David starts with
Climate models can be seen as encapsulating the dominant theory, even though they are composed of many different theories regarding land, the ocean and atmosphere. …… Lets agree, for the purpose of argument, that the dominant AGW paradigm is of global temperature’s high sensitivity to CO2 doubling, resulting in an increase of around 3oC, which appears to be about the central estimate of the climate models.
Well, I disagree that climate models encapsulate the dominant theory. If he’s meaning anthropogenic global warming (AGW) then much of the theory associated with that is basic physics. The influence of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The feedback associated with increased water vapour. The theory doesn’t rely on climate models. Climate models allow you to understand how the climate system may evolve given certain assumptions about the change in greenhouse gas concentrations, but they don’t encapsulate the dominant theory. Also, 3oC is not a high climate sensitivity. It’s near the middle of the likely range. Furthermore, some of the strongest evidence for climate sensitivity comes from paleo-climatological research and not from climate models.
David goes on to talk about ocean heat content and says
The various here’s in the above quote are links. I won’t add them all. What’s slightly odd is that the second set of here’s appear to link to pages that don’t even mention the rate of ocean heat uptake. One of the first set of here’s goes to a post by Lubos Motl. I’ve encountered Lubos Motl on other science blogs and he seems to be regarded by some, and maybe by himself, as a sort of polymath. I can’t comment on his abilities with regards to other science areas, but in this case he is sorely mistaken. He says,
One may also convert the temperature changes to forcing and one gets less than 0.5 watts per squared meter, almost an order of magnitude less than the forcing 3.7 watts per squared meter commonly associated with the CO2 doubling.
What he’s done here is calculate the average rate – over the last 45 years – at which energy has accrued in the oceans and then compared this to the change in adjusted forcing since pre-industrial times. This is similar to a mistake that David Stockwell himself makes and which I discussed earlier. Firstly, the change in radiative forcing would only match the radiative imbalance if temperatures have not changed since pre-industrial times. They have, and so one would not expect them to be even to close to being the same. Furthermore, the average of the radiative imbalance over the past 45 years is quite different to the radiative imbalance today. The comparison that Lubos Motl makes is just completely meaningless.
David continues with
The ‘blow-out’ in the range of likely climate sensitivity can only mean one thing: We are no longer in a period of ‘normal’ science, but entering a period of ‘paradigm shift’.
No, what we seem to have are a number of people who don’t understand the difference between a radiative forcing and a radiative imbalance. The real paradigm shift would be if some people started to at least consider that professional climate scientists are not making the very basic mistakes that some seem to think that they are making.
David then says I personally think that miss-specified models have contributed dismissal of solar influence, and have developed an alternative ‘accumulative’ theory of solar influence and he includes the following figure
I tried to work out precisely what David’s model is, but involves reading papers published on viXra. The hurdle for publishing something on arXiv is not particularly great, so publishing on viXra says something in itself. Furthermore, the only way the system can accumulate energy is if the surface temperature is below equilibrium. You can’t just simply decide to sum the total solar irradiance (TSI). Essentially it seems like complete garbage, but if anyone wants to try and convince me otherwise, feel free to do so (although, given my stricter moderation policy, you’re going to have to do some real physics and not just wave your hands around).
David ends his post with
Climate skeptics don’t want to say we told you so but, well, we told you so. Even though we do not yet have an accepted theory of solar influence, there are 25 unique models in the AR5-sponsored CIMP5 archive, most with a climate sensitivity untenable on observations from the last decade.
Take out Occam’s razor and cull them – deep and hard.
Well, David’s told you so would have more merit if most of what he says didn’t appear to be completely flawed and didn’t illustrate that he doesn’t really understand the basics of climate science. Furthermore, as I point out here, Occam’s razor is really just a guideline for how one would develop a theory/model, and not really a mechanism for determining whether or not a theory/model has merit. I suggested in my earlier post that we should
add a corollary to Occam’s razor which says that if you need to invoke Occam’s razor to make your model seem the most credible, your model immediately becomes the most complicated of all possible models and, therefore, by Occam’s razor is then the least credible of all possible models.
This would seem like a suitable situation in which to apply this corollary.