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
Lucy Skywalker (17:28:28) :
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
Joe Romm:
Climate Progress has never advocated or threatened violence against them. Climate Progress does not tolerate any such threats in its comments.
I notice Joe Romm has post edited one of my reply’s on CP. Here is the deleted part:
Gail:
“When is the liar Anthony Watts going to crawl out of his lair and apologize for the false claim that there were comments endorsing violence at CP?
Waiting…waiting…waiting”
I know revisionism is a trait of warmists, but this was only yesterday!
“these science haters exist for only one purpose…
They should be dealt with accordingly…. and will be.”
If this isn’t comment proposing/endorsing violence, why did Joe Romm feel the need to remove it after it was commented on?
And were you not the person who brought the spectre of capital punishment for non-conformists to the debate? You were careful not to openly endorse it, but your intention in raising the issue was clear. Killing people for their beliefs…. Think about it.
Dr. Watson – fictional Dr.
Dr. Watts’ Sun – reality.
BTW Sgts in the military hate getting unwarranted promotions. Never call one Sir. And if you do it by mistake – apologize.
(I will never snip anything directed at myself, no matter how objectionable.)
That is asking for trouble. Unless you call in a second opinion. 😉
Just been over to CP to do a bit of catching up. What a surreal experience.
Looking at the two most heavily commented posts. Who exactly is “dhogaza”? In the first post, of 172 comments 54 are from “dhogaza”. The second has 383 of which “dhogaza” is responsible for 91.
The frequency is also a little bizarre :
June 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm dhogaza Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm dhogaza Says:
So I believe I may have found the source of any problems regarding posts – “dhogaza” clogging up the junk filters.
I rename him “Tommy Gun Dhogaza”. On duty manning the trenches in the dead of night spraying anything that moves with a hail of bullets. Hitting his own men and Swiss citizens as often as not.
Like I say a surreal experience. Think I will stay here with the “Anti Science”.
It was only 2 years ago with the publication of the 2007 IPCC SPM that stated that natural oscillations in the atmosphere and oceans are secondary to the concentrations of GHGs. My how that seems eons ago. Now, everyone is waiting on pins and needles to see how strong and how long the next El Nino event will be.
Despite all the rhetoric of record temperatures, which decade is the warmest, etc… satellite sounding data from UAH and RSS have shown remarkably little change since 1979. We are about the same place we were in 1979, give or take one hundreth a degree C or so.
Following 60 year trends, we are entering a period that will be dominated by La Ninas. El Ninos will occur, but thier life span and intensity will be short and weak.
anna v. 20:23:00
You really encapsulate the problem in a nutshell. I think with the help of a cooling globe, which might just as well not have happened, that ongoing scientific arguments and data will quell the hysteria. At the very least, that is my hope. But much damage has already been done, though the future possible damages by this horrific policy error do entail damaged entrails of the whole world’s economies. What magnificent healing, to prevent the suicide, that might require is difficult for me to imagine.
========================================
Re: ‘Doctor’ Watts
The title ‘Dr.’ as referring to the bearer of a higher degree only came into common usage in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, when science became more a paying career rather than a hobby for the wealthy. Before that it was only in common usage by physicians. Surgeons pointedly call themselves ‘Mr.’ so as to distance themselves from the quack ‘Doctors’.
OR: perhaps more appropriately for AGW, from the Cambridge Online Dictionary:
doctor
verb [T]
to change (something) in order to deceive people
eg. ‘He claimed the photo had been doctored.’
As a working scientist for more than 20 years (without a PhD) I may be a little biased.
And not all El Ninos are equal -at least regionally. Following the 1976 El Nino (And Great Pacific Climate Shift), North America had 2 consecutuve very cold Autumns and Winters. Granted, the 1977 Summer was a scorcher for the Eastern Third of the US (Son of Sam Summer); it was followed by the infamous 1977-78 Winter that saw record cold and snow. The Blizzard of ’78 was a record for many cities. Both the 76-77 Winter and the 77-78 Winter were the coldest of the decade for North America.
Bill Illis and Bob Tisdale. Very interesting posts. Thanks. It does look as though ENSO is somewhat ” stuck”. fm
mkurbo (18:28:11) :
Wikipedia won’t let you even post any type of counter AGW material anymore. As soon as you post, they remove to archives for some foolish reason. It is so biased that one of the more agressive “editors” wrote me and said – why do even waste your time, you know we aren’t going to allow any debate ! Wow !!!
Which gives rise to the question, why give any credence to an information tool steeped in censorship? If it were a truly “open” information tool, it would not indulge in data bowdlerization. Rather, this is a propagandist tool that defeats its credibility with cognitive dissonance. More accurately, “wikopinionia.”
Bill and Bob,
Thanks to both of you for leading us to cross-sectional animations. I’d bet what has me and others confused about ENSO behavior the last 6-9 months lies therein.
Lucy Skywalker (17:28:28) :
Whoa – seems like mounting warfare. Climate Progress’ new post:
Reply by Anthony:
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
To which I respond, perhaps pushing the envelope:
Grrrrrrrrrr!!!
Burger King knows more about the climate than Joe Romm: click
As the dust settles from the recent discussions at Romm’s blog, he now settles back into his former mediocrity. No wonder he thinks that insults and veiled threats are the way to go… that’s the only way he can get his “hits” up, temporarily…
Back to sanity,
Mike
I find it interesting that so much “official science” confuses cause and effect. For climate, CO2 is thought to be the cause and temperature the effect. In the medical field, Cholesterol is thought to be the cause and inflammatory processes the effect. In all cases significant money flows are generated by trying to control the effects, with the beneficiaries essentially controlling the political process to lock in their cash flow. The mainstream media no longer investigates but promotes the elitist’s agenda. Thank you Anthony for providing a forum for truth.
First post here.
I have also posted on Joe Romms blog. Also on other AGW blogs.
I think I have found a simple litmus test to find out if these people are truly worried about AGW, or if it is just a front for an increase in elitist control. Or a front for increased use of natural gas.
Just ask them about their opinion about nuclear power.
If they are against it, like Joe Romm, then their alarmist stance cannot be real, only a front.
Because, if AGW and the predicted consequences were true, then the rather insignificant risks posed by nuclear power should be acceptable.
It is after all, the largest CO2-free energy producer.
Anna V, You miss my point. Let me state it as a general rule: It is absurd to claim that a prediction of a future happening is wrong because the predicted event has not happened yet.
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…”
Continuing my earlier response:
“Groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), MoveOn, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) are part of a growing coalition of social welfare, labor, religious, and healthcare organizations joining forces with the traditional environmental lobby.”
Read the rest at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6146
Just ask Nostradamus, right? Eventually something will come along that resembles the “prediction”.