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.
“The lack of increase in ocean heat content says that there has been no radiative imbalance”
I should have written assumed radiative imbalance to make my meaning clear.
Check this thread of Willis’s out. It gives “simple physics” quote a workout:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/
Not if the earth has a thermostat (clouds):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/28/congratulations-finally-to-spencer-and-braswell-on-getting-their-new-paper-published/
That’s only Amazon UK he’s talking about. (Bezos is a libertarian.)
Why are the OHC stats updated so infrequently? What adjustments are made to the raw sensor measurements? It is mystifying that so little attention is paid to OHC and so much more attention is paid to surface temps.
One great thing about OHC is that it is a measure of a process of integration (also it implicitly includes mass since the sensors are at a particular depth).
Does the amount of energy that is released from the ocean during an el nino make any measurable difference in the OHC?
Oceanographer Dr Robert E Stevenson, (deceased), wrote this in 2000,
“Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not Global Warming” by Dr. Robert E.
Stevenson
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
“Contrary to recent press reports that the oceans hold the still-undetected
global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in
100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.
For 15 years, modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in
predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature
increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken
place. Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their
claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that
it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up
the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational
evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed
support.
The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower
atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being
significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its
warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared
radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the
ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is
largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.
Because of the high density/specific heat of sea water, the entire heat in
the overlying atmosphere can be contained in the top two meters of the oceans.
This enormous storage capacity enables the oceans to “buffer” any major
deviations in temperature, moderating both heat and cold waves alike.
Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a
certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of
about 100 meters.
The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below
100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes
progressively darker and colder as the depth increases. (It is typical for the
ocean temperature in Hawaii to be 26°C (78°F) at the surface, and 15°C (59°F) at
a depth of 150 meters.
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This
means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few
millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the
direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is
in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever
infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon
dissipated.
It is clear that solar-related variations in mixed-layer temperatures penetrate to between 80 to 160 meters, the average depth of the main pycnocline (density
discontinuity) in the global ocean. Below these depths, temperature fluctuations
become uncorrelated with solar signals, deeper penetration being restrained by
the stratified barrier of the pycnocline.
Consequently, anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored
in the upper 100 meters. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the
atmosphere, not to the deep ocean. ”
The whole article is well worth reading. What a pity that Dr Stevenson is no longer around to join in the debate.
barry says:
“For some temp records, 2010 is the warmest on the record ‘so far’.”
“So far,” eh?
Here are some real-world records:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Natural climate variability has made the planet much warmer, and much, much colder in the past, as shown in these records. So your statement: “2010 is the warmest on the record” is demonstrably wrong.
Argo is everything (90% say of the energy in the climate system???)
My background is Physics, Geophysics/Oceanography followed by postgrad in Meteorology (climate modelling). Whatever Argo says ‘has’ to be a leading indicator of future ‘air’ temperature changes – It is the cutting edge in Earth temperature measurements.
peakbear
“Whatever Argo says ‘has’ to be a leading indicator of future ‘air’ temperature changes – It is the cutting edge in Earth temperature measurements.”
They said that about the MSU temperature measurements (and they were, sorta, once all the bugs in the hardware and software were worked out). Pielke Sr. has had his faith in ARGO tested more than once.
Eli, do you prefer to use SLR as a proxy for temperature? After reading the critique of GRACE by Quinn and Ponte (granted, only the abstract since $52 seemed a bit steep) I wonder if Church et al shouldn’t have been using the tide gauges to correct the noise in GRACE instead of visa vera. Attribution of sea level is very suspect also. One can’t just wave their hands and say all the attributing factors from AR3 such as ground water use and deforestation no longer matter. Where are the studies supporting the assumptions these aren’t important? Faith has been tested all around it seems to me.
An honest alternative, but one that opens a can of worms. Simply put, the alarmists are arguing about hundredths of a degree of warming and showing that small a change to be proof of their claim of AGW. Yet if they cannot even measure the temperature of 70% of the planet to any degree (much less hundredths) then the whole claim is worthless. It would be better if they were hones and scientific about it and stated truthfully “We just do not know”.
Why? 10 years after the fact they now say that 1998 was not as hot as it was back in the day. It appears they want to “strike while the iron is hot”, because tomorrow, their data and statements will change.
It depends a bit on how you define Global Warming, if you think it’s strictly a measure of Joules Dr. Pielke may be correct, but if you see it as an ongoing process driven by CO2, and CO2 is still rising, you’d say it hasn’t stopped. If The first two weeks of December are cold, but the third week warm, would you say that winter has stopped?
@Andrew W: Bad analogy. Better: If my furnace is lit, and the temperature stops rising, I would assume that the fire had gone out while I wasn’t looking. If there has been no atmospheric warming since 1995 (according to Phil Jones, maybe the most “authoritative voice” in the AGW camp), and no ocean warming since 2004 (when we started measuring it with ARGO, the “most accurate measurement possible”) I would say that something is wrong with your predicate.
Hint – when your theory fails to comport with measured fact, you need to reevaluate your theory.
Warmists are so fascinating when they try to talk about science.
A few years ago, I was in the waiting room of a garage while my car was being fixed. Also waiting was a young mother with her daughter of (best guess) four or five. Apparently bored with her mother, the daughter came over and accosted me, holding her favorite book. After I read it to her (she obviously knew it by heart already), she looked for another interesting subject, and announced, “I can speak French.”
“Wonderful,” I said. “Bonjour,” she said.
“Bonjour,” I said, “Comment tu t’appelles?” — my French being almost as rusty as my calculus.
“Bonjour,” she said.
“Quelle est ta couleur favorite?” I said.
“Bonjour,” she said.
“You speak French very well,” I said. Which she apparently found boring, because she returned to her mother.
“It’s settled basic science, basic physics” says the warmist.
“What about feedbacks?” I ask.
“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.”
“What about ocean heat content?”
“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.”
“What about upper-atmosphere humidity?”
“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.”
“Why is the rate of late-20th-century warming no different from the rate of 1860-90 and 1910-40?” I ask.
“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.”
“What about the albedo of low-level clouds? Convection? Latent heat transfer?”
“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas,” they reply.
Ah, yes, they understand basic physics very well. But I won’t tell them so; they’re not cute enough — mostly (except for Hollywood, of course) — and they refuse to sit on my lap…
Craig Goodrich,
You’ve captured the essence of climate alarmist scientific analysis!
DennisA says:
Many thanks, Dennis, for that excellent link. The paper is excellent and readable– I say this in spite of my envy, here in Indiana with winter fast approaching, when Dr. S says, “… Hanalei, Hawaii is just down the hill from where I write …”
Recommended reading for everyone. If Dr. P has any comments, I would be very interested in them.