Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation
Over at Real Climate, quite a few of the comments that they post continue to incorrectly interpret the observed behavior of the global average upper ocean heat content changes and sea level rise over the last 5 years (see the misinformation in the comments on the Real Climate weblog More bubkes).
The authors of Real Climate, unfortunately, are permitting this erroneous information (and personal insults) to be posted without their comments and correction. Apparently, the balance provided by Gavin Schmidt that I reported on in my weblog Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science Issues was just a fluke.
In this weblog, I will correct two of the major errors made in a number of the comments on the Real Climate website.
One of the commentators on Real Climate list three papers that purportedly refute the finding of no recent upper ocean warming and that the sea level rise has flattened since 2006 . These papers are
Levitus S. et al. (2009) Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608
Cazenave A. et al. (2009) Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo Glob. Planet. Change 65, 83-88
Leuliette E.W. and Miller L. (2009) Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE Geophys Res. Lett. 36, art # L0406
I have already weblogged on two of these papers:
This paper includes the text
“From the results presented in this study, we see that confronting independent estimates of ocean and land contributions to sea level with altimetry results leads to a rather coherent picture for recent years variations. This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/-0.4 mm/yr) somewhat reduced compared to the 1993-2003 decade (3.1+/-0.4 mm/yr). “
“The steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003-2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).”
This paper supports both conclusions in my recent weblogs (see and see) that the sea level rise has flattened and that the upper ocean heat content changes have been essentially flat since 2004.
On the Levitus et al paper, I weblogged on this in
Even a causal view of the Levitus et al figure, which is reproduced in my weblog, shows that upper ocean heat content has been flat in their data for the last 4 years. The large rise just before than is suspicious (as I am told by colleagues working of this subject), and, moreover, is not consistent with the sea surface temperature trends for this time period (see the GISS data on the ocean surface temperature trends at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif). Thus even the group that Gavin Schmidt works for (GISS) presents data with no sharp spike that is at all consistent with the Levitus et al analysis and, moreover, the GISS analysis shows that the global average sea surface temperature has been essentially flat since 2002!
All of these analyses are consistent with no significant heating in the upper ocean and a flattening of sea level rise, and even more clearly, that these climate metrics are not “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”.
Real Climate has it backwards; these climate metrics are changing less than was expected a few years ago!
The Leuliette et al paper states
“An analysis of the steric and ocean mass components of sea level shows that the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 can be closed…….we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/a over the period.”
This finding is not flat, but it is not still does not support the claim by Real Climate that this climate metric “is progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”. In fact, this rate of sea level rise is even less than reported in Cazenave et al 2009!
Here is what I propose to Real Climate in an attempt to move to a constructive dialog. I request that they answer these questions:
1. Using the upper ocean heat data from 2004 to the present, what is the Real Climate best estimate of the accumulation of heat in Joules?
2. Using that value of heat accumulation, what is the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance over the time period? How does this compare with Jim Hansen’s value of an imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 for the end of the 1990s?
These are well defined scientific questions. If Real Climate provides clear answers to them, we have moved forward to a more constructive scientific debate. I will keep you posted.
<!– –>« Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science Issues
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have posted to a couple of the pro-AGW sites. They don’t let my posts see the light of day.
I have the same comment as the “talking point” thread. I expect a full and complete retalliation on RC. They absolutely go bananas when you call their bluff with actual hard data and facts…
“These are well defined scientific questions”
Which is why you are not going to get a straight answer.
RealClimate, as usual, will hide out from answering any tough questions like those in the article. But kudos for that great pic of the Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (M.S.S.) — who was invariably so completely wrong [click] that he morphed into campy entertainment [“I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad”]. I recall the Iraqi I.M. stating on-camera that the U.S.-led invasion was propaganda, and that it was not happening — just as the coalition tanks were rolling into Bagdad.
[That’s not a pic of Gavin in a beanie, is it?]
Roger,
It would surprise me if you got a sensible discussion of these issues at Real Climate. They tend to move on to another topic when pressed to explain in detail.
Rob R
When the science is against you …
The real question is — How much will CO2 go down per triilion in new taxes?
Optional extra credit — How do taxes make the CO2 go down? Or the temperature for that matter.
OT, but I was wondering if anybody has compiled a massive study of the effects on the environment by building Water Dams? Have seen a couple of articles that say dam building contributes to “Climate Change”. I have remember watching a documentary of small city (I forget wich country on the Euro/Asia Continent) that fishing was a major part of the economy but after decades of their government and others redirecting and damming the rivers that fed the HUGE lake they once fished in turn it into a small pond that it’s only hope of ever gaining in volume again is either by rain that never comes or by restoring the natural path of the rivers. At the time of the documentary the locals said they never used to get sand storms and the city used be very green(plant life). I think this particular “human influence on climate” is far greater than producing a little extra carbon. Here is a link that talks about from a global warming standpoint it also does not mention redirection in this case. But I do know there are situations in which this occurs, reeking havoc on the local environments of the populations that used to be down stream.
I apologize for getting off topic, but it something I just thought of. I will keep digging for more info on my, but just wondered if that had been covered here before or not?
LOL at your graphic – Gavin Schmidt = Baghdad Bob!
It is now painfully clear that Real Climate is a propaganda outlet that exists only to promulgate lies, lies which are intended only to serve the personal and political goals of an outrageously mendacious pack of liars.
Tariq Aziz! I wonder what happened to him.
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Hydro-Contributes-to-Global-Warming.htm
Oops here is the site. Not exactly what I was talking about, but it does touch on the subject.
Science is supposed to be concerned about precision. I applaud Dr. Pielke for his sharp eye in noticing the details and contradictions. He is an example for anyone. Scientists are not supposed to be sheep.
This is why I tend to stay away from RC, not only because they do stuff like this, but because of all the Ad Hominem, and personal attacks that sometimes occur there. RC is not the only ones that do it.
Kudos on trying to keep them on their toes. Even if they do not allow “real” (pun intended) facts that are not slanted in their favour to be debated.
Litigators have a maxim: If the law is on your side, argue the law; If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts support your case, pound your shoe on the table while yelling loudly to try to intimidate your opponent. I think we know where RC is on this one.
Real Climate will not answer these questions honestly at all. They have circled the wagons on Rahmstorf’s graph in the Copenhagen report, even though Steve McIntyre, with the assistance of Jean S and others have demonstrated mathematically and irrefutably that he had his thumb on the scales. The “team’ are without ethics or principles, and should make honest scientists vomit.
This is an opportunity to “record” these exchanges which may be relevant in the future when the lawyers are called in take note….
This is quite an interesting phenomena. Also in Belgium and The Netherlands AGW sites do sometimes refuse to place comments from “skeptists”. Worser though, some do consider a link to WUWT as dealing with the devil.
On the other hand these AGW guys do like sites like Climatedenial.org very much. Try to read one of the contributions of George Marshall.
I am almost starting to believe that the climate issue is not the issue anymore
Dr. Pileke is a man of great integrity. We are fortunate that he has devoted his life to excercising that integrity. Climate science can be greatly improved by the broad application of the integrity and strong analytical skills Dr. Pielke exemplifies so well.
Lex,
AGW, as opposed to climate science, ahs always been a social movement. AGW only uses climate science to accomplish its social goals.
“I am almost starting to believe that the climate issue is not the issue anymore”
Ding! The light bulb is going on!!!
Climate was NEVER the issue. Control of resources and revenue was always the issue. It is the only issue.
That is why the actual science is irrelevant – useful if it supports the agenda, but something to be buried if it doesn’t.
OT: 5 Climate Studies That Don’t Live Up to Their Hype
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4323558.html
——
Only 5, Gavin?
I have always chuckled at the notion of a bunch of climate modelers naming their site *Real Climate!* Do you think those guys have an over-inflated view on the quality of their work?
There was a thread on this under Bubte 2 on wuwt which did lead to some confusion. I have already seen the Cazanave paper (thanks to Roger’s web) and it clearly states (as has been shown above) that ocean levels are rising more slowly than was reported in AR4. I could not reconcile this with the copenhagen report which warmists are waving under everyones noses, which is saying what seems to be the opposite. That is, sea levels are rising faster, or at the upper end of previous estimates. Fortunately, a warmist happened to be among the bloggers, and may have resolved the conflict. He rebuked everyone for their ignorance and explained that the copenhagen report clearly refers to the estimates made in 1990, not 2007. So, has the mystery now been solved? The plot thickens.
BTW, and OT, I see Krugman has jumped onboard the warmist waggon by calling traitors, any representative who voted against Waxman-Markey. Unsurprisingly, he was published by curtousy of NYT. Hasn’t anyone pointed out that Krugman’s an Economist not a climate scientist or does that only work the other way?
Why even respond to these people, who time and again have proven themselves to be nothing more than science crackpots driven by a let’s-regulate-the-masses agenda?
My daughter made a presentation in her class awhile back and in just 15 minutes she was able to convince the entire class and the teacher! that AGW is nothing more than a lot of hot air driven by special interest.
REPLY: They hold the media attention, that’s why. – Anthony
Lex (08:10:43) :
I am almost starting to believe that the climate issue is not the issue anymore
The science is settled, so of course its no longer an issue, its time to act. Time to impose taxes beyond believe wich wil make the raid by Iraqi forces on the vaults of kuwait during the 2nd Gulf War (Iraq v.s. Iran in the eighties is the first in my book) like stealing from a cookie-jar.
On Sahaf and the others, the best moment in the third Gulf War when two high ranking Iraqi officers (and a very nervous adjudant pointing various locations on a map) where explaning on Live on TV that the glorious armies of Iraq where driving the Capitalist infidels whatever back into the Gulf. All this while bombs rained down around the building shattering the windows and ripping the curtains to threads.
That’s right – only 15 minutes!
I.e. about same amount of time it took Lindzen, Crichton and Stott to cream Gavin and his muppets on NPR radio.
[snip – feel free to resubmit worded differently. – Anthony]