A Travesty for Colose, Show the Data
Posted by Jeff Condon on July 1, 2011
The main reason I tried to quit blogging is because I don’t have time to work math. The family, business and life in general are far more important as so many of you were very adamant (and correct) in explaining to me. It is nice though to talk with a bunch of very smart people on line about whatever topic, but my favorite part of blogging was the hours of reading papers and messing with data. I simply can’t do it these days. Today my data consists of corporate performance, planning, CAD and corporate efficiency more than anything else. The rest of the data is food stains, learning to fly kites, upgrading electric toy trucks etc.
A little while ago I correctly bashed Chris Colose, a young and budding yet self-assuredly world-wise climatoknowledgist, for his comparison of Venusian atmosphere to Earth and the evil CO2 which caused the incredible hell hole temperatures on the planet surface. My point was that Venus is a common scare tactic employed by climatoknowledgists who know there is a segment of the public that can’t tell you if an electron is bigger than an atom.
Chris Colose is apparently still mad about the Venus callout and has critiqued “the Skeptics” that’s me and by proxy you (sorry folks), for uncritically accepting Roy Spencers recent disclosure on deep ocean temps dramatically lagging even the weakest warming climate models.
See the problem is that if CO2 is really trapping/retarding/backradiating heat, we would be able to see it in ocean temps more accurately than air. That’s because so much of the earth’s surface heat capacity is in the water.
All the energy is in the water, whatever happens to air is moot. And the plot worth a thousand words from Roy Spencer’s post shows this:
And the water is too cold according to the heat capture caused by CO2 of models. Uncritically accepted right? You too right? Lessee if Chris Colose is in any way accurate. My first response was a compliment for the presentation followed by a request for data and code to back it up.
Jeff Id says:
This is an excellent demonstration. I hope that you will consider putting it into publication or in lieu of that, putting the code/data on line so that us non-pro’s can mess around with it. I would be interested in seeing how the math was done either way.
It is especially interesting considering the numerous posts done on climate blogs lately which have matched global model averages with very simplified equations.Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
Jeff, I indeed would like to put the model out there so others can play with it. It runs in an Excel spreadsheet. I just need to clean in up and put some explanatory notes in it…and maybe extend it down another 1000 meters.
But this coming week is very busy for me. Can you remind me after this coming week to do this?
IOW, show me the numbers. It turned out that Roy did exactly that, he put the calcs on line, unlike Kemp2011′s latest sea level hockey stick pubished right into PNAS with absolutley ZERO credibility, zero data, and zero code whatsoever. Total trash science uncritically accepted by journals in comparison to an amazingly simplified “blog post”, by a somewhat skeptical climate scientist who didn’t mind showing his work. When/if the Kemp group finally does put the garbage on line, I do not intend to spend any time with it anyway. I simply couldn’t bring myself tot ask because the garbage is so OBVIOUSLY bad that my life isn’t worth the effort. Hopefully Chris will agree but such agreement is a naive expectation in the climate world as it could result in immediate blacklisting (see climategate emails for reference).
Paul K recently showed calcs at the blackboard which prove that you can fit multiple linear to high order polynomials to various climate forcings and all achieve good fit to historic temperatures. The resulting proof was that nearly any sensitivity of climate can pass the current test for our multi-million dollar climate models, and IOW NO sensitivity to CO2 is known.
My challenge to Chris, who says I/we uncritically accepted Roy’s work is — find an error. Don’t point to papers Chris, we all can do that, find the error and write it down. We already know none of us uncritically accepted his work, instead we discussed how the lack of warming could exist in the realm of current models. We wrote about PaulK’s demonstration to consider that any feedback may still be possible. We noodled about whether it would make any sense at all for the heat to show somewhere else.
Chris can’t answer the challenge of course, because there isn’t an error. The only real possibility for Chris et climatology is increased complexities beyond what we know and beyond what we can estimate but more telling, beyond current ‘consensus’ publication. Don’t mix that up though with the fact that these results are NOT beyond the realm of possibility. Of course our answer is that while not impossible, they certainly aren’t in the main stream discussion.
There is still much to be said about the “missing heat” in the ocean. A couple of papers recently (Purkey and Johnson, 2010; Trenberth and Fasullo, 2011; Palmer et al. 2011, GRL, in press), for example, highlight the significance of the deep ocean. These show that there is an energy imbalance at top of the atmosphere and energy is being buried in the ocean at various depths, including decades where heat is buried below well below 700 meters, and that it may be necessary to integrate to below 4000 m. Katsman and van Oldenborgh (2011, GRL, in press) use another model to show periods of stasis where radiation is sent back to space. It is also unsurprising to have decadal variability in sea surface temperatures.
My bold of course. I wonder if there is still much to be said, why it is so bad for us to say it?