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
Leif Svalgaard (20:32:05) :
why the obsession with what Joe Romm thinks?
He is the defacto spokesman for the administration on AGW matters.
Other than that, I’m with you.
REPLY: Actually, it is not “Dr.” just plain old “Mr.” Watts, but thanks for thinking of me highly. – Anthony
Folks earn an academic “Dr.” for doing a variety of things including significant research on timely issues, writing about it, documenting it, and defending it in front of groups of their peers. It is also important to show how the research fits into the broader subject matter to which it is a contribution. The initial presentation is usually attended to and judged by at least three folks that have already been admitted to this status.
I wonder how many Ph. Ds and related terminal degree holders have now read, commented on, and accepted your contribution to this field? A few more than three I think.
I prefer to call people by the name their mother gave them but “Dr.” Watts is okay too. You have earned as much.
The AGW promoters are starting to lose it.
I don’t go there … don’t even want to give that site the traffic !
Romm is a sad, angry man.
…and that is just what I gather from his blog posts.
He will undoubtedly grow more so as his preconceptions crumble around him.
After visiting our friends at CP, I think it is not a place where actually learning about stuff happening happens very much.
Okay, I went to the Romm site for the very first (and only) time a few minutes ago. Now maybe I understand a little better. It is a completely vicious and slanderous thing. Our esteemed host Mr Watts is the main target of a flood of ad hominim rants from Romm and commenters alike.
That might get under anybody’s skin, especially of the target of the vile aspersions.
However, I don’t alter my previous advice. Ignore it, Anthony, as difficult as that might be. Rise above it. Romm is nothing. WUWT is first class. Maintain your grace and equanimity.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating…
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it …
–Rudyard Kipling
REPLY: One of my favorite authors, thanks – Anthony
My bold prediction is that 2009 and will be one of the top 10 warmest years of the past decade, and that the past decade will be the warmest of the 21st Century to date.
Adding to Bill Illis’ comments (17:24:06) on observing the vital signs of a developing El Nino.
I find these TAO/Triton cross-sectional images fascinating. These are the 1997 El Nino images…………..
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/2009vs1997.JPG
You really need to compare recent cross-sectional images with 1997.
It is an equatorial display, cooler at the South American end (100^) due to the northward movement of the Humboldt current, in turn, fed by the Antarctic circumpolar current.
Why all the anger?
I think the realization, that politicians with an agenda have hijacked the debate and through legislation are trying to fundamentally change our country into something unrecognizable
and far removed from the principles of our founders, is starting to weigh heavily upon them.
It’s not whether GW is anthropogenic or natural, it’s the fact that they are assisting in a fundamental loss of liberties’ which we were granted by the thousands who gave their lives to give them to us. The allure of the limelight is the drug that a complicit media dispenses, but the high tech highly intelligent junkies are starting to realize when Draconian changes are implemented and our prosperity is crushed, the politicians will be pointing at them as the reason.
They told us the planet was in peril, they told us we had to act now. You think their angry, wait until people’s energy bills triple, and “smart meters” shut down or brownout homes. Then you’ll see angry, and guess to whom it will be directed. They have and are continuing to put themselves in a no-win scenario.
Who is Joe Romm? Is he so important and famous that we need to spend time debating with him?
I just took a small survey in one of my Geology classes yesterday. Most of them knew who Gore and Hansen were, but no one that I asked knew about Romm. As far as I know, there’s nothing exceptionally notable about him – he wrote some books that weren’t too popular, he used to work for the Department of Energy more than a decade ago, and his blog got mentioned once or twice in a magazine. It’s more fame than what the average guy gets, but he doesn’t get anywhere near the media coverage of someone like Gore.
Bill Illis (17:24:06) :
That’s what I see, Bill, stuck weather patterns, whether El Nino or La Nina, the thing isn’t going anywhere.
I also don’t see anything to make the stuck weather patterns get unstuck.
I don’t see the planet as being on fire.
Quite to the contrary, I see the planet cooling off.
Skeptics are not the ones who have the soapbox, the political winds at their back, and the agenda. We do not run the catastrophic media blitz either. So, if they are wrong, they needn’t be angry at anyone but themselves.
This would not be the first time an agenda has fallen on it’s collective face.
Just because the populace is getting sick & tired of the impending broiling & drowning while the suffer increasing cold is not the skeptics fault.
It’s the Sun, stupid. That’s what the common man will be hollering come next winter when the white stuff hits the wind.
We don’t control the weather, they don’t control the weather.
Mike (23:07:02) :
“Who is Joe Romm? Is he so important and famous that we need to spend time debating with him?”
Romm is a small part of a big picture, politically and philosophically speaking.
Seems he is a member of the “Center for American Progress”, the “Action Fund” being the “political arm” of the CAP, that supports climateprogress.
Part of a large chain of institutions and very rich and influential people, they call themselves “progressives”. Most of what I have read of their malarkay I would call hilarious if it weren’t so dangerous. Many people do respond to “the world’s going to end unless you do as we say” and if unopposed, will believe it.
I couldn’t help but to visit Climate Progress to check out the comments on all of the anger over there. Gads! What a venomous and irrationally angry lot. It was an interesting exercise reading their vitriolic comments. And they wonder why the general public has largely tuned out their clamor?
Okay, I admit by going to read the comments at Climate Progress, I gave their peg counter a hit. But sometimes you have to peer into the darkness to appreciate how bright the lights of scientific inquiry burn at WUWT. Thanks Anthony for such an excellent site.
Leif Svalgaard (20:32:05) :
why the obsession with what Joe Romm thinks?
=================================
I use him as a proxy for the state of the AGW movement in the USA, he has gone from Hero of the Green Movement to the current uhm … incarnation? in a very short period of time.
As I have posted here before, the best thing is to keep stating our case calmly and with respect and the fanatical will always marginalize themselves.
When the fringe get legitimized they can never stay there in the mainstream because they are so used to being the “oppressed” and held down by the system that when they get some traction on the freeway of progress and then spin a little in the court of public opinion they run for the tried and true.
They also cannot help fighting each other eventually as their single issue suppoters will not abandon their causes in the name of some greater good, so they start being at odds over policy and money..everytime.
So when things start getting rough they play the victim card! You know the Rap…
We are being undermined by some secret cabal pouring money into disinformation campaigns and is controlled be faceless political groups and monolithic corporations oppressing all those around them in mindless pursuit of money, so they lash out at the imaginary boogeymen who are impeding their progress and in doing so show that they are still the fringe group they always were.
I posted over at JR’s place, and neglected to post links to evidence of low climate sensitivity (as both Lindzen and Spencer have demonstrated)… Once I provided the evidence, the posts magically remained in moderation while about 30 others have passed. This post should speak for itself:
dhogaza Says: It’s good of you to say this, Even better, tell those who claim this blog “deletes all dissent” are full of it. Go visit RealClimate, post, and after say the same to those who claim RealClimate deletes all dissenting voices.
And, after that, ask if those who lie about supposed censorship here or elsewhere, are any more believable when it comes to science.
(and my response) Interesting… I’m criticized for not providing a link to evidence (understandable), then when I provide it, it won’t get posted. Is that not censorship? What are you afraid of, the truth? BTW, I am using my real name…
Well, 6 hours and dozens of echo chamber posts later, my evidence of low climate sensitivity and negative feedback will not post. Not a particularly surprising result, I had the same experience a while back posting peer reviewed science that was unappealing to the party line. We’ll see if dhogaza will live up to his commitment, or if the correct terminology is “deletes most dissent”.
Joe Romm, if your site doesn’t censor dissenting comments, where did mine go?
REPLY:I discovered from others who have tried and failed that he employs a link filter. The way to get around it is not to put the http:// at the beginning. You may still get zapped by human moderation, but at least the automatic link filter won’t nab you. Of course it is no longre a link when you remove the http:// but some people might make the effort to cut/paste it in their browser.
I don’t think dhogaza is a moderator. Just a pre-approved poster which a rant-on, he’s also not a climate scientist or meteorologist, simply a wildlife photographer who dabbles in SQL programming also. – Anthony
Climate Heretic (00:02:14) :
“We are being undermined by some secret cabal pouring money into disinformation campaigns and is controlled be faceless political groups and monolithic corporations oppressing all those around them…”
Not so secret…
“Citing the significant number of its staff and former staff that have been appointed to positions in the Obama Administration, Time magazine recently declared that there is “no group in Washington with more influence at this moment in history.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
“The Democracy Alliance is a donors collaborative established by a group of liberal political activists, labor unions and donors in the United States.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Alliance
Romm: “Breaking: NOAA puts out “El Niño Watch,” so record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record“.
So what?
Imagine that the global surface temperature stays flat for the rest of the 21st century then nobody would consider that alarming or catastrophic but it would falsify the AGW hypothesis, yet it would be the hottest century on record.
REPLY: Actually, it is not “Dr.” just plain old “Mr.” Watts, but thanks for thinking of me highly. – Anthony
Once AGW is no longer in vogue Anthony will be rewarded with a well deserved: Doctorate Honoris Causa
The following quotes seem relevant in view of the spat with Climate Progress.
They are excerpts from my personal compendium of quotes that could be related to the field of climate science;
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives L Tolstoy”
Albert Einstein said “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called
research.”
Nietzsche wrote: ” The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
“Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument. The heated mind resents the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of logic.” William E. Gladstone”
Max Planck said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
‘I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance — oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here. – Professor PZ Myers, University of Minnesota Morris’
Professor Myers and some others in the field obviously believe in;
“Splendide mendax
Glorious myths are those used for a good cause, i.e., splendide mendax (splendidly or gloriously false)”
Tonyb
Anthony says: The way to get around it is not to put the http:// at the beginning. . As far as I can tell, that’s not the culprit. Other posters are getting through with http:// links, and mine that have no links are still in moderation. My posts were polite, but offered evidence that undermine the magnitude of sensitivity (I quoted Lindzen’s recent presentation) and defeat the reason for any alarmism. I’ll give it another 24 hours for good measure. Facts are often difficult for some to accept, it takes an open mind and strong scientific foundation to discuss and openly explore evidence contrary to your beliefs… We’ll see what Joe’s foundation is made of.
Since the observed data indicate the absence of global warming “fires” – the real firemen are those arriving on scene and reporting to the public that it’s a false alarm. That fire brigade is now seven or eight hundred scientists and millions of healthy skeptics strong. And growing.
And yes, it is illegal to yell “fire” on a busy planet.
Romm: “Breaking: NOAA puts out “El Niño Watch,” so record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record“.
Remember those orange homeland security lights that they kept sticking up on the news? This whole media blitz reminds me of that. After awhile, it becomes the butt of everyone’s jokes.
Just like those lights, nothing ever happened.
It’s always some warning of impending fire & brimstone disaster that’s off in the distance.
Or it’s a place that “scientists” have examined that nobody can get to so as to have a look-see.
The rising ocean story is a real drag, man.
The weather is raining on the AGW Parade.
60 years, eh? 1949, the year follwoing my town got 6 feet of snow in January.
Keith Minto: You wrote, “I find these TAO/Triton cross-sectional images fascinating.”
Then you should enjoy the animation of the ECMWF equatorial cross sections. There is an animation of the 2007/08 La Nina produced by Carl Wolk of “Climate Change by Erl Happ and Carl Wolk” here:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/the-evolution-of-la-nina/
And after seeing Carl’s video, I put together two posts that included animations of the ECMWF equatorial cross sections for the three significant El Ninos of 1982/83, 1986/87/88, and 1997/98.
Part 1
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/cross-sectional-views-of-three.html
Part 2
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/cross-sectional-views-of-three_28.html