Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”. They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week.
Real Climate writes
“So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years – because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.
More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ;
1. “rising sea levels”
NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.
Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.
2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”
NOT TRUE; see
Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.
Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.
3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”
NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.
These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.
Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Terry: “Have the predictions matched the observations?”
As noted in the article above, the quote from Real Climate includes the comment: “Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago…”
This comment is in reference to the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress, which shows that observations of some metrics, including sea levels, have progressed faster than model projections.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf
Where Roger Pielke is mistaken is in assuming that Real Climate is referring to the past few years, when they, and the Synthesis Report, are referring to longer periods. Hence, Real Climate has more accurately portrayed the contents of the report than has Pielke.
The link I use for sea level rise is from Colorado but only has one new record in 2009. Is there a more current source anyone can suggest?
I use…
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt
Thanks for any help.
Brendan H (04:07:51) : Anyone is welcomed to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems Roger Pielke and the Copenhagen report authors might be talking past each other. The CR authors are comparing a long term trend to model predictions. Roger Pielke is pointing out that in the last few years, some climate metrics have “levelled” off. The CR people claim that the last few years is too short a period to be relied upon as a trend.
I would have to side with Roger Pielke since the RC people have not posited a cause for metrics like temperature, sea level, and sea ice extent to level off or even change direction. If their models are correct, where do we see them reflecting this change, even if just a matter of a few, or 10, years.
Earlier in the thread I noted the NSIDC has changed the 1979-2000 average sea ice extent line in their most recent chart verses last year’s version.
A poster named foxfire on another board built a blink comparator animated GIF of the change and I guess the difference is less than I originally thought and it could be explained by the switch from the F13 satellite to the F17 satellite.
http://i40.tinypic.com/1zqgie9.gif
Of course I get the concept of limiting the making of charges, BUT
Part of this thread demonstrates a big part of the problem.
It has come to be that an accurate description of what Gavin and the Team are doing is out of line. How convenient for the perpetrators.
So a softer imaginary substitute must be used to convey what is happening.
IMO the egregious behavior of Gavin et al demands an agressive counter attack with an accurate portrayal of their “work”.
The severity of the Team’s lack of integrity knows no bounds. As we approach the adoption and implementation of horrific public policies we are told to behave as if the policies are civil and the accurate criticizing lables are misbehavior?
IMO we need only stop short of violence in stopping the Team’s assualt on our citizenry, economy and country.
In effect we are in a civil war with only the AGW side fully engaged.
Tenuc (02:43:08) :
Dennis is always a good smile:
http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2009/06/global-warming-humor-from-dennis-miller.html
Tenuc (02:43:08) :
“They’ve discovered gold in hell… or how the lie of global warming became the most powerful political force in human history,” June 23, 2009
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/category/humour/
mod. clip if too OT
John H. – I got the same treatment this week at RC. Seems my posts on using Fourier convolution to long term data was a bit much for them. That’s OK, I have more time to write our 2 Senators.
“When will this end ? How much more Bubkes (Goat dropping) must the world endure from RC ?
If Gavin keeps this up he will become known as Gavin “Goat-Schmidt””
Possibly omitting the “m”.
You know, Anthony, they want to try us ‘anonymous cowards’ for treason against the planet. I’ve spent a lot of time on adversarial boards, and I’ve been subjected to enough threats that I cheerfully don the ‘anonymous coward’ label.
Here’s lookin’ at you, Oh Brave Soul.
======================
I have extended Pielke’s analysis to the full period, it’s amazing how while most of the period was ‘Flat’ the sea level still managed to grow by ~50mm.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/pielke_slr.gif
REPLY: ah more snark from Princeton’s leading intellectual coward. Can’t meet Pielke on equal terms eh? – Anthony
Phil, that’s a good point: it is hard to demonstrate a trend in a small subset of the total data se, simply because noise will overwhelm signal.
But on the same line of thinking, it makes it hard to say that the rate in seal level rise is INCREASING though, doesn’t it? Hm?
Phil. (13:04:35) : It looks like the latest is the most prolonged such period…and it certainly seems, er, interesting that sea level doesn’t so much rise steadily as “jump” suddenly now and then….
Phil. (13:04:35) :
I have extended Pielke’s analysis to the full period, it’s amazing how while most of the period was ‘Flat’ the sea level still managed to grow by ~50mm.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/pielke_slr.gif
REPLY: ah more snark from Princeton’s leading intellectual coward. Can’t meet Pielke on equal terms eh? – Anthony
Not that difficult based on that graph! Not exactly snark showing the weakness of his point, of course Pielke snr doesn’t allow comments on his blog, how would you characterize that?
By the way when are you going to keep your word and eliminate the accusations of fraud that I complained about. When I made an assertion of plagiarism you snipped it immediately and banned me for a day. The statement I complained about is still present and the poster wasn’t banned for a day. We even have a post from one of the moderators saying that they don’t take accusations against RC seriously!
jeez (15:25:07) :
Phil.
Since a few on the moderation team, including Anthony himself have been subject to Gavin et al’s selective censorship and post editing, I think you’ll find there may be a bit of tolerance for those who also report it.
REPLY: I edited the comment when you mentioned it last, unless there’s another one you are are speaking of? Happy to delete it if you’ll point out. Point out any comments that I and moderators have missed.
As I’ve said before, you get held to a higher standard as an academic than just the average Joe spouting off. The type of behavior you exhibit here would not be tolerated in scientific journals, departmental reviews, seminars, etc. If you want to accuse another person of similar stature in the scientific and professional community of plagiasim, I expect you to put your name on it, just as your department head would. Plagiarism in professional circles is a serious charge and I won’t let you make it here without putting your name to it.
This blog is by no means perfect, and by virtue of the volume of comments I don’t get to inspect every single one so occasionally some slip through. Compared to many other blogs WUWT is fairly free of such stuff. Witness Climate Progress for example where comments such as “strangling skeptics in their beds” and one from dhoghaza about “trying out sarin gas experiments” on oneself get though regularly.
Those kind of people get the boot here. That includes both sides of the aisle. I’ve had a few on the WUWT side that have been booted, for example Adolpha Giurfa who was warned more than once to stop using the Nazi comparisons. He persisted, he’s gone now. There are some others that are skeptics that are no longer welcome. You probably don’t note those since they don’t concern you. I often send a direct email saying “sayonara” which you aren’t privy too.
You’ve gotten two warnings from me now not to charge professionals with damaging accusations without putting your name on it. There won’t be a third. You often have insightful comments, try to keep that up and lose the dark side.
If the policies here don’ suit you, then don’t visit.
– Anthony
Phil.
It’s not that we don’t take accusations against RC seriously, it’s that we have personally experienced that they have credibility.
If person x lies to me, then person y tells me x lied to them as well, I am inclined to believe person y’s description of the event.
Your point is?
And by the way, not one of the regions you defined as flat in your attempt to contradict Pielke appear to be actually be flat.
jeez (13:55:48) :
Phil.
It’s not that we don’t take accusations against RC seriously, it’s that we have personally experienced that they have credibility.
If person x lies to me, then person y tells me x lied to them as well, I am inclined to believe person y’s description of the event.
Your point is?
That accusations of fraud and plagiarism on here are treated differently depending on who is being accused and despite Anthony’s promise to me that the posts accusing fraud would be dealt with, 24 hours later they’re still here. My recent post addressing this, which you’ve obviously seen based on your comment has mysteriously disappeared.
jeez (14:05:39) :
And by the way, not one of the regions you defined as flat in your attempt to contradict Pielke appear to be actually be flat.
Neither was the one chosen by Pielke, that’s the point, they are certainly comparable with his choice. He chose the ‘statistic’ not I. It amounts to saying that a staircase is flat because the treads are all flat!
HiHo:
It doesn’t make it at all difficult if you look over a long enough period. If you look over too short a period where the noise overwhelms the signal, then yes, it makes it difficult. However, there is a very simple solution to this: Don’t look over too short a period! That is one of the major points re-iterated over and over again in the latest RealClimate post responding to Roger Pielke Sr.: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=692
Phil.
I haven’t followed all the back and forth between you and Anthony on all this.
I’ve stated my opinions on the subject, that is all.
I’m leaving your latest post embargoed until Anthony decides what to do.
REPLY: I edited the comment when you mentioned it last, unless there’s another one you are are speaking of? Happy to delete it if you’ll point out. Point out any comments that I and moderators have missed.
I pointed it out yesterday and it’s still there, including your comment to the originator(John H (08:09:56)) a few lines below encouraging him to keep screen shots, how you missed it I don’t know? I also pointed out yesterday that it’s rather pointless my pointing out an accusation if you leave my report of it on the board! Does he get a 24hr time out?
REPLY: Yes I sure did miss that, I was focusing on my reply. Fixed now. You got a 24 hour time out because you’ve been warned before. Again if you don’t like the policies here, nobody is forcing you to keep posting comments. – Anthony
Joel 14 26 23
I agree with you that we should not look at short term sea level records.
Way back on 01 30 44 I posted up a pile of links showing sea levels back to the MWP. Levels rise and fall and currently they are doing very little-certainly not enough to warrant scaring everyone to death.
I also think that because of the complexity of taking sea level measurements the idea of a single global one is as bizarre as a single global temperature. It would help everyone if the satellites were more accurate than they currently are.
Tonyb
It would help everyone if the satellites were more accurate than they currently are.
3 cm out of some 200,000,000,000 is not too shabby. If you believe it.
Jim: “…it seems Roger Pielke and the Copenhagen report authors might be talking past each other.”
That might be the case if Pielke had not referred to the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress and quoted RC: “So what does it say?” The “it” in this case obviously refers to the report, which contains the claim that observations have outstripped projections for some aspects of climate.
As for the “few years”, the reference is to the fourth IPCC report.
“I would have to side with Roger Pielke since the RC people have not posited a cause for metrics like temperature, sea level, and sea ice extent to level off or even change direction.”
But that’s not the issue. The issue is the accuracy of Pielke’s claims.
M simon
It is shabby when the measurement of change being promoted is 3.2mm and the error is 3cm. In reality the error marghin is much greater than that as measuring to the top of a constantly moving target is problematic.
Tonyb
jeez (14:05:39) :
“And by the way, not one of the regions you defined as flat in your attempt to contradict Pielke appear to be actually be flat.”
But neither is the segment Pielke chose! That’s the whole point, something I mentioned above too. Calling a 2-3 year segment of a noisy data set as “flat” is ludicrous. I could cherry pick many different segments from that sea level data add a trend line and get it to be “flat” but its not meaningful at all.
Benjamin P.
You and Phil. are very amusing when you refuse to see the obvious.
Ok, the trend during the period Pielke identified was flat or negative, short as it was. The trends on the shorter periods marked by Phil. were positive.
The problem is, when realclimatescientists are screaming “it’s worse than we thought just a year ago”, and the data shows it’s not worse than it was a year ago, then trends of three years become worthy of note.
Really, is that so hard to understand? Was that not the point of Pielke’s article/post?