policies are absurd.
Or maybe he would like to explain to my workforce in due course why he still has a job but they don't?
Jul 24, 2013 at 3:58 PM | OneTrophyWin
Very well said, sir! The best post on this thread IMHO.
I was wandering through Oxford today. I went into Blackwells, the bookshop and there found Clausewitz, 'On War'. I'd never read it, it isn't required for housewifery. I opened it at random, and there at the top of the page was the line 'There cannot be an engagement unless both sides are willing'.
Smart chap, Clausewitz.
Richard Betts
It's nowt to do with the blogosphere, as you should know. Every government department (which includes organisations like the Met Office regardless of what may be its technically correct classification) have form as long as your arm for finding "good days to hide bad news".If the Met Office chooses to release papers which look like they're trying to hide something then they will take a pasting. Fact of life.
And on the subject of Otto et al what Montford said in his header piece was:The fact that we have "lauded" it does not mean that our views freeze at that point in time. There is observational evidence that suggests a lower sensitivity.
Which is why I posed my original question aimed in your direction:The alternative is to look as if you are cherry picking (whether you are or not) and also to look as if you are determined to cling to an increasingly iffy hypothesis by claiming — without a shred of justification as far as I can tell — thata claim which appears at first sight to have so many holes in it that it would sink faster than this mysterious heat.
To finish as Montford did: "Sure looks like spin to me".
The temperature hiatus has now lasted around 16 years and until this year there has been no attempt by the Met Office to explain it. The reason would be that it was fully expected that temperature would start rising again at any moment.
For 16 years nobody was interested in explaining the pause until the temperature started to move out of the error margins of the the climate predictions of the met office, then it became serious.
Last year Richard Betts (during his time on BH) accepted that the Met Office had no idea why the warming had stalled but today they have a whole new theory of global warming and heat transfer to the ocean depths.
Can they really not see why this looks utterly ridiculous? What is also ridiculous is that the one thing the Met Office refuses to consider is that they have got the effect of CO2 totally wrong.
Can anyone tell me what was happening to ocean depth temperatures from 1980 to 2000?
Because if they were trending up, then the fact that they are rising today proves nothing.
While if they were trending down, this might explain why surface temperatures were rising.
But I don't expect anyone knows - which is convenient.
Dung
the MO believe in the radiative forcing of CO2 like my friend William believes that God created the world 8000 years ago and made it look a lot older. All they have to do is shift their premise a little (well actually a lot) to natural variability controls the climate and CO2 plays a bit part, and everything suddenly makes sense. And I know this must be the case because William told me and he is clean shaven and comes from Ockham.
The DT has this article on the Met Office release. It is unquestioning and accepting verbatim the Met Office's words. Comments are closed to this article.
How much actual awareness of the issues do you need to be a science correspondent?
"Global warming has been on "pause" for 15 years but will speed up again and is still a real threat, Met Office scientists have warned."
Nick Collins, Science Correspondent
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10195498/Global-warming-on-pause-but-set-to-resume.html
Dung
THat's how scoence works.
The two most important words in science are "That's odd. When something unexpected happens and is investigated, that's how you learn.
Do not fall into the trap of expecting scientists to perfectly unederstand the world, they know the uncertainties If you want perfect understanding ask a politician (for whom any appearance of uncertainty is political poison). You might also like to ask a priest, whose certainty is a matter of faith.
Who was the politician who said that he hated having scientists on his committees; whenever new evidence appeared they changed their advice?
By the way, you and your fellows keep saying that there's a 16 year temperature hiatus. Numbers, please.
I symathise with Richard Betts. Like myself, he came here hoping for a discussion of the science. Unfortunately the discussion here is mostly political.
Is EM now the spokesman for the MO? I am not about to answer his questions again. I care not how many years or how slight a temperature change he counts as not a hiatus. The MO has admitted a pause or failure to rise as predicted or whatever you want to call it. The MO has made a spectacular series of excuses for being wrong while not actually admitting it. The MO is now in a cleft stick over admitting things are not as they thought while retaining the authority which they pretend to. No need to answer EM, just keep asking the MO to engage.
Crossed with the last EM. RB can come here whenever he likes and discuss science. He chose to address the problem of over-enthusiastic commenters instead. He did not choose to answer any of the questions. I choose not to speculate as to why.
rhoda
As I say, you are debating politics, not science.
rhoda
In a scientific debate your sword is your evidence. You and your opponents fence with the evidence until the weaker evidence gives way.
"I care not how many years or how slight a temperature change he counts as not a hiatus."
"spectacular series of excuses"
"The MO is now in a cleft stick"
In a political debate your sword is your rhetoric and the evidence is irrelevant. Your own phrases show that your interest is political, not scientific.
I asked a question above. How do the models account for heat moving into or out of the ocean? Is there a mechanism? If it isn't programmed in, and the MO claims that the heat IS going into the ocean, how can the models be right? Do they include it or not? It's a simple enough enquiry, it could be answered in a short sentence. I don't need to bring evidence to ask such a question. I don't need to respond to diversionary tactics from other amateurs either, but I do, while I'm waiting.
EM
I shall say zees only once .... once more that is because I have been saying it for over a decade:
Global warming always was, is now, and ever shall be political.
Any accidental encounter with science is purely coincidental. There are certain sciencey aspects to the language used but the entire premise on which the whole edifice is constructed is that mankind is ruining the planet (possibly causing "runaway" global warming) and using up all the natural resources which ought to be left in the ground for the benefit of our grandchildren (who in turn will be harangued to leave them in the ground, probably for the benefit of their grandchildren) and over-populating the planet (as the doomsayers have been telling us we have been doing for the last couple of hundred years).
The entire scientific sub-structure is a fake.
Most of it (probably about 97%!) is based on computer models — a hundred or more — which have no predictive ability, barely any hindcasting ability and like all such artificial constructs reflect nothing so much as the conscious or unconscious prejudices of those who programmed them.
There is no agreement on the precise effect of any atmospheric gas on temperature; there is no agreement on climate sensitivity; there is no agreement on whether current temperatures are outwith historical range; there is no agreement on why there has been no significant warming over the last decade+.
There is a large vested interest that makes rash claims about the threat (non-existent) to polar bears; that claims that Arctic ice melt is unusual (dismissing historical evidence to the contrary); that wrings its hands about rising sea levels (this still includes Bangladesh as its "poster child" in spite of the fact that it is actually gaining land surface).
And all the while it is the politicians — egged on by the fascist tendency in the environmental movement — who have fallen for the "we must do something" sob stories in the face of increasing evidence that the "science", as portrayed by the fat cats on the governmental gravy train, never actually existed.
EM,
If you really wanted to discuss the science, you wouldn’t be here. You would be at Steve M’s, or Lucia’s, or Bart’s or even Nick Stokes’s. Though there can be (and often are) good discussions about the science, the primary focus here has always been the various political agendas (often seemingly driving the science) and the policy implications thereof. But you know this. You don’t come here to discuss the science. You come here to play politics the same as the rest of us. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a perfectly valid pursuit. Just don’t pretend to be all about the science and somehow above the rest of us when the reality is you’re just the same.
Rhoda,
If previous experience here is anything to go by, it’s likely that Richard will return, throw a couple of links to papers at you (that may or may not be relevant to your questions) and disappear again. If you’re hoping for anything more, I fear only disappointment awaits.
Edit. Well said Mike.
Entropic Man (Jul 24, 2013 at 5:31 PM), if you bother to read these comments you'll see that *many* people have asked some very basic scientific questions about the validity of the MO's statements regarding the sequestration of heat into the deep oceans, such as...
1) where is the sufficiently convincing real-world evidence to support this hypothesis?
2) what impact would this process likely have on past atmospheric temperatures?
3) why should we worry that this process will not continue for the indefinite future?
Given the importance of the MO's scientific input to government policy, do you think the MO should address these very basic questions or are you sufficiently convinced by their answers to date?