“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian, a prominent green UK daily newspaper, reports that scientists have given up on surface temperature as a measure of global warming:
Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
“It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London.
“The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem,” admits Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading.
Obviously if the surface temperature was still rising, as it was in the 90s, instead of inconveniently contradicting model predictions, then it would still be considered a valid climate metric.
Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.
The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, was not mentioned in the Guardian article.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ericg/kap_paper.pdf
The European Union is supportive of the effort to find climate metrics which point in the right direction – The Esa Climate Change Initiative (CCI) is a €75m programme, active since 2009, to produce a “trustworthy” set of ECV (Essential Climate Variable) data that can be accessed by all.
=============================================================
The guardian story is here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/pause-global-warming-data-sea-level-rises
[note: there was an error in HTML coding that made the entire article look like a quote when that was not intended, that has been fixed – mod]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@MikeB: the NPL style sheet says this: ‘The unit symbol is in lower case unless the name of the unit is derived from a proper name, in which case the first letter of the symbol is in upper case…….For unit values more than 1 or less than -1 the plural of the unit is used and a singular unit is used for values between 1 and -1.’
So, we have N, Newton, Newtons, Pa, Pascal, Pascals, g, gram, grams, kg, kilogram, kilograms…….
As for ‘watts’, 1 W = 1 [J/s] 1 Watt = 1 [Joule/second], 10 Watts = 10 [Joules/second]
As for Wikipedia, “‘henries’ is the plural of ‘henry’” should read “‘Henries’ is the plural of ‘Henry'”
Sorry, must be self-consistent. The plural bit means that we cannot use ’10 W’; it must be expressed as ’10 Watts’.
MikeB says:
June 15, 2014 at 3:26 am
“Greg, a watt is one joule per second and watts per square metre is simply saying how much energy each square metre receives in one second. Scientifically literate people recognise that all these terms are referring to an energy input; sorry if that excludes you.”
Before being so vitriolic you should read what I said. I was supporting what you said. I was saying it was incorrect of G.E.Smith (having incorrectly corrected your numbers) to pedantically yet incorrectly correct your units.
There’s little point in the joule/watt knit-pick if he’s going to state “rate of energy” in units that represent a flux. I was not criticising your less rigorous comment which was clear enough.
“Joules and Watts are surnames, the scientific units are joule and watt, neither capitalised nor pluralised.”
I did not say Joules and Watts were the names of the scientists, I said “Joules and Watts are surnames” which is perfectly accurate, ask our host !
You are reading something other that what I actually wrote then attacking me for your own misinterpretation. Less venom would be in order.
“the scientific units are joule and watt, neither capitalised nor pluralised.” Let’s get it from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.bipm.org/en/bipm/
The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) was set up by the Metre Convention and has its headquarters near Paris, France. It is financed jointly by its Member States and operates under the exclusive supervision of the CIPM.
Its mandate is to provide the basis for a single, coherent system of measurements throughout the world, traceable to the International System of Units (SI).
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/derived_units/
” Units with special names and symbols; units that incorporate special names and symbols: see radian, steradian, hertz, newton, pascal, joule, watt, coulomb, volt, farad, ohm, siemens, weber, tesla, henry, degree Celsius, lumen, lux, becquerel, gray, sievert, katal”
Again, you are incorrectly reinterpreting what I wrote and attacking me for your mistakes.
You seem to be scientifically literate but your reading comprehension is lacking, both in precision and intent. I was agreeing with you !
Ronald DeWitt says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:55 am
I suggest that we begin to use the yield per acre for corn crops. I read somewhere that it has been rising consistently and could well be an effect of climate change.
===================
I think some guy named Adam Smith ‘Wealth of Nations’ already used that idea
Now, Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
“It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London…
Scientists are now trying to simulate the behaviour using computer models. This is difficult because the behaviour of the deep ocean is too poorly known to be reliably included.
So the thermometer is now declared “passee”, you can’t measure temperature by measuring temperature. I wonder how long before possession of a thermometer will be a crime. The housemaiden’s tale is coming closer to reality.
If climate is so complex and chaotic that even defining let alone measuring it is a slippery business, then why not focus on integrating indicators such as:
Global sea ice
Global land ice
Biological species extent and abundance
Amount of snow
Local temperature minima and maxima
M Simon says:
June 15, 2014 at 3:06 am
But the warmists claim that ARGO shows the opposite of what you postulate (that the bottom waters have warmed more than the upper 700 meters).
================================
These folks would tend to disagree with that claim (yes, I’m aware it is from 2011)
Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
“Apparent pause in global warming blamed on lousy data”
So the Guardian spins the title to give the public the impression that global warming is continuing and that the pause isn’t real.
As we have been on a slight cooling trend for the last six years then I guess the Guardian will conclude that the data must be getting worse. Could be as we enter the next solar cycle that the data will get even worse. Guardian writers will be struggling through snow drifts and will tell the world not to worry, the world isn’t cooling, its just lousy data .
M Simon says:
June 15, 2014 at 3:06 am
But the warmists claim that ARGO shows the opposite of what you postulate (that the bottom waters have warmed more than the upper 700 meters).
Given that ARGO only dives to 700 meters that is very convenient.
===========================
Argo buoys dive to 2000 meters. The expendable bathythermographs that were used prior to the deployment of the Argo system only measured to 700 meters, temperature below 700 was ‘estimated’ from the temperature at 700 meters. The significance is that prior to the Argo bouys we really don’t have measurement of ocean temps at 2000 meters so we can’t say with a great deal of confidence whether the ‘deep’ ocean has heated, cooled, or stayed the same prior to 2003.
We have no consistent measurement of temperatures below 2000 meters over a wide enough area of the oceans to draw any conclusions at all, even to make a decent guess.
So sea level rises are taken as an indication that the seas are warming? But couldn’t that rise also be due in some part due to reducing global sea level atmospheric pressure?
“sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used”
yet climate is defined as surface temperature averaged over 30 years. In effect Briggs is arguing that climate is the worst indicator of climate.
in science, no amount of positive data proves a theory correct. It simply establishes that the theory is useful for prediction. the reason for this is simple. there are an infinite number of positive correlations to be found, few of which are due to cause and effect. most are simply chance.
however, it takes only 1 negative example to prove a theory wrong. the theory that we could use CO2 levels to predict surface temperatures has now been shown to be wrong.
“sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used”
thus, we cannot use CO2 levels as an indicator of future surface temperatures. it may provide reliable prediction of other effects, but clearly not of temperature.
Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
HANG ON. All the dire consequences: more frequent and stronger storms were supposed (incorrectly) to relate to increases in surface temperature. More frequent and more severe droughts and flooding. “Tipping points” in melting of arctic tundra and permafrost. The “catastrophic” changes that _may_ happen if the world rises more than 2 deg. C above pre-industrial level (IPCC).
These are ALL supposed to result from a change in surface temperature (primarily SST) which is now apparently the worst indicator of global climate that can be used.
HadSST3 has a ‘hiatus’ , HadCRUT4 ( land + sea ) is flat , lower tropo air temps (TLT) is flat , temperature of lower stratosphere (TLS) is flat
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
Arctic sea ice gained 50% in volume in just one year to October 2014.
Yet somewhere there are are more “trustworthy” metrics that will show us just how bad it “really” is.
“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse !”
.
Seriously guys, this is becoming a pathology. You need help.
Gunga Din says:
June 14, 2014 at 10:42 am
===============================================================
I made that comment before the italics were fixed that made what I was commenting on look like it was a quote from the Guardian.
I saw some of the comments about the typo but initially thought they were about a comment and not the post itself.
Perhaps the MODs could insert an “Update” just under the post’s title noting the correction?
AP can write this without laughing!
15 June: Daily Mail: AP: Denying climate change is like saying the moon is made of cheese, argues Obama as he takes on global warming deniers at commencement speech.
Obama gave the commencement address at UC Irvine on Saturday
He says Congress is ‘full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence’ of climate change
While in Orange County, the president also attended a closed-door fundraiser at the Laguna Beach home of Getty oil heiress Anne Earhart
‘They say, “Hey, look, I’m not a scientist.” And I’ll translate that for you: what that really means is, “I know that manmade climate change really is happening but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot,'” he said…
The president said today’s young dreamers are fed a steady diet of cynicism but argued they have a right to be optimistic.
‘Consider this: since the time most of you graduated from high school, fewer Americans are at war,’ Obama said. ‘More have health insurance. More are graduating from college. Our businesses have added more than nine million new jobs. And the number of states where you’re free to marry who you love has more than doubled. That’s just some of the progress you’ve seen.’…
While in Orange County, Obama also raised money for the Democratic National Committee at a closed-door fundraiser at the Laguna Beach home of Getty oil heiress Anne Earhart. About 25 people paid up to $32,400 to participate in a roundtable discussion with the president.
He’s spending the rest of the Father’s Day weekend on vacation at the Rancho Mirage home of White House decorator Michael Smith and his partner, U.S. Ambassador to Spain James Costos.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658079/Denying-climate-change-like-saying-moon-cheese-argues-Obama-takes-global-warming-deniers-commencement-speech.html
How is sea level going to do it? IPCC AR5 fig 13.6 (if I recall) shows satellite telemetry data between 2005 and 2012.5. Sea rise was 20 mm, 3/4″. Japan’s metrology group has seen no significant trend and Australian sea rise is hotly debated. No, AGW is toast, at last.
TAG says: “Society must be aware of the consequences and only sound non-political science can provide that.”
Exactly. The problem is that we have not seem much of that since the early 1990s.
It did exist, but it’s a dim and distant memory. Probably why the “sceptic” demography is mainly 50+ age group.
Seems that there is a retreat to “metrics” that have longer and longer time constants.
Surface temps stopped rising around the turn of the century, so they got obsessive about Arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice gained 50% in volume last year, so it’s gone a bit quiet on that front (let’s talk about millennial scale change in Antarctica for a while). Now they’re switching to ‘deep ocean’ warming where the mass of water will necessarily take 100s to 1000s of years to change.
They’ve retreated into geologic time-scales metrics to try to support the hypothesis of an “urgent” , “we must act now, before it’s too late” problem.
Head meet rear-end. Hi, may I come in?
Well, I think scientific monitoring should keep a close eye on the Ungava Peninsula. Apparently this is where the Laurentide ice sheet begins to grow.
The theory is in conflict with the data. One of them has to go…
Almost comical how the climate cultists cling to straws like that, when at the same time basic research comes up with explanations of the “pause”, that, if the eplanation is correct, is actually the end of global warming: Researchers from Tuebingen, Germany, reported evince from lab experiments that the GHG warming mostly hinges on the carbon isotope ratio and not CO2 concentration.: “The stagnating global temperatures of the past 16 years are an indication of the accuracy of these calculations. This stagnation is thus most likely a result of emission saturation of the saturated global warming gases. … Thus, due to this effect the global mean temperature on Earth does not rise anymore, provided that the methane and nitrous oxide levels are not increasing further.”
Global Warming Gas Balance in Response to Increasing Concentrations: Perspectives from a Laser Induced Ablation and Gas Evaporation
Blau, M. et al.
Journal of Geology & Geosciences 3:141, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2329-6755.1000141
Why not just admit imagination is the metric and be done with it.
“When the legend becomes a fact, print the legend”
At this point there is nothing which would convince a warmist-they are like Cargo Cultists. It wouldn’t be so aggravating if they are so agitated that YOU don’t believe too.
dccowboy, here are the pdfs related to the abstract you gave us. Thanks for the headsup! Great articles.
Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pas.rochester.edu%2F~douglass%2Fpapers%2FPLA_21192_proofs_plusFigs1_2.pdf&ei=UNKdU8qYC9auyASvgILYDQ&usg=AFQjCNG1YQR4xlzcFmtF84Vf1owFLRlLnw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pas.rochester.edu%2F~douglass%2Fpapers%2FKD_InPress_final.pdf&ei=UNKdU8qYC9auyASvgILYDQ&usg=AFQjCNGd8SuZwfh1SUEDtIZIzVaVG6bNVw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw
JimS says: June 15, 2014 at 6:51 am
“Well, I think scientific monitoring should keep a close eye on the Ungava Peninsula. Apparently this is where the Laurentide ice sheet begins to grow.”
Notice how the ice sheet’s edge seems similar to a loopy jet stream edge. Was the AO in negative territory for an extended length of time, causing Arctic air to invade mid-latitudes? It certainly follows the extreme cold pattern we have been seeing in the Northeast US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/NAO.html
Or…could it be an extended positive AO that dries up rivers and streams making it easier for them to freeze, leading to ice dams? That shape also has a dip in the Northeast US. hmmmmm.