By Dr. Roger Pielke Senior
There is a weblog called “Skeptical Science – Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism” that has a misleading post on ocean heat content titled
Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
The post starts with
In 2008, climate change sceptic Roger Pielke Sr said this: “Global warming, as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content has not been occurring since 2004”. It is a fine example of denialist spin, making several extraordinary leaps:
•that one symptom is indicative of the state of an entire malaise (e.g. not being short of breath one day means your lung cancer is cured).
•that one can claim significance about a four year period when it’s too short to draw any kind of conclusion
•that global warming has not been occurring on the basis of ocean temperatures alone
So much for the hype. What does the science say about the temperature of the oceans – which, after all, constitute about 70% of the Earth’s surface? The oceans store approximately 80% of all the energy in the Earth’s climate, so ocean temperatures are a key indicator for global warming.
No straight lines
Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not. It is an illogical position: the climate is subject to a lot of natural variability, so the premise that changes should be ‘monotonic’ – temperatures rising in straight lines – ignores the fact that nature doesn’t work like that. This is why scientists normally discuss trends – 30 years or more – so that short term fluctuations can be seen as part of a greater pattern. (Other well-known cyclic phenomena like El Nino and La Nina play a part in these complex interactions).
The post starts by mislabeling me as a “climate change sceptic” and a “denialist”. Not only is this completely incorrect (as can be easily confirmed by reading our article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union),
but it sets the tone of their post as an ad hominem attack, rather than a discussion of the issue.
The author of this post documents in the figures that they present, that upper ocean heat, in terms of its annual average, did not accumulate during the period ~2004 through 2009. This means that global warming halted on this time period. There is no other way to spin this data.
The claim in the post (apparently written by Graham Wayne) Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended? that
“The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming”
is false (unless the author of this post has new data since 2009 which may show warming). The recent lack of warming (the data do not support a cooling, despite what the Skeptical Science weblog reports) does not prove or disprove whether global warming over a longer term has ended.
However, the ocean heat content provides the most appropriate metric to diagnosis global warming in recent (since ~2004 when the Argo network became sufficiently dense) and upcoming years, as recommended, of example, in
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
The author of the post on Skeptical Science continues to present misinformation in their Intermediate level post where it is stated
“Early estimates of ocean heat from the Argo showed a cooling bias due to pressure sensor issues. Recent estimates of ocean heat that take this bias into account show continued warming of the upper ocean. This is confirmed by independent estimates of ocean heat as well as more comprehensive measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres deep.”
This is an erroneous statement. There was not continued warming for the time period 2004 to 2009, as confirmed by Josh Willis in
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
Recently, Josh Willis reported that an updated analysis will be available this Fall.
What the Skeptical Science fails to recognize is that with respect to the diagnosis of global warming using Joules of heat accumulation in the oceans, snapshots of heat content at different times are all that is needed. There is no time lag in heating or cooling. The Joules are either there or they are not. The assessment of a long-term linear trend is not needed.
For example, if the ocean lost its heat in one or two years (such as from a major volcanic eruption), the global warming “clock” would be reset. The Skeptical Science statements that
“Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not.”
illustrates their lack of understanding of the physics. If ocean cooling does occur, it DOES mean global warming as stopped during that time period.
What would be useful is for the weblog Skeptical Science authors to discuss the value of using (and issues with using) the accumulation of Joules in the climate system as the primary metric to monitor global warming.
gneiss,
“scientists, who point out the large uncertainties and measurement questions surrounding ARGO-based estimates, and the evidence from many other sources showing that global warming has not halted.”
Funny how something that was initially billed as a way to measure OHC with “unprecedented accuracy” has now become fraught with uncertainties and questions because it no longer supports the prefered hypothesis. And funny too how the same sceptical sceptics continue to trumpet land based thermometers despite them having enough holes to sink a flotilla of Argo’s.
I must be missing something.
This post is actually a copy of a post from Pielke’s blog, from about a week ago. It has already been discussed very extensively (and interestingly) at skeptical science, including many posts by Pielke Sr.
SkepticalScience is a complete [snip] of a website. It is filled with more misinformation than almost any other website I’ve ever seen. Why even give it “credit” by acknowledging its existence?
Juraj V. says:
September 11, 2010 at 9:43 am
Useful post, especially the links on lea level. Agree totally on the warmist 30 year cherry picking.
Something I have wondered for a while – should not sea level – specifically rate of change of sea level – be an indicator of changes in OHC? So levelling off of sea level rise is confirmation of OHC decline.
“Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not.”
I think to the author, global warming is a process not just an outcome. It’s the only way that statement could have ever made sense to them. That way (in the author’s mind) the process can keep functioning without the observable result. The problem to my mind is why evidence of the outcome isn’t undermining his evidence of the process.
Or perhaps I’m trying to understand that which makes no sense in the first place.
Dave in Canmore,
“I think to the author, global warming is a process not just an outcome.”
Bingo!
And the outcome to which you allude, is that which is forecast to occur by computer models. Without such models there would be no difference between process and outcome, since the latter is just a projection from the past into the future.
The statement to which the article refers: that lack of increasing OHC does not mean global warming has stopped, is an oxymoron. Of course it has stopped, because the statement is a statement on process. A statement of outcome should have read: that lack of increasing OHC does not mean that global warming will not resume in the near future. That is what the culprit should have said. Dr. Pielke is quite right to pull him up about it.
@jim G
For one alternative to dark stuff w/ references, find on line; “Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy” pts 1 and 2 (pt 3 adds little new info) by Don Hotson. For me, a chemist, what he has pulled together in pt 1 makes sense (but that doesn’t mean it is correct or even going the right direction -it’s just my opinion). Pt 2 may be just numerology, … but I suspect not.
After studying Hotson’s report I came to realize that there is something seriously wrong w/ our understanding of physics today and the ever more complicated explanations for what we observe, w/string and brane theories and dark stuff falling into that catagory. (IMO – these theories are just mathematician’s mental masturbation, because what have observed is that Nature likes to keep things simple.)
Happy reading,
BC
Dr. Pielke, I admire both your courage to speak up and you integrity to make the calls as you see them.
Dr. Roger Pielke Senior,
First, thanks for your user friendly post. Please keep doing it.
You recommended discussion should continue on, ” . . . [edit] . . . the value of using (and issues with using) the accumulation of Joules in the climate system as the primary metric to monitor global warming.”
The measurement of the energy content of major earth subsystems (such as the oceans, land mass, ice caps and atmosphere) at appropriate time intervals is a concept with some merit worth futher consideration. The forcings that have been used appear to be the transitory effects of the processes, the energy flux as it were. Whereas the comparison of energy content values over time would show the results of the those processes, which is more to the point in climate discussions. Thanks for the ideas.
Anthony and mod team, thanks.
John
The above quote from Graham Waynes post shows their supposedly skeptical science is also shoddy science – several mistakes in 2-3 paragraphs:
The oceans store approximately 80% of all the energy in the Earth’s climate
Actually, no, its about 99.8%. This is if you assume:
– mean ocean depth 3800m
– oceans occupy 66% of earth surface
– heat capacity of water 4.2 (J/g.K)
– heat capacity of air 1.0 (J/g.K)
– water 784 times more dense than air
– atmosphere approximated as 10 km layer of air at 1 atmosphere (sea level pressure)
– air contains 1% water by mass (but still counted as “air” heat)
The atmosphere’s heat can almost be neglected. (The above does not include ice.)
This is why scientists normally discuss trends – 30 years or more – so that short term fluctuations can be seen as part of a greater pattern.
Wrong again, 30 years is a half cycle of the PDO/AMO and far too short a time frame for looking at climate oscillation. But it is a very good time-frame for cherry-picking data to support AGW.
For the sake of your children, you had better be right.
Otherwise the lot of you will be seen by history as blocking much needed action to mitigate climate change.
Jim G says:
September 11, 2010 at 8:33 am brings up an observation when searching on google. Google as a corporation is pro anhtropogenic global warming. Could there be some bias injected into thier search engine, aka wiki. Just wondering as I find it difficult to do a skeptic search and come up with results or is that just my bias as a skeptic. Just wondering.
isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse says:
“For the sake of your children…”
Ever heard of cost/benefit analysis?
I am amazed by the alarmist claim that 2010 is the warmest year on record. The year was only half over when that claim began appearing (probably made to support looming legislative efforts).
My calendar says it’s September. Can’t they wait until 2010 is history to claim victory (or defeat)?
Smokey
Sure
If the scientists are right the benefit is a planet that supports life, the cost is immense.
If you guys are right we’ve wasted a lot of money for nothing
Are you a gambler? Are you willing to gamble with your kids lives?
“For the sake of your children, you had better be right.”
I have only one child because I took the decision to minimise my future impact on our resources.
What about you, how many do you have?
isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse,
It doesn’t take a gambler to reject “what if…” scenarios. That fallacy is an argumentum ad ignorantium: because we don’t know all the factors involved in the planet’s fluctuating temperature, then of course temperature changes must be due to CO2??
First, show us convincingly that CO2 has ever caused runaway global warming. Then we can discuss this rationally. “For the children” is a purely emotional response.
isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse says:
September 11, 2010 at 11:06 am
For the sake of your children, you had better be right.
Otherwise the lot of you will be seen by history as blocking much needed action to mitigate climate change.
Could you please tell us by which means and in how this blog, or any of the peolple posting here, is “blocking much needed action”? And whilst you are about it: Do me a personal favour and explain in clear words – to make it easy for me to understand – just how one action which has been taken – CO2 taxation, certificate dealings – helps “to mitigate climate change”?
Take your time and read the posts in this blog – I´d highlight those of Curiousgeorge, John Wright, Joe Crawford, Juraj V. and Vince Causey – but the others are well worth you time, too. Then, take more time and think about it, and stop worrying about climate change. IF you really want something to worry about, try meteorites. Some just passed by and had only been discovered three days before their passage. Mabe we should rather build an international meteorite defense, instead of windmills?!
Finally, thank you Dr. Pielke sr. for your interesting article, and thanks too to all the participants and Mr. Watts. I have learned a lot since I follow WUWT!
@isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse
The same could be said about all the deniers of the “predictions” that form the basis of the nonsense movie 2012. If we’re wrong, there will be hell to pay. That doesn’t mean we should, therefore, concentrate all our resources preventing a “2012” outcome. AGW, as promoted by Mann, etc., seems only slightly more believeable than “2012”. But, since the consequences of any significant AGW are much much less than the consequences of a “2012” scenario, prudence would dictate we devote all of the world’s resources towards preventing a 2012 scenario and ignore AGW.
From Pielkes “A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system.”:
1. “The 2007 IPCC report estimated that global average total net anthropogenic radiative forcing in 2005 was 1.6 W/m2 with 0.12 from solar irradiance. This estimate
corresponds to a heat accumulation in the climate system of 2.8 x 10^22 joules per year.”
What they fail to recognize is that with radiative imbalance the surface will warm until balance is restored, so the accumulation will be nowhere near the stated value.
2. “Unlike temperature at some specific depth in the ocean or height in the atmosphere, where there is a time lag in its response to radiative forcing, no time lags are associated with heat changes, since the actual amount of heat present at any time is accounted for.”
This is an erroneous statement, only valid for the well mixed layer. It takes centuries to heat 3800 meters of water from the top.
Smokey
You don’t trust the science… and science is the evidence.
It’s like telling a creationist evolution is real… it can’t be done.
@isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse
For the sake of the children? Some of the most prominent orgainizations and people behind the AGW agenda appear to believe there are six billion too many people and surely have plans to deal with that issue.
If you care about children, you’re on the wrong side.
Isthere, etc.
You are being silly. The Earth could heat quite a bit and be even more hospitable to life than at present. It has done so in the past, and likely will do so in the future.
KW
isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse,
AGW proponents regularly trot out this line of arguments known as Pascal’s wager.
If you subscribe to the logic, which states according to Wikipedia:
So, if you subscribe to the logic in the video you cited and if you wish to be logically consistent you will go to church every Sunday for the rest of your life and constantly pray to be forgiven for your sins. Every AGW proponent who cites this video either goes to church every single Sunday or they don’t really believe the logic contained within.
isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse:
“Are you a gambler? Are you willing to gamble with your kids lives?”
Do you drive a car isthereintelligentlifeintheuniverse with your kids in it?
Because statistically that is the most likely accidental death of a child.