Reposted from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s Climate Science
Climate Progress has a weblog by Joesph Romm titled “Breaking: NOAA puts out “El Niño Watch,” so record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record“.
This is an interesting and very bold forecast of record temperatures by Joe Romm, and, if this does occurs, it would substantially support his claims on the dominance of human-caused global warming. Only time will tell, of course, if this warming will occur.
However, unfortunately, he still does not understand that i) the appropriate metric to monitor global warming involves heat in Joules, most which occurs in the oceans (e.g. see), and ii) that the accumulation Joules in the upper ocean has not occurred since 2003 (e.g. see and see). Even Jim Hansen agrees that the ocean is the dominant reservoir for heat accumulation (e. g. see).
In Joe Romm’s weblog, there is the text
“As a side note: Roger Pielke, Sr.’s “analysis” of how there supposedly hasn’t been measurable ocean warming from 2004 to 2008 is uber-lame. In the middle of a strong 50-year warming trend, any clever (but cynical) analyst can connect an El Niño-driven warm year to a La Niña-driven cool year a few years later to make it look like warming has stopped. In fact, the latest analysis shows “that ocean heat content has indeed been increasing in recent decades, just like the models said it should.”
This text shows a failure to understand the physics of global warming and cooling. There are peer reviewed analyses that document that upper ocean warming has halted since 2003 (e.g. see and see). Even the last few years of the Levitus et al 2009 paper shows this lack of wamring (see).
Joe Romm, since he disagrees with this, should present other observational analyses of the continued accumulation of heat content in Joules since 2003. He should also focus on this time period since the Argo network was established, as it is this data network which is providing us more accurate assessments of the heat content in the upper ocean than is found in the earlier data.
If he continues to use the global average surface temperature trends as the metric for global warming, he will convince us that he does not recognize i) that surface temperature, by itself, is not a meaasure of heat (e.g. see), and ii) that there are major remaining uncertainties and biases with the surface temperature data set (e.g. see, see and see).
He writes
“In the middle of a strong 50-year warming trend, any clever (but cynical) analyst can connect an El Niño-driven warm year to a La Niña-driven cool year a few years later to make it look like warming has stopped.”
He ignores that since 2003, global warming (the accumulation of Joules) has stopped. An objective scientist [as opposed to a “clever (but cynical) analyst”] would report this scientific observation.
He would find more appreciation and respect for his viewpoints if he properly presented the actual observational finding, and discussed its implications as to where we are with respect to the accumulation of Joules over time. I have proposed such an approach in my weblogs
A Litmus Test For Global Warming – A Much Overdue Requirement
‘A very bold forecast’ from someone who ‘shows a failure to understand the physics of global warming and cooling’. I just love Pielke Pere; he is so droll.
===============================================
The indicators for the ENSO keep switching back and forth right now so it is really hard to tell if an El Nino will develop.
The Trade Winds are mostly neutral.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/zw/zw.obs.gif
Atmospheric Angular Momentum is mostly neutral.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/reanalysis/aam_total/gltotaam.sig.90day.gif
The Southern Oscillation Index is switching back and forth between indicating La Nina and then indicating El Nino.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/
Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomalies are pointing to an El Nino but the anomalies are not particularly strong.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
It looks like we will have to wait until late summer to see if a definitive trend has set in. The majority of ENSO events start to develop in late spring, accelerate thoughout the summer and then peak around December.
And a Super El Nino would only be able to increase global temperatures by about 0.25C from where they are now so it would take other natural climate variables to push temps to any kind of record.
I would disagree that there is anything bold about a ‘prediction’ that the current decade (2000-2010) will be the “hottest decade on record” (that is, since about 1900). This is already almost certain. But it means little without considering the rate of warming, which has never been high enough to match the disaster scenarios, and which has unquestionably declined to an insignificant rate during this decade, just at a time when the models say it should be accelerating.
Whoa – seems like mounting warfare. Climate Progress’ new post:
WattsUpWithThat labels people who advocate putting a price on global warming pollution as “criminal,” the same as “murdering people”
June 6th, 2009
[Perhaps CP readers with strong stomachs can go through the comments section on Watts’ blog and identify other things that he agrees with.]
Let me state this for the record:
Full-time global warming disinformers, like Swift boat smearer Marc Morano and Anthony Watts, have dedicated their lives to promoting disinformation and delay whose inevitable outcome — if a large fraction of people continue to be suckered by them — is unspeakable misery and/or violence to billions of people. Even so, Climate Progress has never advocated or threatened violence against them. Climate Progress does not tolerate any such threats in its comments. I don’t even tolerate comments that can be misinterpreted as threatening violence, when in fact they only predicted it.
That said, Watts through his website is shouting “no fire” on a burning planet. That is perhaps the most immoral thing any human being can do. Indeed, his website and writing goes beyond that. He, like Morano, is actually shouting “The firemen are liars and are trying to hurt you.” Shame on him. Rational people have every right to be very angry with such disinformers.
The anti-science conservatives are on the rampage.
Or maybe, Romm feels threatened with science that might be better than his own.
REPLY: Hey, he’s angry and puts that anger into angry words, what can I say? There’s not much to do except watch the show, though I will tighten up my moderation policy to ensure we don’t get the same kind of angry rhetoric here. – Anthony
Now that Romm is giving considerable credence to natural variations that can not only reverse warming achieved by an el nino, but can halt the storage of heat into the ocean for a few years running, perhaps he should explain how much of the recent warming he currently attributes to AGW. The IPCC’s 90% confidence that “most” of the recent was due to AGW is not very specific. The media and policy makes seem to be assuming that “most” is nearly all, not just 51%. “Nearly all” is obviously wrong, 51% may still be defensible. It may not have been a coincidence that solar activity was unusually high in the latter half of the 20th century or that the PDO was in a warm phase, or that the pattern of aerosol forcing had signficantly changed.
Romm says “Human-caused global warming is so strong, however, that as NASA explained, it took a serious La Niña, plus unusually sustained low levels of solar irradiance, to make 2008 as cool as it was.”
Perhaps he would have been more objective to say
“Human-caused global warming is so weak, however, that it took frequent El Ninos to make the last 2 decades look as if AGW is the cause.
“Recent El Niños have occurred in 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994, 1997-1998, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
Lucy Skywalker (17:28:28) :
“Whoa – seems like mounting warfare. Climate Progress’ new post:”
This is excellent – let Mr. Romm foam and rant for all the world to see…when someone is making a fool of themselves, just get out of their way…
[snip]
REPLY: This comment wasn’t appropriate. I realize you are angry, but please don’t make more work for the moderators and I. Mr. Romm is entitled to his opinion, let’s make sure he has every opportunity to say it. – Anthony
Perhaps Joe should stop being a hypocrite and stop encouraging people to use more energy (via the computers and the web) which must surely exacerbate AGW, if it exists. Joe’s hot air is surely heating up his personal Stevenson Screen.
Well this being the hottest decade in the satellite record will be true unless we have some huge crash in temps. over the rest of this year, the 1990’s had years like the 1999 La Nina and then there was Mt. Pinatubo, though mammoth heatwaves is something that may or may not happen, we’re having our first true heatwave of the summer with a temp. of 96 tomorrow and then cooling back down again to perhaps a day or two in the upper 70’s
Joe Romm sez:
Romm has it exactly backwards. Falsely shouting “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater is a universally recognized crime. Since the planet is cooling, not warming, Romm’s increasingly frantic alarmism is the result of his being on the losing side of the global warming argument.
The fact that Romm is ratcheting up his alarmism indicates desperation: the planet isn’t doing what Joe wants it to.
Yo, Joe: click We’re right where we were 30 years ago.
‘Burning planet.’ Ri-i-i-i-ght.
OT (sorry) but the red line on this graph seems to have moved again. Did I miss an earlier explanation. It now shows that for a period of weeks this year Arctic ice was above the 30 year average. I didn’t think that was allowed.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Mr Watts.. My father once told me that in a debate “The more angry you make a person with the truth, the more certain that truth is, for their anger is fed not by ignorance, but shame, for they know it as the truth as well.”
I have never seen that statement proved more true, than in the childish rant of that AGW devotee.
My compliments.
REPLY: Thanks for the kind words. – Anthony
Bill Illis (17:24:06): That in-depth comment was great.
Okay, I lost it. Darn that short fuse of mine. I guess If I don’t want to suffer fools I should do a better job of ignoring foolishness…
Romm. Let him rant. Let him rave. He is showing forth his achilles heel in this debate.
Cool heads (and scientific ones) like all of you great minds on here…need to stay above the fray and talk about the real business at hand: the science…and the truth.
The great thing about both (Science and Truth) is that they exist and do what they want to do, irrespective of our opinions, emotions, or political agenda.
So….just ignore the rants and raves. Don’t stoop to his level. Don’t give him the time of day.
Attempting to debate someone who exudes such raw vitriol and invective, is casting your pearls before….
And thanks Anthony, for a great, fair site devoted to the dissemination of scientific truth.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Reading this debate, I feel more strongly than ever that this is the time to stick our necks out and stick up for what we believe.
Thank you, Anthony, for this forum.
Yo, Joe: click We’re right where we were 30 years ago.
Slow down a bit. We are right about at the average of the last 30 years. Still a bit of cooling to go before we are at 1979 levels.
evanmjones,
Sorry, you’re right. I guess 29 years ago would have been more accurate.
Interesting discussions. It seems there is some drama and emotional tension on climate progress. I think we are dealing with the edge of science since he is angry that his Power points of forcasts are not being accepted and verified facts. I will study the people. It seems like we had astrologers and sorcerors predict castastrophe before and use violence and anger on people that rejected their powers. I just glanced at some threads and this board seems more interested in weather and Romm is much more interested in formation of control of energy and using force and intimidation for the agenda.
Just a few comments read like there is a vengeful tone behind carbon control and taxation. People need to feel pain if they don’t accept the values and pinch till it hurts on consumption.
My worldview is this a beautiful planet created for us to enjoy. The AGW extremeists seem to feel like their existance is a violation and they have to walk on eggshells and in stoic fashin not light the barbeque and do a road trip. As I study the Extremists, I see They operate like life insurance salesmen.
We call it backing the ambulance to the door. If you don’t buy, you die.
Rational minds see the tactic. Can Joe show some people that died like in the alarmist sci fi movies? When you fly over Kansas and see the Flint Hills being burned to rejuvenate pastures in the spring, the hysteria must be unbearable for an alarmist. Panic attacks and seizures.
I can’t post this on climate progress but i see a problem when we have people that haven’t lived on the farm and worked in industry, it is easy for a career beaureaucrat to think they have all the answers for others. Since Adam, man has survived without Central Gestapo Planning and now we can’t? It seems the government is doing a terrible job of running the government. There may be a need for change and in my observation, they are here to mess it up in the name of trying to make it better.
“Uber-lame” ???? And people take this guy seriously?
REPLY: Fewer people do, every day.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/SirPXJclLuI/AAAAAAAAAzM/SA_uodaDzBc/%5BUNSET%5D.png?imgmax=800
– Anthony
Actually guys, the anomalies are zeroed at the 1979-1997 average I believe (anyone correct me?) so averaging over the whole record and we’d be below average (I think). I’ll check my math (maybe) and get back to you on that (maybe).
“There may be a need for change…”
Yeah, that’s what we need, more change.
Thank You Anthony and Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
This is worth a trip to the tip jar.
I wonder whether the disagreement between Dr Pielke and Mr Romm is no more than a reflection that they are both seeking to measure the immeasurable.
You science chaps get very excited about ocean surface temperatures. You start from the position that heat is all about energy and energy is tiny little things that wobble about. The more they wobble and/or the more wobbly things there are lurking about the place, the more energy exists. That energy can be experienced as heat but it can also do things other than produce heat. For example, when I drive my car the engine uses energy to produce both heat and motion, the balance between the amount of energy used to produce each of the two during each second, minute and hour of travel depends on a vast range of factors.
It might or might not be possible to make a reasonably accurate measurement of the energy capacity of the oceans. Frankly I doubt that it is possible to measure it in any meaningful way because there’s just too much water. But even if a relevant measurement can be taken we have no way of knowing what will happen to all that stored energy. This is illustrated by the very fact that we have little Spanish boys and little Spanish girls and can observe (but not accurately predict) when we are subjected to frogs and snails and puppy-dogs’ tails and when are subjected to sugar and spice and all things nice.
That the oceans store vast amounts of wobbly things is obvious, that the amount of wobbly things they store varies through time due to a whole range of factors is obvious, that the rate of wobble varies through time due to a whole range of factors is obvious. That we don’t know what will happen with the wobbly things and when it will happen is even more obvious.
You might or might not be able to measure watery wobbliness, but as sure as parsnips is parsnips you can’t say what that wobbliness will turn into.