Bishop Hill Buckle up
Oct 14, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: Surface Climate: sensitivity 
During the Energy and Climate Change Committee hearing last week, Peter Lilley asked the men from the Climate Change Committee what evidence would cause them to change their minds about global warming, a question that was fairly studiously avoided. Interestingly, Simon Buckle of the Grantham Institute has written to the FT (not online) to suggest what the reply should have been:
As a physicist, I would modify my view that we are conducting a dangerous experiment with the Earth’s climate if one or both of the following hypotheses were strongly supported by evidence.
First, the identification of a major new process in the climate system that significantly and robustly, over time, moderated the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. At one point, cloud responses to climate change were thought to be a contender for such a “negative feedback” mechanism. Sadly, observations do not support this.
Second, if the timescale of change was much longer than we currently think. We could then perhaps take a century or two to make a transition to a low-carbon economy, instead of perhaps half a century. However, the unprecedented pace of change does not suggest we live in such a world.
While Buckle presents two different scenarios, it seems to me that in fact the two are identical. The only thing that could make the timescale of change much longer is a moderating mechanism of some kind, one that hadn't previously been included in the models. But Buckle is completely wrong to suggest that this mechanism needs to be identified. The models, and the hypothesis of rapid warming, can be falsified quite happily without knowing what factor is responsible. This is the scientific method after all.
Once that uncomfortable fact is taken on board it becomes clear that Buckle should already be questioning his position on global warming. But, not unexpectedly, he concludes that "Extremely well-established physics principles suggest that surface warming will resume and then proceed at a rapid rate". In other words "But the greenhouse effect".
Put in those terms, it becomes clear just how thin his argument is.
Reader Comments (121)
It surprises me that he finds no role for the temperature record (whatever it turns out to be) in affecting the tenacity of his belief. This is as near as we get to raw facts in this sphere.
So.... Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago but, "Extremely well-established physics principles suggest that surface warming will resume and then proceed at a rapid rate".
Dear Mr physicist - face/palm.
The Bishop wrote, " ... But Buckle is completely wrong to suggest that this mechanism needs to be identified. The models, and the hypothesis of rapid warming, can be falsified quite happily without knowing what factor is responsible."
Buckle said, "if one or both of the following hypotheses were strongly supported by evidence."
Or!
So a slowing, a pause or a drop in global temperature would be sufficient. Unfortunately he failed to quantify "the timescale of change" required to falsify the hypothesis of rapid warming.
Can someone point me to the observations that show that cloud feedbacks are not negative. I thought that even the IPCC considered them to be poorly understood.
Pretty amazing for a professional physicist to have no idea about falsifiability.
It's much simpler than he thinks. Clue: It's the models!
1. The temp record shows some warming. Almost everyone, bar nutters, believes this warming is not dangerous.
2. For this warming to become dangerous the positive feedbacks have to kick in and unleash methane melt etc.
3. These positive feedbacks only exist, at present, in a raft of very expensive computer models. No 'proof' one way or the other yet in reality.
4. Any proof that the feedbacks are less than expected, flat, or even negative falsifies catastrophic climate alarmism completely.
That's it. Game over. All the castles were built on sand.
As a fellow physic post-graduate it would be useful if Simon Buckle could share his knowledge of
"Extremely well-established physics principles suggest[ing] that surface warming will resume and then proceed at a rapid rate"
because, thankfully, they completely elude me.
Actually, it's worse than that. He still holds the presumption that "greenhouse gases" are the primary consideration.
Watch the pea.
I'm constantly amazed, though shouldn't be, that many scientists including those in the 'hard' physical sciences are so strongly wedded to a paradigm that even when the data suggests that climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates they find reasons and excuses not to believe the data. This is in effect what Simon Buckle is doing. He can't identify a process that might allow for zero or negative feedback therefore one cannot exist!
Naomi Oreskes take note. This is the analogy you were seeking when you discussed Alfred Wegener and continental drift. Because a mechanism wasn't in place many scientists didn't support the evidence for continental drift.
Are they hypotheses he's quoting. 1. Where is the observational evidence that clouds don't cause negative feedback?
2. Where is the evidence that disaster is going to come quickly even with warming.
I just cannot understand how he can justify the dismissal of cloud feedback so confidently. What observations that do /do not support this is he referring to? or is this just another vague evidence free statement posing as fact?.
He states "As a physicist"
Perhaps he should go back to school and learn the scientific method, hypothesis - theory - prediction - comparison with real data. If the real data does not match find a new hypothesis. They are deliberately avoiding the scientific method and using a pseudo-religious argument - go ahead and disprove god!
CAGW - theory from hypothesis does not match real data so failed and should be rejected!
Send Mr Buckle a copy of Fritz Vahrenolts book "The Neglected Sun" Better still ask him to buy a copy himself, that should keep him quiet for a while regarding alternative mechanisms affecting so called AGW?
As a physicist he should be able to understand that Trenberth got his "fantasy universe" physics wrong, the magic "1.5*log2(400/270)=0.85C" has nothing to do with reality and that GCM methodology has been falsified by nature.
Hardly surprising really.
The Grantham Institute is a paid up member of the institutional Alarmist cartel.
extremely well established physics.... but unknown heat transfert ocean/atmosphere ...
Is it really possible to prtend to understand physics when you are not able to make an energy balance right?
extremely well established physics.... but unknown heat transfert ocean/atmosphere ...
Is it really possible to prtend to understand physics when you are not able to make an energy balance right?
It is evident that he gave up all his physics 26 years ago when he sold out to the higher paid advocacy profession. His knowledge of basic physics and the scientific methodology was obviously cast aside many years ago. He is a disgrace to the IoP, which was taken over by non-practising physicist alarmists like him several years ago. He is an embarassment to us ex-Imperial physicists.
As a scientist he does not seem to get that one does not need an alternative to the alternative to conclude that we cannot reject the null (man made CO2 is not a major player). The data do not support their alternative, inference really is that simple.
Given the belatedly-acknowledged "pause" in temperatures, that is about as close as it gets to claiming that no change at all is "unprecedented". Faced with such logic, I must surely feel beaten by a superior being..... :)
lets not be too harsh on poor Buckle - at least he has come up with an answer unlike the hapless feckers from the CCC. You can't expect the answer to make a lot of sense given its provenance.
Public Enquiry 2018
If ocean heat uptake is faster than models assume, then it will take much longer for the expected warming to occur, but it will eventually. So this would be his second condition.
As a mere publishing bod myself, can someone with scientific credentials check if I'm wrong about this.
As a lifelong fan of Feynman I've always worked under the assumption that it is not necessary to have a counter-theory in order to falsify a theory.
If I am told that the reason the sun shines is because of magic fairies, it is possible to falsify that theory by showing that fairies don't exist.
It's not necessary to come up with the mechanism of thermonuclear fusion first.
This is correct, yes?
Because it seems an awful lot of argument from the green shirts is that it's impossible to criticise the models until you have a model that works better. However, according to Feynman, if the model you're criticising doesn't fit reality, then the model is wrong. It's not beholden on the critic to create a more successful model. The first model is just wrong. Period.
I am curious to see what Buckle's observations are. Here is my observation:
On Sunday I spent the day on a beach beside Loch Tay, enjoying the mid-October sunshine, which with clear skies and a very light wind off the loch was surprisingly warm, not quite shorts and t-shirts weather but not far off. At about 4pm, cirrus clouds appeared in the western sky, the sun disappeared. Unsurprisingly, the temperature dropped almost instantly, such that it was too cold to stay there without a warm jacket or good camp fire. I understand and agree that clouds do have a positive warming effect at night, especially at the higher latitudes. But the LW IR energy they 'trap' or reflect at these times is a just fraction of the energy they reflect from the Sun during daylight hours in the tropics and mid-latitudes. (Incidentally, I have never stood outside on a clear winter evening and noticed the temperature rise when a cloud passed overhead). Hence there are seasonal and diurnal variations, but overall, clouds must have a net negative feedback. Indeed, recent cloud cover data (or rather insolence) appears to correlate with global surface temperatures:
Compare these graphs: Global cloud anomaly (%), Palle&Laken, 1983-2012) and Hadcrut4, 1982-2013. (if you have an image editor, invert the Hadcrut4 graph and resize it by a ratio of about 1.13 to get the scales to match).
Is it just too obvious for CO2 AGW consensus scientists that a decrease in global cloud cover will result in higher insolence and thereby warmer surface temperatures? Hence increased water vapour and cloud cover is a negative feedback. Lindzen, the recognised atmospheric physicist, has been saying this for years. Buckle has probably just jumped on the AGW bandwagon for career reasons.
Perhaps he should reflect on the thoughts of other physicists before making such statements...
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/12/a-physicist-reflects-on-the-climate-debate/
"However, the unprecedented pace of change does not suggest we live in such a world"
Glad you mentioned this, Prof, because I for one had not noticed it.
It is rather scary that so many of our so-called scientists seem to mix religious belief with the scientific method.
Paraphrased - CO2 will make us all fry despite any evidence to support this, but as a good scientist I will change my mind if we enter another ice age.
Bishop, if you heat water in a kettle it will boil. Double the amount of water and it will boil in twice the time. Do you think we have introduced a moderating mechanism by doubling the water? Clearly you do, as you assert that "The only thing that could make the timescale of change much longer is a moderating mechanism of some kind...". A moderating mechanism would, for example, prevent the kettle boiling. The inertia of the earths systems determines the speed of response to heating but doesn't change the eventual outcome.
I also thought you were in the camp that does not query the greenhouse effect of CO2 but are you now showing your true colors?
Schrodinger's Cat: He is no longer a scientist. He gave up physics in about 1987 to become a diplomat. How he became a Fellow of the Institute of Physics in 2001 baffles me.
David Shaw managed to get hammerhead and nail-head to meet - and beat me to it - by merely stating that all Buckle needs to do is falsify the null hypothesis. End of (as my daughter would say!)
Chandra, you are quite right - the Bishop completely neglected that the effect that doubling the mass of the atmosphere would have, as you suggest in your posting.
I'm not sure how you'd go about doubling the mass, but never mind.
Chandra: While I can't speak for the Bush, I'm sure there is a camp that accepts CO2 is a GHG. But that's not the point. It may well be a GHG, but it not responsible for your AGW. that only works in your models.
Chandra (Oct 14, 2013 at 3:26 PM) you say "A moderating mechanism would, for example, prevent the kettle boiling. The inertia of the earths systems determines the speed of response to heating but doesn't change the eventual outcome."
An excellent example, Chandra. However, a little more thought shows that your last statement is not true: increasing the
amount of water eventually means that it would *not* boil because heat lost to the air, through increased conduction and radiation, would be greater than the input energy... try boiling a large pan of water using a small cigarette lighter.
Chandra - I am struggling to understand your kettle analogy and where you are trying to go with it. Irrespective, are you saying that there can be no such thing as a negative feedback in the Earth's climate system?
Why is it so difficult for alarmists to contemplate that atmospheric CO2 (due to its logarithmic effect) has a very negligible effect on global temperature, once above 300ppmv? If anthropogenic CO2 emissions have had a measurable effect on global temperatures, then please show us the empirical evidence. Or please just point out the CO2 signal in NikfromNY's graph:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg.
The young man from Grantham has executed a superb Trenberth null reversal with flair and nailed his landing. This is climate gymnastics at its finest!
It doesn't need a new process, just for existing ones to get stronger/become more extensive. The greening of the planet for example. Let us take a leaf from Buckle's book and reverse his reversal in order to demonstrate how silly it is - I'll modify my view that we aren't conducting a dangerous experiment with the climate when there is evidence of a major new process in the climate system causing the temperature to rise. Greenhouse gases and the effect of them are not new. Climate feedbacks are not new. So whatever can possibly be causing climate change?Dave - that is what I was thinking, but perhaps I was giving Chandra too much credit. I was going to point out that his analogy was bankrupt as the extra heat to warm the Earth from a little extra atmospheric CO2 would be more akin to trying to boil a kettle with the heat generated by a spark from a flint.
Despite this constant refrain about established physics these alarmist types are very good at just making up their own, totally unestablished physics in order to explain away inconvenient results; such as the idea that a warming sea is a carbon sink rather than a source or that the deep ocean can heat up without somehow passing through the ocean surface.
As for the balancing mechanism against CO2 heating well a lot of folk, including Hadley Centre & James Hansen, seem rather fond of utilising the putative cooling effects of aerosols to balance the putative heating - from the selfsame fossil fuels. Steven Schneider also used this weasely way out in order to pretend that his predicton of catastrophic cooling from fossil fuels had been averted by CO2 warming. Really all that drives these peoples imaginations is whether the temperature goes up or down by fractions of a degree. But either way it's bad because it's just not in their nature to be optimistic about mans effect on the environment. Seemingly we should live like the Amish lest we disturb mother nature. Alas nature is quite good at disturbing itself...but if you only look for your keys under the light then you won't ever be very enlightened.
David Salt, my kettle always boils, however much water I put into it. I suspect your does too. What you are trying to do is to introduce a moderating mechanism (evaporation in this case, but with a kettle it isn't enough to change the outcome). But at least you understand the difference, even if the Bishop doesn't. The inertia changes the response time and the "moderating mechanism" changes the outcome. Most people should have little difficulty understanding this.
Ignoring the logical challenges in Buckles statement, he poses two tests and purports to factually answer that neither has been met. His facts fail on both tests. He is just objectively wrong.
On mechanisms, he is simply wrong on cloud data, as published in my book chapter on CAGW. And we now have solid evidence on natural variability (Li, Wyatt and Curry, both 2013 being two recent examples). There are two specific mechanisms meeting his first test.
On sensitivity, there are several 2012-2013 papers suggesting it is less than two, possibly as low as 1.5. The book chapter does an overview analysis as of YE 2012. Using four methods: Bayesian analysis, energy balance, climate observation, and paleo records. Half the sensitivity doubles the time.
The correct answer is that both his tests have been met.
"I also thought you were in the camp that does not query the greenhouse effect of CO2 but are you now showing your true colors?" Chandra.
The issue is not with the CO2 part of CO2 warming but the strong positive feedback part. You can accept one and not the other and still not expect the catastrophic part of CAGW.
We don't know what's causing the cooling, but reality will soon change to match the models.
Buckle is a perfect example of a SAPP or Scientific Academic Paradigm Paralysed
They have staked their professional reputations on a naïve theoretical physical argument without empirical foundation in the real world and because of the way government funded science works these days they simply can't get published or funded or appointed to academic or Government positions if they stray from the desired establishment consensus. All of the recent British CSAs ,leaders of the Royal Society, heads of the Met Office etc fall into this dismal and unfortunate group.
and in other news the MSM continues the barrage against the green loonies
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10377467/China-demand-to-see-coal-overtake-oil-as-the-key-fuel-for-global-economy.html
Buckle should enjoy Judith Curry's latest post on Lorenz and chaos theory. JC concludes
The gist of the post is that the A in AGW has not yet been detected (probably)
IPCC takes legal action against Met :)
I don't know about anyone else but I don't live in a kettle.
Chandra, I was merely taking your simple analogy and showing how misleading it can be to extrapolate too far. If you want to make it more representative of the Earth's climate system, try scaling the heat input accordingly.
Understand, however, that the basic physics of CO2 says a doubling only results in ~1C warming, so getting >2C (i.e. putting the 'C' into CAGW) demands an amplification mechanism that has yet to be demonstrated, let alone verified, which means that there's no scientific evidence to support Buckle's statements.
Chandra says: "...my kettle always boils, however much water I put into it."
Pathetic logic, Chandra!
Your kettle's element (probably 2kw) is designed to boil the optimum amount of water for it's size. Try sticking it in a swimming pool and see how much you manage to raise the water temperature.
Someone should send Mr Buckle a copy of 'The Neglected Sun'. It will answer all his questions. However I suspect that Buckle permanently wears a pair of 'panchromatic peril-sensitive sunglasses' which prevent his brain from seeing the reality.
As a physicist, I would modify my view that we are NOT conducting a dangerous experiment with the Earth’s climate if one or both of the following hypotheses were strongly supported by evidence.
1. Any climate model was able to predict the global temperature just one year in advance.
2. A majority of climate researcher admitted that they could not predict the climate further into the future.
The first is a very simple test which shows an ability to predict the easiest part of climate.
The second is a test of honesty and bias and paradoxically, the more they admitted their models were largely useless, the more believable they would be.
And as we all know the two are mutually exclusive. Because if they were honest they would admit they cannot predict the climate and therefore manmade CO2 is much smaller in its impact than natural variability.
Chandra
You are underestimating the intelligence, knowledge and education level of many of the regular readers and contributors here. You appear to have problems with simple comprehension, generally people here are more than willing to consider and politely discuss different viewpoints when they are based on well defined logical arguments supported by facts, your's are not.