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
Ah, yes. Baghdad Bob. His press conferences provided the only truly comic moments of the Iraq War.
While the Team is not yet backed into so cramped a corner as poor Bob was finally, it is also true that the infidels are at the gates.
This whole is becoming like the Reformation and Renaissance eras. AGW is the Catholic Church and the “Deniers” are more like Luther and Galileo-one for doctrine one for science, and the one who shouts:”Lo! there!” i.e. Hansen, or Gore,-although, giving the
Devil his due, Hansen is a trained scientist-Gore is a failed divinity student-is the one in whom the News Media breathlessly listens.
What is Copernicus had to deal with, say the Modern media? or Galileo? “I can see
the popular media piling on Copernicus for his denial of “settled science” concerning the
Ptolemaic Universe…
I won’t even go into either Galileo or Luther…
All Right, then, we have the real Information Officer for the Climate Models pictured top of the page.
The “Mother of all Models” says it all.
Shock & Guffaw.
An apropos partial quote from The Skeptic’s Guide 5×5 podcast #69:
“…science is based upon testing ideas against reality.”
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
First, what an astounding resource you have made, Anthony. Like many of the readers of WUWT, I am not a scientist, and being able to gradually get a handle on the facts and fictions surrounding the climate ‘issue’ has been an enormous help in resisting the angst-ridden rhetoric of the alarmist fraternity. I am particularly happy my close family has been able to see through it. I have a twelve-year-old who might have been vulnerable to the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ style of polemic. Credit goes to you and your associates.
The (other) point I want to make concerns comments, and their moderation.
Now, I swear fairly regularly. And ad hominem flaming has it’s place on many blogs. But in any discussion about factual matters the end result is almost always more heat than light.
In the search for the facts on climate (or anything else?) the presence of consideration, humour and old fashioned manners is hugely important, and the rigorous insistence on courtesy displayed by WUWT (and others- Steve Macintyre at Climate Audit, eg) is crucial to the whole debate.
And over the last couple of years, I have found the aforementioned characteristics to be far more in evidence in the posted comments of the ‘sceptics’ (realists!) than those of the alarmists. And that really helps to win the argument, or to introduce the alternative view.
Nobody likes to be yelled at when they’re trying to understand something.
(How English, to use so many words to say ‘thanks’)
The oppression is starting; they are creating a “Carbon Police” in the UK:
“Decked out in green jackets, the enforcers will be able to demand access to company property, view power meters, call up electricity and gas bills and examine carbon-trading records for an estimated 6,000 British businesses. Ed Mitchell, head of business performance and regulation at the Environment Agency, said the squad would help to bring emissions under control. “Climate change and CO2 are the world’s biggest issues right now. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is one of the ways in which Britain is responding.” ”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece
I am not going to hold my breath waiting for the retractions/corrections.
Sometimes I learn more from opponents than I do from supporters. But it’s a funny process. Because they make me feel physically sick, I can only take RC in small doses at large intervals, and usually only when a warmist insists I need to read RC x…. to know “the truth”. Well I follow Great Spirit in this, to the best of my humble ability, and invariably RC comes up trumps… with a classic boo-boo (I can now say, bubkes) or they provide me with a trail to a piece of information I needed, either to understand interesting elements of science, politics, or psychology better, or to scotch them further, or both.
oh, BTW, Pierre G, congrats to your daughter.
Re Pierre Gosselin (09:05:17) – I would like to see the presentation uploaded. Good work!
Douglas DC (09:30:24) :
This whole is becoming like the Reformation and Renaissance eras. AGW is the Catholic Church and the “Deniers” are more like Luther and Galileo-one for doctrine one for science, …
Your analogy is excellent, and even extends to the sale of indulgences (i.e. carbon credits) to finance extravegant lifestyles (somebody’s 24,000 sf mansion).
Kathy:
The “Green Gastapo” has arrived!! You didn’t think the government was going to take your word for how much energy you used, and how green or non-green it was.
Now we have the perfect excuse for the government to pick winners and losers, and reward friends and punish opposition.
The “Green Utopia” has finally arrived. If you feel a boot on your neck, remember it is for your own good.
Climate was never the issue except as a means to Power and Control.
Douglas DC (09:30:24) :
“This whole is becoming like the Reformation and Renaissance eras. AGW is the Catholic Church and the “Deniers” are more like Luther and Galileo-one for doctrine one for science…”
Actually, Luther was far more fundamentalist and much less sophisticated than the Catholic Church, where it came to astronomical discoveries. According to historian Daniel J. Boorstein (The Discoverers) Luther called Copernicus “An upstart astrologer,” and went on to say, “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy, but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
I’m afraid you’ve put Luther in the wrong camp. He would have been right at home on RC.
Did I say something unacceptable? Is this a Lutheran website? 😉
Reply: Apparently the spam filter has some denominational leanings ~ ctm
Let me try again.
Douglas DC — “This whole is becoming like the Reformation and Renaissance eras. AGW is the Catholic Church and the “Deniers” are more like Luther and Galileo-one for doctrine one for science, …”
Actually Luther was far more fundamentalist and much less sophisticated than the Catholic Church, whose universities allowed Copernicus’ “De Revolutionibus” to be read in class. According to historian Daniel J. Boorstein (The Discoverers), Luther dismissed Copernicus as “An upstart astrologer,” and went on the say, “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
It seems Luther would have been right at home at RC.
Thanks much. Please disregard my second attempt.
We are being bamboozled by science which likes to have a nice graph to explain everything, unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that. Global sea levels are -like global temperatures-a nonsensical artefact dreamt up in a computer laboratory.
The latest IPCC assessment confirms sea level calculations from 1993 are by satellite and are linked to in ‘more bubkes’ in Pielkes firsat paragraph.
The sea level calculations rely on an enormous number of variable factors including pressure, location, warmth of oceans, structures, storms, wave heights, surges, stasis, location of the gauge/sensor, slope of the underlying strata etc. The accuracy of measurements is said to be 3cm (10 times the level of the alleged annual rise) but in reality is far vaguer than that because of the inherent difficulties of measuring. Observed sea levels generally simply do not show the rate of increase suggested (although this varies enormously from place to place for reasons cited above
Both the following two sites give a good description of the process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be resolved.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html
The following sites deals with problems of satellite accuracy and data;
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859
This with reliability;
http://lightblueline.org/satellite-tracking-sea-levels-set-launch
The UK Environment Agency -where possible like to use physical tide gauges as well as satellites when developing flood defence schemes, which are visually observed or can send data electronically. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats and who know what is really happening.
Modern Sea level rises -where happening- are not being seen in context as yet another of those regular cycles that stretch back much further than the satellite records into the depths of recorded time.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation- and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP. (This won’t stop them reacting to the IPCC by raising sea defences)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
We have much observational evidence of historic sea levels (p162 on-including a map in the following link)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0Nucx3udvnoC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=romans+in+iceland&source=bl&ots=5k8qGn7VK4&sig=s4aeHlT8Tivz8rVwcHFRVFZjDp0&hl=en&ei=38FJSr2pKpe7jAfu2rRi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
Ancient Greek explorer Pytheas travelled to Iceland and not only discovered the frozen seas lying one days journey beyond, but was the first to quantify the moons action as being responsible for tides, and took physical measurements of heights. Sea level heights are generally said to be lower today than back in the Roman warm period and Mwp.
Sea castles in the UK built in the 11th century are now above the sea level entrances which ships used to re-supply them.
This links leads to a 1913 book on Harlech castle-one such building which is now high and dry-nothing to do with stasis or deposition, but that sea levels are lower now than when it was built 1000 years ago. Suggest readers select the b/w pdf
http://www.archive.org/details/merionethshire00morr
Extract
“In 1409 an attack was made upon Harlech, led by Gilbert and John Talbot for
the King; the besiegers comprised one thousand well armed soldiers and a big siege train. The besieged were in the advantageous situation of being able to receive their necessary supplies from the sea, for the waves of
Cardigan Bay at that time washed the base of the rock upon which the castle stands. Greater vigilance on the part of the attacking force stopped this and the castle was surrendered in the spring of the year.
A remarkable feature of the castle is a covered staircase cut out of the rock, defended on the seaward side by a looped parapet, and closed above and below by small gatehouses. This was the water-gate of the fortress,
and opened upon a small quay below.”
The following pictures show the current location of the sea.
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/morfaharlech.jpg
sea in far distance from Harlech castle
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/harlech.jpg
and this
http://www.buildmodelcastles.com/html/castle_history.html
very good item about Harlech
http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/Castles/Harlech_Castle.htm
Sea levels AND temperatures were higher in the MWP and the Roman warm periods and presumably other extended warm periods.
The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’ Google ‘The greatest lie ever told’
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1 mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973,2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).”
I am inclined to agree with Professor Morner that sea level is not really doing very much generally (with exceptions either way in some places)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
The above link dissects the data and states that a rise by 2100 of 5cm is possible…. plus or minus 15cm!
Morner stresses (as I do) that observational data contradicts the theoretical interpolated and massaged data that is used by the IPCC.
John Daly also had a good handle on all this.
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
The sea level is not rising at the rate suggested-indeed it has stumbled or dropped in recent years according to many local gauges (what is global sea level supposed to mean with a million kilometres of coastline-it is meaningless)
To reach a 1 metre increase by 2100 means an average of nearly 11mm a year (only 91 years remaining). There is simply no evidence to show this is happening.
We must stop looking at just a few years of data as ‘proof’ of rising levels , and instead view things in a historic context, whilst retaining a great deal of scepticism at the notion you can create a highly accurate global figure in the first place.
Tonyb
Smokey (07:13:29) :
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.)
Thank you for this revealing page of M.S.S. quotes. We hope however that you take exception to this:
“Britain, is not worth an old shoe.”
Certainly two old shoes would be more just.
The U of Colorado sea level graphs show periods of climb, then level offs. ’93 to ’97 was a level, then a climb to the level off ’98 to 2000. I did an eyeball on the 2005 to present last month and guessed around 2.7 mm/yr. I would expect it to start climbing again in a year or so.
A very rough average since the last ice age would be about 10 mm/yr, with the decline to the modern rate around seven thousand years ago. What we’re getting may be the top of the curve before the interglacial ends.
Mike (Lutheran)
They might be, if you measure in very specific areas. There is no meaningful metric called “global seal levels”, just as there is no meaningful metric called “global temperature anomaly” or “global temperature” or “global climate”.
TonyB (13:01:22),
Good post, as always. It would be interesting hearing a true believer’s explanation of the observed fact that a castle’s sea level gate is now well above sea level. Warming is still hiding in the pipeline, maybe?
The AGW contingent, having to deal with the fact that the sea level is not rising any more now than it has in the pre-industrial era, has taken the easy way out of their conundrum, and they now simply lie about it: a study in the AAAS journal Science claims that by the end of this century temperatures could be comparable to those 130,000 years ago, when global sea levels were about 20 feet higher.
Well, maybe ‘lie about it’ is a bit harsh. But when the models don’t match the observations… it is the models that are wrong.
Entirely too much credence has been placed in always-inaccurate computer models, and not nearly enough has been placed in verifiable, real world observations.
For reference, on this side of the pond, Baghdad Bob was known as Comical Ali.
I would like to put forward once again the idea of a shadow RC blog. Basically borrow their posting, copy all their comments over, but allow skeptical comments through.
Some of the puritans might come to visit.
Shane
So whatever happened to Baghdad Bob? Was he on the deck of cards?
I actually met ‘comical Ali’s’ boss-Sadaam Hussein- in Baghdad in the mid 70’s.
An interesting guy even then, and I followed his subsequent ‘career’ with interest. I also met the Shah of Iran around the same time. It is my experience that Dictators (or those with unchallenged power) tend to surround themselves with sycophants and only hear what they want to hear.
Nothing is allowed to disturb their version of the world.
Leaving aside the homicidal tendencies of course, the core attitude is one that seems prevalent to those with a closed mind and who steadfastly believe they can’t be wrong on such things as AGW.
Tonyb