The recently released 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers (SPM) has received extensive media coverage, while a range of television shows (e.g. see) and even a Hollywood movie (An Inconvenient Truth) have promoted gloomy forecasts of the climate in coming decades.
We need an unambiguous litmus test which can be accepted by all credible climate scientists, however, to assess the magnitude of global warming on which these alarmist forecasts are based. As discussed in the paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press,
the global average surface temperature trend has serious uncertainty and bias issues and is not the appropriate metric to use to assess global warming.
As discussed on Climate Science and Scitizen (e.g. see and see), the underlying reason for this aggressive campaign to focus on the human emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as the main culprit is to promote energy policy changes, not to develop an appropriate comprehensive climate policy.
There is a major risk, of course, in making CO2 the only villain in climate change, and in making definitive forecasts of what the climate will do in the coming decades. The risk is that if the IPCC forecasts do not occur as projected, then the credibility of the climate science community will be lost for a long time. This would be tragic as we need an effective climate policy to deal with the threats that climate variability and change pose to society.
Climate Science was launched in order to provide an alternative view on climate issues, which, if the IPCC projections fail, than there is a basis to move forward with a new direction, which Climate Science has proposed be a resource-based vulnerability framework; see
Pielke Sr., R.A., J.O. Adegoke, T.N. Chase, C.H. Marshall, T. Matsui, and D. Niyogi, 2007: A new paradigm for assessing the role of agriculture in the climate system and in climate change. Agric. Forest Meteor., Special Issue, 132, 234-254.
This weblog presents a global warming litmus test which can be used over the next several years to compare with the IPCC projections; the question is
What is the magnitude ocean heat storage changes each year?
For global warming to occur, the heat, as measured in Joules, needs to increase each year.
The heat accumulation for the period from 2002 to the present and into the future needs to be a high priority. For example to sustain a global warming rate of 1 Watt per meter squared since 2002 for the following ten years requires the accumulation of 1.6 *10**23 Joules within the climate system.
A figure, such as Figure 8 in Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi: 10.1029/2003JC002260.
should be widely communicated each year (or more frequently). For example, as a requirement to NOT reject the IPCC claim for global warming, Climate Science proposes that on the scale presented in Figure 3 in Willis et al, the left axis in their Figure 8 must exceed the following values in each year
2003 8*10**22 Joules
2004 9*10**22 Joules
2005 10*10**22 Joules
2006 11*10**22 Joules
2007 12*10**22 Joules
2008 13*10**22 Joules
2009 14*10**22 Joules
2010 15*10**22 Joules
2011 16*10**22 Joules
2012 17*10**22 Joules
This is actually quite a conservative test for the IPCC since the radiative imbalance (which includes all radiative forcings and feedbacks; see), and thus the actual ocean heat storage changes should be larger.
With the expected updating of the 2003 up to the present data (see), we should soon be able to present the actual values of global warming (or global cooling) to compare with the hypothesized radiative imbalances presented above.
Will the IPCC and others in the climate community, and those who are using climate trends to promote energy policy adopt and advocate for this diagnostic of global warming? If they are honest climate scientists they would (see also).
Roger: I find myself largely in agreement with most of what you say in the first half of this entry. On the second half, I understand that this issue is one where there is some disagreement between yourself and some other climate scientists. On the question of ocean heat content, in addition to the GRL paper last year by Ivchenko, Wells and Aleynik (warming in the N. Atlantic over the 1998-2005 period), I also spotted this, on the reliability of the ARGO system, on Neil Wells’ publications page: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JC003825.shtml
I hope these two examples provide useful information in a discussion of the use of the ocean heat content metric and the question of the availability and reliability of data on which to base such a measure.
Respectfully,
Comment by Fergus Brown — April 4, 2007 @ 8:19 am
Dr. Pielke,
Based on the information and previous discussions on this subject, there are two potential drawbacks to this approach.
The first is the issue raised by Fergus which is the need for correction and extrapolation due to incomplete or questionable data which may be an issue among scientists. While this may not be different from the issues you have raised with the reliability of temperature gathering methods, the issues seem more obvious with ocean data.
The second is more to do with “selling” the concept to the public and politicians who would, no doubt, have great difficulty distinguishing the significant from the insignificant in units of 10**22 and watts/cubic meter. In reality, there may be scientific advantages from measuring in degrees Celsius, but everyone thinks they understand the significance of temperature (degrees), but few understand Joules and Watts.
Comment by Bruce Hall — April 4, 2007 @ 9:36 am
“What is the magnitude ocean heat storage changes each year?”
Thats the metric alright. But the energy-deprivation-crusaders aren’t going to be signing up for this. Because they’ve been on a years-long evidence-filibuster.
But yeah we ought to hold them to this even if they themselves won’t agree to such a litmus test.
They’ve basically failed this test already though haven’t they?
But if they were pressed strongly enough it would be interesting to see the range and depth of excuses and magnificent creativity they will display coming up with mindless distractions.
Comment by Graeme Bird — April 5, 2007 @ 7:02 am
Roger, while I think your suggestion is commendable, isn’t the primary focus of alarmist theory on what will occur five decades from now all the way to the end of the century. In this regard, their projections are, in the near term,unfalsifiable which is very convenient to their cause. By the time your objections are validated, their programs will be in full swing and most of us will have already moved on to our lifes’ rewards.
Comment by Sam — April 5, 2007 @ 8:37 am
Sam - Thank you for your comment.
In order to get to reach their alarmist predictions, we can still assess on the shorter term of the next few years. For global warming, Joules must accumulate over time. If they are not accumulating at the rate simulated in the multi-decadal global climate modelsover the next few years, they will be rejected as skillful predictions.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 5, 2007 @ 10:02 am
RE #1 & #2
Yes, the ARGO floats may very well be in need of calibration, but what about the GRACE measurements of glacier melt? Why are they presented to the public without any caveats about the conflicting data and uncertain methodology?
Any measurement that supports the AGW theory seems to be accepted, no matter how new and complex the methodology is, well data that may conflict with the theory remains questionable, even if the methodology is fairly straight forward. One would almost think such behavior was a sign of bias or an agenda.
Comment by Jim Clarke — April 5, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Re #1: It’s interesting, Fergus, how Roger watches the journals like a hawk for anything bolstering his POV, but when a paper like the one you link comes out questioning the basis for Lyman et al, it gets ignored. I did see it when it first came out, but thought I would wait to see if and when Roger would ever discuss it.
All of this points out the great difficulty in getting accurate measurements of ocean heat content, especiallly over the short term. GRACE should solve that problem within a few years, but even then I suspect there will still be significant error bars due to what I assume must be a limited ability to distinguish thermostearic sea level rise from that due to melt.
Re #5: I don’t think name-calling behooves you, Roger, even if it’s just repeating someone else’s phrase.
Re #6: Jim, I don’t think the GRACE results have been represented as not needing calibration. Good calibration simply requires more years of data. The ARGOs may have larger problems. Ultimately, GRACE may be used to calibrate the ARGOs.
Comment by Steve Bloom — April 5, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Steve B- I am sorry but I do not see any name calling in #5. We are making an effort to make sure this does occur from anyone.
Regarding the Lymsn et al paper, I weblogged the day I was made aware of an issue with the data. I agree with you that there are problems with the Argo data. I assume that you will, therefore, be comfortable with the corrections that they make and the conclusions on the magnitude of global warming (or cooling) that they reach. I also would welcome your comment as to whether you will accept the litmus test in my weblog as a way to evaluate the skill of the models to predict the global average radiative forcing (and, if not, why not).
I am also asking you whether you are willing to place the same strict measure on the global surface temperature record, which has become the icon on global warming than you are for the Argo data. We have a peer reviewed paper on this, and I invite you to respond to our conclusions. The paper is
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 5, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Sorry all for my ignorance. I am not a scientist, just a curious citizen
I stumbled across the paper you’ve been referring to as Lyman06. I was quite surprised that, according to the paper, 10 years of warming in the oceans was (essentially) lost in the span of 2 (3?) years. So I started googling the web to see what others were saying — that’s how I got here.
Anyway, from some of the comments here, by my reading, there seems to be some doubt about the accuracy of that report — due to some problems with the instruments. Am I reading correctly? Has this cooling been corroborated (or refuted) by other studies? If not, isn’t this more significant to the models than just “natural variations”?
Thanks for your patience
tim
Comment by Tim G — April 5, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Tim G - Thank you for finding Climate Science!
On your question, there will be a correction on the Lyman et al paper, and we will report on it when they make it available.
One important question, in the context of the litmus test, is whether the ocean heating rate of the 1990s and first couple of years of this century continued or not. If it has not, the data would still raise questions on the skill of the models, even if the large cooling in the paper was in error.
That the sea levels continued to rise but this could not be explained by continental glacier melt was what prompted Lyman et al to examine the data in more depth. This is a very appropriate and commendable activity for any scientist to do, and to make corrections if they find problems.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 5, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Re #8: Roger, “alarmist” is pejorative.
The entire Lyman et al episode is a monument to the difficulty in getting accurate total ocean heat neasurements. Your tightly gradated challenge seems to not recognize that problem. Their correction will be interesting, I’m sure. I’ll certainly have a look at your surface temp data paper.
Re #s 9 and 10: To explain things more fully: The crux of the problem was that the Lyman et al results required an increase in glacial melt far in excess of what seemed reasonable. Over the most recent two year period (2004 and 2005) 3 mm/yr of sea level rise was measured, reasonably matching calculations of melt and expansion for the same period. Looking at data from the new ARGO float system, Lyman et al postulated that there had actually been a cooling resulting in an effective 3 mm/yr decrease in sea level during that period. For both that and the measured 3 mm/yr rise to be true, there would have needed to be a 6 mm/yr contribution from melt. Most people in the field seemed to find this result unphysical, and instead suspected some problem with the ARGOs.
Re #10: Just out of curiosity, to what extent do the models purport to track such changes?
Comment by Steve Bloom — April 6, 2007 @ 4:07 am
Steve - Regarding #10, Hansen, Barnett and others concluded that thet models did track closely with the observed ocean heat content trends. Climate Science weblogged on this; e.g. see
http://www.climatesci.org/2006/04/10/comments-on-the-jim-hansen-spuper-el-nino-prediction/
and
http://www.climatesci.org/2005/08/08/comment-from-jim-hansen-on-the-august-2-climate-science-posting/
The Climate Science proposal is just to continue to compare with the models once the Argo data is corrected.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 6, 2007 @ 6:32 am
Steve - Regarding the term “alarmist”, as I use it, it means overstating the scientifically (i.e. peer reviewed) accepted realistic risks. To refute the use of this term with respect to the radiative forcing of added CO2, one needs to perform the vulnerability analysis that we recommended in Part E in
Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., J.H.C. Gash, L. Bravo de Guenni, M. Meybeck, R.A. Pielke Sr., C.J. Vorosmarty, R.W.A. Hutjes, and S. Lutkemeier, Editors, 2004: Vegetation, water, humans and the climate: A new perspective on an interactive system. Springer, Berlin, Global Change - The IGBP Series, 566 pp,
and show that this human disturbance has a realistic chance to result in the major consequneces to the environment and society, relative to other human- and natural-caused risks, that some (e.g. James Lovelock) are claiming.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 6, 2007 @ 6:46 am
Re #13: Interesting! So what is the opposite term (for underselling the science), and could you point to where you’ve used it?
Comment by Steve Bloom — April 6, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Steve - I hope you read our discussion on the overselling of weather modification and how it applies to the current climate change issue in
Cotton, W.R. and R.A. Pielke, 2007: Human impacts on weather and climate, Cambridge University Press, 330 pp.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 6, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
I’m a non-scientist who loves to read this weblog to try and keep up with climate issues, so forgive me if I ask a dumb question: If the globe is getting warmer, is there any significance to a lot of places hitting record or near record low temperatures this month (besides the cold killing crops)? Is it only significant as far as it impacts calculating average? Thanks for your patience…
Andrew
Comment by Andrew — April 8, 2007 @ 7:59 am
So…what IS the purpose of the alarmists? Other than new taxes? Follow the money!
Comment by NH — April 15, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Well it might be significant if the level of temperature recording, population and technology was static.
But its not. And there are millions or at least tens of thousands of locales that you can micronise for the purpose of getting a record high or a record low.
Because when the climate changes it isn’t a uniform thing. So we would expect both record highs and record lows… Unless the earth cools significantly…. And then we will see very few record highs… But a ton of record lows.
Well thats how I’d see things anyway.
Comment by Graeme Bird — April 16, 2007 @ 3:37 am
Re #17,
There is also the money making scam of brokering the carbon - a large propaganda effort has a huge profit potential for a few that are willing to make money off the suffering of others.
Comment by Harry Haymuss — April 16, 2007 @ 7:26 am
Well Roger… you invited me to comment but I can’t quite see why. Previous answers apply: I don’t see the advantages of the ocean record, when the near sfc atmos record is better
Comment by William Connolley — April 18, 2007 @ 9:53 am
William - Why have you concluded the near sfc atmospheric temperature record is better? That data is not in units of heat (i.e. Joules).
We have discussed major issues with the land near-surface portion of the temperature data and analyses in
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press.
The ocean heat data analyses provide a measurement of heat content changes, which the near-surface temperature data inadequately provides.
We would welcome your (or your colleagues) comments on our JGR paper.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 18, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Roger, were anybody to bother putting error bars on the ocean heat content calculations that are presently available, wouldn’t they likely be so large as to render your test meaningless?
Comment by Steve Bloom — April 19, 2007 @ 12:03 am
Steve B. - This is an excellent question, and this uncertaintly should be part of all diagnoses based on data. The Willis et al, Lyman et al paper and the correction to the Lyman et al paper do include uncertainty. They have been very careful to include that in their analyses.
Such a statistical assessment should also be part of the construction of the global average surface temperature trend evaluation!
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 19, 2007 @ 5:04 am
These studies are a great candidate for Gage R & R.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/pacific_abyss_v3.pdf
Comment by Steve Sadlov — April 19, 2007 @ 1:40 pm