2011-09-18 09:21:16Goal of Pielke's line of questioning-- please read.
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I do not know whether or not people are awre of this, but this is very likely where Pielke is headed with his line of questioning.  Read these blog posts on his blog for background:

 

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/additional-information-on-the-oceans-missing-heat-by-katsman-and-van-oldenborgh-2011/

 

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/2011-update-of-the-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/

 

The second post above is the important/critical one folks, this is his punch line (really does he think that people are dolts?):

 

Pielke Senior:

"See also the response by Jim Hansen to a comment by Christy and Pielke Sr [which Science refused to publish], where Hansen wrote me with respect to their GISS model predictions that

“Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean.”

He further writes

“The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.”

Thus, the best estimate value of 0.60 Watts per meter squared given in Hansen et al can be used, as a conservative value, to calculate the heat change in Joules that should be expected in the upper ocean data from 2003 to the present.

The observed best estimates of the  heating and the Hansen et al prediction in Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean are given below:

OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

2003 ~0 Joules
2004 ~0 Joules
2005 ~0 Joules
2006 ~0 Joules
2007 ~0 Joules
2008 ~0 Joules
2009  ~0 Joules 
2010 ~0 Joules
2011 ~0 Joules through May 2011
2012  —–   

HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002] [corrected 6/13/2011 from input from Bob Tilsdale].

2003 ~0.67* 10** 22 Joules
2004 ~1.34* 10** 22 Joules
2005 ~2.01 * 10** 22 Joules
2006 ~2.68 * 10** 22 Joules
2007 ~3.35 * 10** 22 Joules
2008 ~4.02 * 10** 22 Joules
2009 ~4.69 * 10** 22 Joules
2010 ~5.36 * 10** 22 Joules
2011 ~6.03* 10** 22 Joules
2012 ~6.70* 10** 22 Joules

Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 6.7 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next 1  1/2 years. This requires a heating rate over the next 1 1/2 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean  corresponding to a radiative imbalance of ~4 Watts per square meter."

2011-09-18 09:39:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I call bullshit on the claim of 0 Joules from 2003 through 2011.  But I'm not surprised that's where he's going - that's actually where I predicted he would go in an email to John earlier today.  We just have to show it's bullshit.

1) The zero Joules figure is BS

2) Models don't incorporate aerosols, nor are they expected to accurately predict short-term changes over less than a decade.

3) The oceans are more than 700 meters deep

2011-09-18 09:41:17
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

Why does this seem very familiar to me?  For some reason I think I have seen discussion on this post before, that was a long time ago.

Where in the world does Pielke get his numbers for OHC?  Lyman et al 2010 for example show "robust" warming of the upper 700m over the timeframe given, sure most between 2002 and 2004 but the integrated endpoint for 2012 would be, roughly, the same as the model.

2011-09-18 09:53:42
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I ran some numbers on 700 m OHC for 2003 to 2009 (Source).

From Levitus the trend is 1.5 x 1020 J per year.

From Palmer it's 8.0 x 1021 J per year

For Willis (through 2008) it's 7.4 x 1020 J per year.

Bottom line, the trends are small, and I don't know about statistical significance, but they ain't zero.  Plus the ARGO data analysis could still have problems.  Eli in the comments to our Pielke post made the point that it took over a decade to get the MSU data right (assuming we've got it right now, which is somewhat questionable).

2011-09-18 10:20:06
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Yup.  This is what I've been saying.  He's angling in on OHC content as a "single diagnostic of global warming."

Bad, bad, bad.  He is a very bad man.

We rely on multiple lines of evidence to understand global warming.

I would want to know if the 700m OHC measurements are any more accurate than any other measure.  They are still measuring a fraction of the ocean with a MUCH more sparse set of "stations" than either of the the surface station data sets and certainly the satellite record.  Could relying on just the top 700m be prone to the same thermal inertia (being that heat may likely be hiding at greater depths) as an of the surface data?

This is the new delaying tactic being trotted out by the denier crowd.

Why is Pielke here?  Why is he bothering to engage us?  Just because we said his buddy promotes crocks?  I'm starting to get suspicious that he's up to more than we know.

2011-09-18 10:32:07
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

The forcing equivalents for each, Dana, are (respectively) 0.013 W, 0.705W, and 0.06 W.  The Palmer trend is the largest, larger than the trend in the model -the others are smaller by at least an order of magnitude.  That's a pretty big discrepancy, what methods did each use?

The Lyman paper appears to show multiple trends from various sources, almost all are within maybe 20% of the model, many on the high end.

I think the point about deep-ocean storage is an important one, though I don't know what a quantified explanation would be.

2011-09-18 10:48:56
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

BTW, don't forget that the trend is for 2002-2012; in each dataset it seems, there was a very large spike from 2002-2003, and after that relative flatness in about half the datasets.  So, either there was a lot of warming in a single year that "made up" for the flatness later with respect to the model relative to 2008/2009, or there was constant warming (or, in the case of Levitus, basically no net change at all).  The model doesn't do a good job predicting growth rate for individual years, but averaged over to 2008 it is pretty robust.

This would indicate that vertical movement of heat into/out of the top 700 meters is an important variability aspect.  If we accept Pielke's insistence on a single diagnostic tool, then we have to accept a ~3-4W/m^2 imbalance can just vanish in a year.

I'm chuckling to myself about that one.

2011-09-18 10:50:49
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Very good point, Alex!

2011-09-18 11:01:08
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I haven't read the papers Alex, just got their data from NOAA.  Palmer's was interesting in showing a much larger trend - we should have a look at that one and see what they did.

What's the conversion from OHC trend to forcing, by the way?

I suspect Pielke would argue that the 2002-2003 spike is an artefact of poor data quality.  He thinks ARGO is the be all and end all of ocean data, and would probably dismiss any prior OHC data as inaccurate.

2011-09-18 11:05:30
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

If the figure is J/year, as a flux of energy into the total ocean, then:

W/m^2 = J/s/m^2 = J/year/ocean * (1 year / 525,600 min) * (1 min / 60 s) * (1 ocean / 3.8e8 km^2) * (1 km^2 / 1000000 m^2)

You can work it backwards using Hansen's model for example, the numbers are about the same, varying depending on what their definition for ocean area was.

2011-09-18 11:07:10
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

>>>He thinks ARGO is the be all and end all of ocean data, and would probably dismiss any prior OHC data as inaccurate.

Perfect example of Cherry Pielke-ing.  So what if he does?  Just another corner for him to back into.  If he does have a point (it's a valid complaint), then it would equally apply to all other datapoints as well, until a reanalysis can make a final distinction.  Keep in mind though that this was not a single spike, which then returned to normal, this was a complete shift upwards that stayed put or continued, depending on the study.  And all studies show it.  That would, I think, be a very peculiar instrumental error.

2011-09-18 11:10:34
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Here's Palmer by the way.  Published in 2007, but I think Lyman applied their methods through 2009 on that NOAA page.

"We present a new analysis of millions of ocean temperature profiles designed to filter out local dynamical changes to give a more consistent view of the underlying warming. Time series of temperature anomaly for all waters warmer than 14 C show large reductions in interannual to inter-decadal variability and a more spatially uniform upper ocean warming trend (0.12 Wm 2 on average) than previous results. This new measure of ocean warming is also more robust to some sources of error in the ocean observing system. Our new analysis provides a useful addition for evaluation of coupled climate models, to the traditional fixed depth analyses."

2011-09-18 11:21:14
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

Hm, Palmer did only to 220 meters, not a full 700.  That makes a comparison problematic.

2011-09-18 11:36:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Oh my bad, there's a Palmer et al. 2010 too.  Both are referenced on the NOAA page.  Here's the 2010 paper.  Some useful stuff in there, including this:

"Reference [18] [Lyman 2008] estimates the current (2006 Argo coverage) in situ sampling uncertainty for the 0-700 m layer is approximately ± 0.4 Wm-2 over multi-year time scales at the 95% level."

That's pretty killer for Pielke's argument that we can be confident in little to no OHC increase.

2011-09-18 11:44:57Found it
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Aren't we replowing the same ground that was plowed in Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger and its comment thread?

2011-09-18 11:47:26
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yeah, lots of the same issues, John.  This is Pielke's pet argument, after all.  But graham's post that you link covers the subject well, so when Pielke makes this same argument again, we can probably just reference that post, maybe with a little update with recent research, and call it a day.

Actually now that I read it again, Graham's post (and a RealClimate post he links to) is a gold mine for the Cherry Pielking series.  Pielke has cherrypicked on sea level and sea ice data too.  He's even more of a serial cherrypicker than I thought.

2011-09-18 12:16:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Guys/Gals,

Please also read Domingues et al. (2008)-- it is a critical paper, and evaluates the models OHC predictions.  Whether or not the models include volcanic aerosols in crucial.  If one does include the volcanic aerosols the models do quite well.

2011-09-18 12:27:59
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

I think that there is a lot of good information here for a later post, but I don't think we should include too much in our response to Pielke.  For now anyways, maybe he'll press the OHC point further.

2011-09-18 12:53:19
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Alex,

 

Sorry, I really do not mean to be snarly, but OHC IS Pielke's point, his sole point, his only point, his "Gotcha!".

2011-09-18 13:01:43
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Graham's post included Dominguez.  I think we just have to reference that post rather than re-hash the same argument we've had with Pielke in the past.

2011-09-18 13:01:48
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

[For starters, I misunderstood Dana's point @Sept. 18 11:01AM, so my post @11:07AM does not follow.]

Alby: I understand, it's just we might have a space issue.  We have 5 other parts to respond to, unless our goal is to get as detailed as possible.  So, do we want something short and to the point as Dana's suggestions in the Blog Posts section, or do we do more?

(Man, I need to get some sleep, mixing up names already...)

2011-09-18 13:04:48
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Everything will always turn back to OHC with Pielke.  See how he went from 'SkS uses adhoms' to 'OHC!' in 2 posts.  If he continues to pound on it, without retort, he wins.  i doubt anyone here or any other scientist thinks that 8 years of what may or may not be robust data is good enough to replace all other metrics and toss off all the models and all this other nonsense he preaches.  So it is his case to prove, but he will undoubtedly press further.  That's why WE need to address it further after we answer these few questions, which I believe we are.  Alby, have you discussed this with Rob?  Having dificulty following all these threads.  We just need to be ready to address it sooner than later.   So not only do we need to know the ins and outs of OHC but we need someone to know how to address the importance of putting OHC in perspective.

2011-09-18 14:06:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

"Graham's post included Dominguez. "

OK, it is late and I'm tired, but I did not see Domingus et al. referenced in those to posts by gpwayne.

2011-09-18 14:07:34
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I tried to head it off in our responses to Pielke's first questions, grypo.  See here.

Alby - my bad, it was actually von Schuckmann in graham's post

2011-09-18 14:15:44
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Pielke's red herring is that OHC (as the research currently stands) is fully representative of global warming.  IF we had a full accounting of the heat content of the entire ocean he would be right on the money.  We don't (and they know it).  As it is he's falsely claiming that the top 700m is a robust representation of OHC, and therefore global warming.

I think John Hartz nailed it when he called this "Pielke's Petard" for this is one by which he will ultimately be hoisted.

But Pielke is not completely stupid and I think he probably knows this.  I think he's in with the behind-the-scenes (George C Marshall Inst, et al) heavy hitters where they are laying OHC out as the next delaying tactic for the FF industry.

2011-09-18 14:50:50
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

You probably know this, but one problem with the 700 m humbe ris that it has not physical meaning, it is a complete artifact of the depth limitations of most XBTs!

2011-09-18 14:51:06
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dan,

 

No worries!  here it is:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html

Abtract:

Changes in the climate system's energy budget are predominantly revealed in ocean temperatures1, 2 and the associated thermal expansion contribution to sea-level rise2. Climate models, however, do not reproduce the large decadal variability in globally averaged ocean heat content inferred from the sparse observational database3, 4, even when volcanic and other variable climate forcings are included. The sum of the observed contributions has also not adequately explained the overall multi-decadal rise2. Here we report improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 m and 700 m of the ocean for 1950–2003, using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage5, 6, 7 and applying recent corrections8 to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature observations9. Our ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for 1961–2003 are about 50 per cent larger than earlier estimates but about 40 per cent smaller for 1993–2003, which is consistent with the recognition that previously estimated rates for the 1990s had a positive bias as a result of instrumental errors8, 9, 10. On average, the decadal variability of the climate models with volcanic forcing now agrees approximately with the observations, but the modelled multi-decadal trends are smaller than observed. We add our observational estimate of upper-ocean thermal expansion to other contributions to sea-level rise and find that the sum of contributions from 1961 to 2003 is about 1.5 plusminus 0.4 mm yr-1, in good agreement with our updated estimate of near-global mean sea-level rise (using techniques established in earlier studies6, 7) of 1.6 plusminus 0.2 mm yr-1.

2011-09-18 17:27:10Nature article
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Does anyone want it?

2011-09-18 17:29:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

So it seems to me that, in our discussions with him, we simply refuse to accept OHC as the sole measure of climate change.

Is it more complicated than that?

2011-09-18 18:05:16
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

After which, if there is (as likely) a push by him to either accept or to explain the OHC issue:

- We don't accept it as the sole measure/indicator/diagnostic of climate change or warming

- We can admit that there is a discrepancy between the models and the measurements (that seems to be true, so there's no point in fighting that); but we emphasize the unsettled aspects of the measurements (we need a list). Without a hint of irony, we can remind him of how long it took for the UAH measurements to become aligned with the other measures of temperature. So it may remain a discrepancy for another decade; that's why it's important to rely on multiple lines of evidence in evaluating the progress of climate change, no matter how intuitively simple a particular one may seem to be at the moment.

Something like that.

2011-09-21 12:21:44
adelady

amgnificent@gmail...
124.171.82.190

I like that one neal.   If the ever-so-marvelous satellite data child of 'highly respected' scientific parents needed 10 years for corrected calibration, we need at least that for ARGO as well as other datasets / analysis to confirm.  

2011-09-21 12:40:25
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Pielke also seems to ignore the fact that the GISTEMP etc. are for land and ocean, not just land.  yes, the SSTs are just that, surface temperatures (more or less), but there is as much heat store din just the top 2 m of ther ocean, as shown by Petersen et al. (2011) that contains three orders of magnitude more than in the top 2 m of atmosphere.  So a lot of heat content is accounted for by including the SST data.  From Petersen et al.(2011):

"Therefore, a two meter high layer of the atmosphere covering the global land surface would contain 3.37 x 1014 kg of air and be gaining heat content at a rate of 1.9 x 1017 Jdecade-1. This seems like a tremendous amount of energy and
it is. Yet it is a drop in the bucket, three orders of magnitude less than the concurrent increase in heat content of the top two meters of the ocean and five orders of magnitude less than the concurrent increases in ocean heat content from 0 to 700 m depth."

2011-09-21 13:06:18
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

I'm still not really getting the point: Temperature is a part of what we experience in the climate, there's no point in dismissing it.

If you pound my finger with a hammer, it's no good my telling myself that this represents 3 orders of magnitude less matter than my entire body. It still hurts a lot.

2011-09-21 14:52:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Neal,

Exactly.