NOAA baffled over ocean readings

[Papa Bear]

Only fools and lefties will challenge all this data! Our attack the messenger! Either way they have no answers other than "Get off my planet" "Kill your children" or "Give up your evil ways"! All BS in the first degree! These are the same people who won't let us build new Nuclear plants or refineries? They just want you to sit home waiting to die while they fly around the country telling everyone to turn over your tax money so we can save you and the reefs! So don't take up SCUBA it takes too much carbon to get you there! It is all dying anyway so there must not be much to see or study!

It must be miserable being them!

[thalassamania]

Only fools and lefties will challenge all this data! Our attack the messenger! Either way they have no answers other than "Get off my planet" "Kill your children" or "Give up your evil ways"! All BS in the first degree! These are the same people who won't let us build new Nuclear plants or refineries? They just want you to sit home waiting to die while they fly around the country telling everyone to turn over your tax money so we can save you and the reefs! So don't take up SCUBA it takes too much carbon to get you there! It is all dying anyway so there must not be much to see or study!

It must be miserable being them!

What data? The only data you've presented is data that was revised because the instruments were miscalibrated. You alternate between posting and reposting that erroneous data and cuting and pasting self serving lies provided for that purpose by boot-licking tools like Steven Milloy (serious wacko, best know for his claim following the terrorist attacks of September 11 that the collapse of the World Trade Towers could have been delayed if only the builders had used more asbestos. ), Chris Horner (who works as legal Counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Even ExxonMobil doesn't take the CEI serious any more.), Phil Brennan (who makes up numbers when the facts doen't suit him debunk), John Coleman (who's a TV weatherman and music show host with no climate change credentials bio) and Dennis Avery (whom we've already covered).

Frankly, there's nothing I'd welcome more than creditable data discrediting anthropogenic climate change. But I've yet to see any, I hear the really weird wailing and whining that comes from the right, but they have no creditable data, in fact they don't seem to care about creditable data or the truth, they just want a piece of Al Gore's hide. Well I hate to tell them, I don't like Al Gore either, and I sure don't like Tipper and her attempts to censor music, but that's not the issue, on the basis of the data, on the basis of creditable analysis by creditable scientists there is little room for doubt.

[Papa Bear]

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of man-made global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

So let the crying begin!

[thalassamania]

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of man-made global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

So let the crying begin!

You obviously know nothing about science or how it works. It is not like industry and has very little concern with "vested interests." In point of fact that very critique points to the way industry and business thinks, not science.

If I (or for that matter any competent scientist) had one shred of definitive evidence that could poke a hole in anthropogenic climate change believe me it'd be out in pubic with trumpets blowing ... that's the sort of thing that careers are made on.

Anyone who could do that would win all the major prizes and have their pick of a tenured chair at all the best institutions. It would be far more rewarding than, ho-hum another piece of data that supports climate change.

[Papa Bear]

With the recent evidence of significant disagreement between the IPCC model projections and reality, as diagnosed by surface air and tropospheric temperatures (e.g. see, see and see) and upper ocean heat content (i.e. see), Climate Science is reposting a weblog from 2006 titled “Big Time Gambling With Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Predictions by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roger A. Pielke Jr.”

The weblog reads,

”Many advocates for action on climate change, including the IPCC assessments and recent documentaries have promoted a view that global warming will continue through the 21st century, with global warming defined as a steady increase in global average temperatures. This prediction of warming is based on the output of multi-decadal general circulation models and is primarily due to the radiative forcing effect of anthropogenic emissions of CO2. In such models only relatively minor year-to-year variations in global average temperatures are forecast in the upward trend, except when major volcanic eruptions cause short-term (up to a few years) of global cooling. For example, see these projections of the most recent IPCC — none of the models has an obvious multi-year (i.e., >2) decrease in global average temperatures over the next century.

Such predictions represent a huge gamble with public and policymaker opinion. If more-or-less steady global warming does not occur as forecast by these models, not only will professional reputations be at risk, but the need to reduce threats to the wide spectrum of serious and legitimate environmental concerns (including the human release of greenhouse gases) will be questioned by some as having been oversold. For better or worse, a failure to accurately predict the changes in the global average surface temperature, global average tropospheric temperature, ocean average heat content change, or Arctic sea ice coverage would raise questions on the reliance of global climate models for accurate prediction on multi-decadal time scales. Surprises or experience that evolve outside the bounds of model output would likely raise questions even among some of those who have so far accepted the IPCC reports as a balanced presentation of climate science. (For a perspective different than the IPCC on applications of climate models see this.)

The National Research Council published a report in 2002 entitled “Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises” (of which RP2 was a committee member). The report raised the issues of surprises in the climate system. One of the surprises (to many) may be that the global climate models are simply unable to accurately predict the variability and trends in the climate metrics that have been adopted to communicate human-caused climate change to policymakers. Among the climate metrics with the most public visibility are the long term trends in global average surface temperature, global average tropospheric temperature, summer arctic sea ice areal coverage, and ocean heat content.

There is some emerging empirical evidence to suggest, however, that the concerns expressed here are worth consideration. The recent dramatic cooling of the average heat content of the upper oceans, and thus a significant negative radiative imbalance of the climate system for at least a two year period, that was mentioned in the Climate Science weblog posting of July 27, 2006, should be a wake-up call to the climate community that the focus on predictive modeling as the framework to communicate to policymakers on climate policy has serious issues as to its ability to accurately predict the behavior of the climate system. No climate model that we are aware of has anticipated such a significant cooling, nor is able to reproduce such a significant negative radiative imbalance. Meaningless distinctions between “projections” and “predictions” will be unlikely to convince consumers of climate models to overlook experience that does not jibe with modeled output.

[Note added for the March 21 2008 weblog - while the cooling reported above was shown to be an error in the analysis of the upper ocean data by the authors of the Lyman et al at study, their corrected data still shows no warming in the upper oceans for the last 4 years; thus the comment about the failure of the models still applies. There has been no global warming, at least above the 700m level in the ocean, since at least 2004].

There is no greater danger to support for action on important issues of human impacts on the environment than an overselling of what climate science can provide. If the climate behaves in ways that are unexpected or surprising it will be more than just credibility that is lost. Advocates for action should think carefully when gambling with the unknown predictive abilities of climate models. The human influence on the climate system is real, but the climate may not always cooperate.”
« Comments On The NPR Story By Richard Harris Entitled “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat” Comments On The News Article by Seth Borenstein entitled “Global Warming Rushes Timing of Spring” »

[thalassamania]

Once again Papa Bear displays a "different" interpretation of what people are actually saying and what they actually conclude. Dr. Pielke has, at worst, a somewhat guarded position on climate change. He is described, however, by the right wing loonies as a skeptic, but is a description that he clearly rejects.

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

and

A press release by Paradise Post reported on an important problem with the lack of a balanced presentation of climate science in the media. However, there are several falsehoods that are included with respect to my views. A correction is essential.

The news release stated, ” He says most scientists are not willing to claim global warming is the fault of humans and their lifestyle.”

This is not my perspective. As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!(see).

The article stated, “The professor also challenged recommendations made at the end of the program to reduce atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide, saying such a program is really a waste of time and energy.”
I never made such a challenge. Indeed, I endorse the development of alternative energy and energy efficiency, both of which could save us money, reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuel, as well as reduce emissions of gases and aerosols into the atmosphere, including CO2 (see).

The attribution to me of the statement, “Their theories have been disputed by former colleagues and a current co-worker, according to Pielke, who noted, “Oppenheimer serves as an adviser to a left-wing activist group, Environmental Defense.” is wrong. I never made this statement. To place quotes around statements that I did not make is completely unacceptable and inappropriate.

The press release could have made their points without creating fictional quotes and views that I did not make.

I am sorry to see that media bias exists on all sides of the presentation of views on climate.

I'm sure that Dr. Pielke would regard Papa Bear's misapplication of his writing in this same vein.

Once again Papa Bear, I request your retraction of your post, based on the author's own words.

[Papa Bear]

“Despite the short period of the present analysis, these results have important implications for climate. First, from 2004 to the present, steric contributions to sea level rise appear to have been negligible. This is consistent with observations of ocean surface temperature, which show relatively little change in the global average between 2003 and 2006 [Smith and Reynolds, 2005, see NCDC global surface temperature anomalies]. It is in sharp contrast, however, to historical analyses of thermal expansion over the past decade [Willis et al., 2004] and the past half-century [Antonov et al., 2005; Lombard et al., 2005; Ishii et al., 2006]. Although the historical record suggests that multiyear periods of little warming (or even cooling) are not unusual, the present analysis confirms this result with unprecedented accuracy.”

The above paragraph reinforces a conclusion reached on Climate Science that global warming, at least as diagnosed by tropospheric and upper ocean heat content (see), has not been occurring since 2004. It is impossible to know if this lack of warming will continue, but these observations are inconsistent with the predictions of the long-term global climate predictions, such as reported in the 2007 IPCC report.