Dana1981 at SkepticalScience Tries to Mislead His Readers
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
Dana1981 (aka Dana Nuccitelli) recently authored a SkepticalScience post titled Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy? Believe it or not, in it, he complained about my comparison of modeled and observed ARGO-era Ocean Heat Content. See Figure 1. But his complaints do nothing more than misrepresent my graph and the modeled and observed trends of the Ocean Heat Content data. His intent is blatantly obvious. It is to mislead his readers. And it’s so obvious, it’s silly.
In this post, I’ll simply respond (once again) to complaints about that graph.
Dana1981’s initial reference to my graph comes in the opening sentence of his post. It reads:
Recently there have been a number of claims of a large discrepancy between modeled and observed ocean heat content (OHC), for example by Roger Pielke Sr., David Evans, and Bob Tisdale.
The post he linked was the WattsUpWithThat cross post of my most recent quarterly NODC Ocean Heat Content (OHC) update titled October to December 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomalies (0-700Meters) Update and Comments. The only model-data comparison graph in that post is Figure 1. So that simple graph is the only one he chooses to complain about.
Figure 1
Dana1981 uses the ridiculous heading of “Inaccurate, Unskeptical Graphs”.
First, there’s nothing inaccurate about my graphs in general or Figure 1 specifically. The data for Figure 1 is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, and the model projection is based on Hansen et al (2005). I include a detailed description of that graph in that post. Second, I’m not sure how unskeptical applies to a graph. Unskeptical according to MS Word means open minded. Whatever Dana1981 was yakking about, it’s nonsense. Figure 1 is an accurate presentation of the model projection and the data.
Dana1981 then goes on to write under that heading:
The first cherrypicks have already been discussed above – ignoring OHC below 700 meters, and ignoring the OHC increase prior to 2003.
Figure 1 appears in my post under the heading of “ARGO-ERA OCEAN HEAT CONTENT MODEL-DATA COMPARISON.” That limits the period of discussion, don’t ya think? There’s really no reason to include OHC data prior to 2003 in a graph of ARGO-era OHC data since ARGO floats had such poor coverage before then.
Dana1981 claims that presenting the NODC 0-700 meter OHC data is cherry-picking, apparently believing the NODC’s OHC data for depths of 0-2000 meters should be illustrated as well. There’s a very obvious problem with that logic, and Dana1981 fails to recognize it. The Hansen et al (2005) paper “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications” has been the reference all along in my series of OHC updates. It presents the NODC OHC data for 0-700 meters, not 0-2000 meters. Dana1981 even uses Figure 2 from Hansen et al (2005) as Figure 1 in his post.
Dana1981 then posts a graph from Tamino that represents the problems Dana1981 sees with my model-data presentation in Figure 1. We’ll overlook the obvious difference, which is that he’s looking at annual data and I’ve presented the data on a monthly basis. I’ve added a couple of notes to the SkepticalScience Figure 4 and posted that graph here as Figure 2. My graph in Figure 1 presents the extrapolated trend of the model mean. Tamino’s graph presents the trend for the annual Ocean Heat Content data, not the model mean. He also elected to show a trend for the data for the period of 1993 to 2002. But the period used in the Hansen et al (2005) paper that Dana1981 referenced was 1993 to 2003. The only reason to omit the 2003 data point is because the trend is lower without it. Then Dana1981 notes:
By choosing the baseline such that the models and data are equal in 2003, Tisdale and Evans have graphically exaggerated a model-data discrepancy.
So the point where the trend meets the data is Dana1981’s basic complaint. Yawn. Somehow in Dana1981’s mind the intercept makes the graph inaccurate and unskeptical. Dana1981 linked Tamino’s post Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline, but he failed to also link my rebuttal here or the WUWT cross post Technical paper training for “Hansen’s Bulldog”. Dana1981 also failed to realize how the Corrections to the RealClimate Presentation of Modeled Global Ocean Heat Content impacted Tamino’s unfounded criticisms. So I’d better point it out to him.
Figure 2
Where should the model intersect with the data? Let’s take a look.
Dana1981 uses the uproariously funny heading of “Accurate Graph”. Dana1981 then presents the corrected RealClimate graph that compares model outputs and OHC data. The graph is from the RealClimate post OHC Model/Obs Comparison Errata. Yup, that was the first time in two and a half years that RealClimate posted an “accurate graph” in one of their OHC model-data comparisons. I’m not sure Gavin Schmidt liked being reminded of that fact by Dana1981, but I sure appreciated it. I’ve reposted the graph here and thrown on another question for Dana1981. It is: Where would an extrapolation of the model mean trend (1993-2003) intersect the NODC OHC data, Dana1981?
Figure 3
Gavin Schmidt was kind enough to post the answer to my question. He provided it when he corrected the OHC model-data comparison graph in his post 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons. See Figure 4. I’ve noted the answer on the graph. They don’t intersect. In my graph, Figure 1, the model and data at least intersect during the ARGO era but in the RealClimate graph that Dana1981 calls an “accurate graph” they don’t intersect. Would you rather I shifted the model trend to the left, away from the OHC data, Dana1981? Would that make it an “accurate graph” for you?
Figure 4
Figure 5 is the same OHC model-data comparison graph from RealClimate. In it, though, I’ve highlighted the ARGO era, which is the period I presented in Figure 1. I removed the NODC data for 0-2000 meters since it has no bearing on this discussion. I’ve also approximated Tamino’s linear trend of the NODC OHC data from 1993 to 2002 that Dana1981 would like us to believe represents the model mean. Does Tamino’s linear trend come close to representing the model mean? Nope! For some reason, things that are blatantly obvious to most of us elude Dana1981 and his cohorts at SkepticalSeance.
Figure 5
What Dana1981 failed to realize is, when Tamino pulled the two sleights of hand with that graph (using the data instead of the model mean and using the trend of the data from 1993 to 2002 instead of 1993 to 2003), the erroneous data that RealClimate was posting at the time, Figure 6, was aligning with the bogus Tamino trend. That erroneous model trend only made it appear that Tamino’s presentation was right. But it never was.
Figure 6
I was going to overlook Dana1981’s complaint that I was neglecting a raft of other sources of OHC data, but I’ve decided to respond to it. I use the KNMI Climate Explorer as the source of data for my quarterly Ocean Heat Content updates. That fact is discussed in the first few paragraphs of those OHC updates. It’s tough to miss it, being right up front. I use data that’s readily available from KNMI in my posts for a reason: so that anyone can reproduce my graphs. Up until a few weeks ago, the NODC Ocean Heat Content data for 0-700 meters was the only updated Ocean Heat Content dataset available at the KNMI Climate Explorer. I would have been more than happy to include other OHC datasets, but there haven’t been any—until recently.
KNMI recently added an Ocean Heat Content dataset based on the UK Met Office EN3 analysis. I haven’t really investigated that dataset in depth (pardon the pun) so I haven’t prepared a full post about it. Figure 7 compares the UKMO EN3 data to the NODC ARGO-era OHC data for 0-700 meters and also to the GISS model trend. The UKMO EN3 data appears similar to the NODC’s ARGO-era OHC data before the NODC’s 2010 modifications. I’ll confirm that in an upcoming post. If you haven’t noticed, the trend of the ARGO-era UKMO EN3 OHC data (0-700 meters) is negative from January 2003 to March 2012.
Figure 7
The UKMO EN3 OHC data is presented in 4 depths at the KNMI Climate Explorer: 0-400m, 0-700m, 0-1000m, and 0-2000m. We can compare the global ARGO-era 0-2000 meter UKMO EN3 data to the trend of the GISS model mean for 0-750 meters, Figure 8. The models are still out of the ballpark. There’s no reason to search for the GISS model trend for 0-2000 meters to illustrate that point.
Figure 8
CLOSING
When Gavin Schmidt published those corrections to the RealClimate OHC model-data comparisons, I believed that no one would be foolish enough to ever again complain about where the OHC model trend and data intersected in my ARGO-era graphs. But I was proved wrong. Dana1981 raised the bar on foolishness. And his readers went along with it.
Roger Pielke Sr. also published a post yesterday about Dana1981’s OHC post. Roger’s post is titled Grappling With Reality – A Comment On The Skeptical Science Post By Dana1981 “Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy?” Yup, Dana1981 and many of the commenters on that SkepticalScience thread are grappling with reality, but they’re losing the wrestling match.
By the way, Dana1981, thanks for allowing me to post the ARGO-era model-data comparison graph once again. It’s one of my favorites.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bob,
I gotta’ say I have always respected you for your dispassionate deconstructions of alarmist data.
However, this post has been anything but dispassionate . . . and I have enjoyed it immensely. Thank you for your great work.
Dana1981 writes “is only true if the radiative forcing 2003-2011 is the same as 1993-2003, which very well may not be true due to rising aerosol emissions.”
It could be a lot of things Dana. But given that we have increased our CO2 output significantly over that period, whatever it is trumps that effect and has done so for a decade.
Can someone answer why there is such a huge difference in the OHC (0-2000) actual data between figure 4 and figure 8? Thanks.
Obviously, Dana has now moved to the skeptic side.
Noting that hardly any waming is occuring (his own charts show this), then either:
– the Anthro-forcing must be over-stated / the theory has missed something very consequential;
– it is escaping from the Earth faster than predicted; or,
– it is hiding somewhere other than the ocean, the atmosphere, the ground or ice-sheet melt (which leaves Madagascar or something).
Trenberth doesn’t talk about “missing energy” and publish papers about it and give talks about it because it is already found in the oceans.
The IPCC AR5 ensemble mean (already submitted) for the whole oceans down to 3000 metres is pretty close to 1.4 W/m2/yr. From 0-700 metres, it is 0.82 W/m2/yr
So we are at about 0.3 W/m2/yr down to 700 metres and 0.4 or 0.5 W/m2/yr down to 2000 metres. That is alot missing and one can’t sugar-coat the actual numbers by playing around with the baselines in “Dana-Charts ™”.
I’d just liek to add my support to Bob and the good work he does and just a quick warning about Dana1981, I remember him from BH when the SkS boys invaded and he is a very angry young man (Funny I’m Shevva1975 and I guess those 6 years make a diffrence).
Side comment, who wouldn’t want an aerosol button on there tax returns.
Thanks Bob, I’d been waiting for confirmation that ARGO data got ‘adjusted’ after 2009. I look forward to your post about that. It seems the UKMO isn’t playing along any more. Good.
Combine the UKMO OHC with the recently terminated ENVISAT sea level data and a more consistent picture emerges. Add in Peter Berenyi’s analysis of CERES flashflux data in relation to the OHC and it starts to make sense.
The ‘missing heat’ is somewhere past Alpha Centauri by now.
Philip Bradley: Thanks for the link to the model uncertainty discussion.
Bob Tisdale said:
“It’s called linear extrapolation. That is, the linear trend from the earlier period is extended into the one we’re discussing. Scroll up to Figure 4. Gavin has extended the linear trend lines from 2003 forward. It’s common practice.”
Thats the whole point of my criticism Bob. The gist of your post is about a supposed divergence between actual ocean data and what the models predict, ergo ‘the models must be wrong’ or some such thing.
When in fact you have no idea what the GISS model predicts for 2004-2012. They haven’t modelled it. you are simply assuming that if they were run for that latter period they would predict exactly the same trend as they did for the previous decade.
Your extrapolation says absolutely zero about what the models actually predict. And yet you are trying to comment on a supposed divergence between model data and real world data. When in fact you have no model data.
And saying that extrapolation is a common practice doesn’t cut it. Many forms of faulty thinking are common.
Here is a simple reality check for your method Bob. If extrapolating the 1993-2003 trend into the future is meaningful, then surely it is just as meaningful to do the same extrapolation into the past. On Fig 6, extrapolate the 1993-2003 trends backwards. Both trend lines (0-700m & 0-2000m) drop of the bottomof the graph around 1980. But the actual ocean data is obviously in total disagreement with that.
Doesn’t that say that the GISS model totally disagrees with all observations before 1993 as well? Good Golly Miss Molly. GISS only really got it right for one decade according to your analysis technique.
Not just 1 decade wrong, but 5 out of 6 decades wrong. Why aren’t you highlighting that fact Bob? Isn’t that the real story?
But wait a minute; the GISS model data for all those prior decades doesn’t agree with your ‘GISS Trend’ either! How could GISS’s own model data not agree with the trend calculated from their data?
Because the 1993-2003 trend is just that, the trend for 1993-2003. Not the trend from 1955-1963. Or 1963 to 1972. Not 1973-1983. Not 1983 to 1993. In fact, between 1955 and 2003 it seems that the only period that the 1993-2003 GISS trend actually agrees with the GISS data is – 1993-2003.
Yet you seem so confident that this suddenly changes and that applying the 1993-2003 trend to 2003-2012 will say something meaningful when doing that in any other previous decade has produced absurd results. Why this change of opinion?
By using an extrapolation (yes Bob, I do understand what an extrapolation is) what you are doing has no more meaning than if you were playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey!
‘How does the GISS model compare to the observations over the last decade?”
“I dunno, they haven’t modelled it! But if we stick a pin in here and here, and draw a straight line between here and here, Presto Gizmo, this might, perhaps, be what the might have modelled, if that had modelled it, which they haven’t of course, and if their model produced exactly the same results as the previous decade, which we can’t know because they haven’t actually done that modelling, but, you know, maybe this might be what they might have perhaps shown, if they had actually done it, which they didn’t, but …. welll…. you get the way I have drifted haven’t you? Anyways, their model is obviously WRONG! Or it WOULD BE if they had actual done this stuff that I have done. So if they modelled things the way I have modelled them then their model would be just so damn wrong! Time for a beer….”
Just some guy says: “Can someone answer why there is such a huge difference in the OHC (0-2000) actual data between figure 4 and figure 8? Thanks.”
I’m looking into it and don’t have an answer for you. They both should use ARGO data during that period. Are we seeing the effects of the NODC’s adjustments to the ARGO data? Dunno. NODC also used XBTs during that period but I’m not sure about the UKMO EN3 data. Is that the reason for the difference? Dunno. The NODC recently changed its climatology for OHC anomalies, but that should not have an impact.
Mosher should stick to Gleick type investigations. Hes been.m wrong about nearly all his climate predictions like Gore. Maybe stick to DA and Corbyn? LOL
Alex C says: “The Heat Content, UKMO EN3 Analysis, like you said, 0-2000; the graphs I get when plotting the data are not the same as the ones you gave, did I get the source correct? Which did you use?”
The first graph at the KNMI Climate Explorer “time series” page is the raw data. That includes a seasonal signal. The second is the climatology. The third is the anomalies. I used anomalies. Click on “raw data”.
http://i48.tinypic.com/21e69sy.jpg
The UKMO EN3 data is presented in terms of Joules/meter^2 while the NODC data from the Climate Explorer is in Gigajoules/meter^2, so I converted the UKMO EN3 data to Gigajoules/meter^2. I then zeroed the data in 2003 for Figure 8, same as Figure 1.
Steven Mosher says: “well bobs comparison between a single model mean and observations isnt exactly full and plain disclosure as those of us at climate audit demand.”
It is not posted at ClimateAudit. The graph is presented because it contains a question.
Here is another example where, I believe, Dana1981 at SkepticalScience tries to mislead his readers: Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight – Climate Mitigation Saves Money
I’ve posted a comment explaining that, I believe, Dana1981 has misrepresented Nordhaus and also explaining that the Australian CO2 tax and ETS would cost nine times more than the benefits, cumulative to 2050; and this estimate assumes the whole world acts together to implement an economically efficient CO2 pricing regime. If this assumption does not apply, the benefits to Australia are virtually zero.
For the benefit of readers here and in case my comment at SkepticalScience gets deleted I’ll post it here (I hope this is allowed).
@Glenn Skankey Tamblyn says: “How can you compare what the GISS model supposedly says for the post 2003 period with OHC data for that period?”
Take a look at Lucia’s Blackboard Ocean Heat Content Kerfuffle(May 2011) She says:
“Bob Tisdale wrote to ask my opinion on the Ocean Heat Content Kerfuffle which involves Bob’s blog, Tamino’s blog,….I also explained what I consider to be the main question mark in his post: How in the heck can we test the model E projections after 2003 when we don’t actually have any?” (Emphasis added)
Glenn Tamblyn says: “When in fact you have no idea what the GISS model predicts for 2004-2012. They haven’t modelled it. you are simply assuming that if they were run for that latter period they would predict exactly the same trend as they did for the previous decade.”
Of course they have modeled it as part of the models they submitted to the CMIP3 archive. Gavin simply elects not to include it in his presentation at RealClimate. Why? His answer from this post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
There he writes, “Another figure worth updating is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC. Unfortunately, I don’t have the post-2003 model output handy, but the comparison between the 3-monthly data (to the end of Sep) and annual data versus the model output is still useful.”
And he continues, “(Note, that I’m not quite sure how this comparison should be baselined. The models are simply the difference from the control, while the observations are ‘as is’ from NOAA). I have linearly extended the ensemble mean model values for the post 2003 period (using a regression from 1993-2002) to get a rough sense of where those runs could have gone.”
And what does the GISS Model-ER mean look like through 2010? It looks like a trend extrapolated from 1993-2003:
http://i52.tinypic.com/3536rsm.jpg
Refer to the discussion of Figure 3 in my post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/giss-ohc-model-trends-one-question-answered-another-uncovered/
@Glenn Skankey Tamblyn
========================
Not modelling ocean heat content but you might learn something about climate modelling before you come up with silly hack cocked critiques of Tisdale. Start here:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/15/willis-on-giss-model-e/
The problem Glenn, is that the sceptics aren’t as dumb as you think they are and you’re not half as smart as you think you are either. 😉
Just in case dana1981 feels he’s being mistreated here, let’s see how the denizens at SkepticalScience respond to my comment to one of the bloggers on the thread of dana1981’s post:
http://i50.tinypic.com/15d2rd0.jpg
Note that the moderator removed the graph Tom Curtis had posted, which was this one:
http://i41.tinypic.com/dmvbxj.jpg
And if you’re having trouble reading my comment, it reads in full:
Tom Curtis says at 09:16 AM on 31 May, 2012: “The graph was produced by Bob Tisdale, whose analysis is normally massively flawed, so I am not providing a link.”
You presented obsolete NODC OHC data from a 3-year-old May 13, 2009 post. The NODC has updated their dataset twice since then. Is there any reason you presented obsolete data?
Also, my website requests that you provide a link to the post when using a graph. You failed to do that. As opposed to asking you to remove the graph, I’ll provide the link:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/levitus-et-al-2009-ocean-heat-content-%e2%80%93-comparison-of-the-ocean-basin-data/
Your claim that my “analysis is normally massively flawed” is baseless. And you’ve expressed your misunderstandings in the rest of your comment. The variations in tropical Pacific OHC are in fact a function of ENSO, but there is no difference in tropical Pacific OHC for depths of 0-700m and 0-2000m:
http://i46.tinypic.com/dbi51j.jpg
The data contradicts your claim of “greater conduction of water to the depths, and hence an overall cooling of the surface waters (0-700 meters).” BTW, 0-700 meters is not the surface. And did you mean subducted?
Also, you must not have looked very hard for a paper that discusses the additional variability of the North Atlantic OHC. Lozier et al (2008) “The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” identifies the NAO as the driver of decadal North Atlantic OHC variability. Link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/800?rss=1
Have a nice day!
I agree with Glenn here, re Fig 1. Yes, in the absence of other knowledge you can extrapolate plotted data. It gives the best estimate in the circumstances.
The model and the data have similar trend from 1993 to 2002. So you could have equally extrapolated using the data trend, with a similar line.
Then the data after 2003 turns out not to follow the extrapolated line. That is said to be a model-data discrepancy. But what if you said the line was extrapolated data. Same trend. Then you’d have a data-data discrepancy. What sense is there in that?
The fact is that you can try extrapolation, but if reality turns out to bend, the extrapolation will fail, whether it’s model or data. That’s what happened here. And the true test of a model is whether it would have predicted the bend. And as Glenn says, we just don’t know.
This whole “debate” is extremely disappointing… not just for its lack of content, but also for its tone. I’ve seen more mature discussions in schoolyards.
I’m done with this topic. Waste of time.
Nick Stokes: All of this could be remedied if GISS presented the model outputs for OHC in an easy-to-use format. Since they don’t and since it’s acceptable to a member of GISS to extrapolate the model mean at RealClimate, I’ll extrapolate too. For that graph, I’ve offered a number of times to use the model mean with a base period of 1955 to 2011, assuring that I’m not cherry-picking a base period. But no one has come forth with the GISS output. As soon as I’m aware that the GISS Model-ER simulations of OHC have been added to the CMIP5 archive, I’ll ask KNMI to include it on their Climate Explorer. I’d love to look at the model simulations on hemispheric and ocean-basin bases for the full term of the OHC data.
One works with the best data that one has at his/her disposal. At this point, this is the best data that is available.
ThePhysicsGuy said: May 30, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Why give Dana1981 the time of day? He has not produced any peer reviewed published studies in any journal. He has absolutely zero education in atmospheric physics or anything related to climate science.
======
Wow. Damning Dana1981 and Christopher Monckton in one-fell-swoop. Well done.
I’d suggest reading the comment from Steven Mosher to get a little perspective regarding the value of the original post and possible points for followup discussion.
Interesting discussion, thanks for sharing.
I feel I should point out, though, that this question still hasn’t been answered: how many years are required until the models can be said to have failed?
Falsifiability is perhaps the most basic tenet of science. Without an answer, how can the modelling be called science?
“Suggestion to Dana. Try adding a sine fit to your Argo graph from 1993.
Should fit very well indeed. My old fashioned eyeball regression method suggests a wavelength of ~64 years would be spot on.
Oh I forget. CAGW people don’t like sine curves, they only like straight line trends.”
@ur momisugly Bruce of Newcastle,
Bravo Bruce!
My problem with both the skeptics and the believers alike is EVERYONE tries to fit straight lines to a system that EVERYONE KNOWS IS CYCLIC.
Dr. Roy Spencer always says that his 3rd order polynomial fit to the UAH temperature data is just for fun, and not meant to be predictive, but has anyone noticed that that 3rd order polynomial fit generates….. wait for it…..
A SINE-LIKE FUNCTION!
Freaking surprise, no?
My request. EVERYONE (and I do mean EVERYONE) please stop trying to fit straight lines to data which we KNOW FOR A FACT comes from a cyclical system!!!!
Of course, if the believers admitted that it was a cyclical system, they would have to admit that at WORST all we were doing was shifting the baseline of the sine-wave-like function upwards a tiny bit by adding a tiny amount of CO2 to the atmosphere… they couldn’t POSSIBLY want to admit THAT, now would they!?!?!?!?
Bob Tisale:
Thanks for responding. I’d be interested in getting to the bottom of that. Seems like an important question to me. One graph provides warmists with an answer to “where has all the warming gone for the past 10 years?”. The other graph implies virtually no warming anywhere for 10 years; land, air or sea.