Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger

Posted on 8 September 2010 by gpwayne

When I wrote a ‘basic’ rebuttal on ocean heat, I didn’t expect one of the world’s foremost climate scientists - and one who is frequently associated with climate change scepticism - to take issue with me, or to take it so personally. But he did, and he chose to do so on his own blog, with comments turned off so I couldn’t respond or defend my work. Since Dr. Pielke didn’t care to pop in to Skeptical Science and talk to us, I’ll just have to consider his arguments, and my responses to them, in this post instead.

Setting the scene

Let’s start by considering the skeptical arguments I was rebutting. We employed a statement by Pielke Sr as a stand-in for a broader issue – that global warming has stalled or stopped during the last decade because the oceans have not continued to heat up. As far as oceans are concerned, the broad assertion made by many skeptics depends on a rather odd assumption – that temperature changes in the ocean or atmosphere will be linear – steady, regular rises that march in step with GHG increases. Unfortunately, we’re talking about a chaotic system, so nothing is likely to be quite so tidy. But that isn’t Pielke’s specific argument; in this case, his is a subset of this wider misinterpretation of climate science and the evidence for it.

What then are his specific arguments? There are two; the first is that the oceans have not been accumulating heat since 2004. The second is, and I quote “Global warming, as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content has not been occurring since 2004”.

Does Pielke Sr still think this? Apparently so, because in his indignant response, this is what he wrote about my rebuttal:

“The author of this post [that’s me] documents in the figures that they present, that upper ocean heat, in terms of its annual average, did not accumulate during the period ~2004 through 2009. This means that global warming halted on this time period. There is no other way to spin this data”.

The emboldening is Pielke’s, not mine. (I might also suggest he refrains from suggesting he couldn’t think of any other way to “spin this data”. He was probably being ironic, right? Let’s hope so).

Have the oceans been cooling?

It stands to reason that if the oceans haven’t been cooling, the wheels come off Pielke’s argument pretty quickly. So what does the science say? To examine the evidence, I used Lyman 2010, which created a meta-study of various measurements for the last two decades. This choice eliminated one key problem with Pielke’s assertion – dependence on too small a data sample. It also gave us a clearer indication of overall trends, because as usual it is necessary to screen out noisy signals to ascertain the valid long-term trend. What Lyman 2010 shows very clearly is that although upper ocean heat increases are irregular, the trend is very clear:

Source: Lyman 2010

But I’m just a journalist writing about science. Perhaps we should look to someone who has hands-on expertise in the field, someone like Kevin Trenberth, who also takes issue with Pielke’s claims about ocean heat:

Trenberth, April 2010: We are well aware that there are well over a dozen estimates of ocean heat content and they are all different yet based on the same data. There are clearly problems in the analysis phase and I don’t believe any are correct. There is a nice analysis of ocean heat content down to 2000m by von Schuckmann [Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008] but even those estimates are likely conservative. The deep ocean is not well monitored and nor is the Arctic below sea ice... [An article going to press] highlights the discrepancies that should be resolved with better data and analysis, and improved observations must play a key role.

So what does Pielke think about these discrepancies in ocean heat content? This is part of his response to Trenberth:

Pielke: We both agree on the need for further data and better analyses...However, I do not see how such large amounts of heat could have transited to depths below 700m since 2005 without being detected.

Source (both quotes): Post on Pielke’s blog

Now call me picky if you like, but if there’s a lot of discussion about the accuracy of the data, the methods of analysing it, and what it all means, then surely it would be more prudent to make clear the uncertainty, and certainly make clear the arbitrary nature of one’s scepticism e.g. “I do not see how such large amounts...” Incredulity is not science. Yet there’s very little uncertainty in Pielke’s claim that “global warming halted on this time period”, which appears to be based on arbitrary assumptions, especially when you look at Von Schuckmann’s paper. This is the graph of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres:

Figure 11: Time series of global mean heat storage (0-2000m).

This is what the von Schuckmann paper had to say about the graph: Figure 11a shows the variability of globally averaged deep ocean heat content computed from the monthly temperature anomaly fields. A considerable warming is visible from the year 2003 to 2008. The 6-year heat increase implies an average warming rate of 0.77 ± 0.11Wm2. Much of this increase in heat storage comes from the Atlantic [Fig. 5,Levitus et al., 2005].

Compare that statement to this one, from Pielke’s post:

“What the Skeptical Science fails to recognize is that with respect to the diagnosis of global warming using Joules of heat accumulation in the oceans, snapshots of heat content at different times are all that is needed. There is no time lag in heating or cooling. The Joules are either there or they are not. The assessment of a long-term linear trend is not needed”.

Sorry, but if you take ‘snapshots’ (isn’t that another name for cherry-picking?) and come to a conclusion at odds with the trend demonstrated by the full data, perhaps the snapshot technique isn’t very suitable? The statement about ‘no time-lag’ is puzzling, since latency is a big issue in ocean studies. Heat moves around the ocean in mysterious ways, and as Trenberth notes there are considerable areas of uncertainty in deep water measurements, Arctic heat content and the analysis techniques themselves. Since Pielke appears to agree, it is hard to understand how he can defend his claims, based as they are on certainties that the data don’t support.

So, on the science, it appears that in the first place, the premise that the oceans have not been heating may not be correct, and the science certainly isn’t settled. Pielke Sr may simply be wrong, he most certainly cannot provide definitive, unequivocal evidence to support his claim, and statements investing so much inappropriate certainty on something so uncertain are not worthy of a reputable scientist.

Pielke Sr claims I have misrepresented the science. It seems to me the boot is on the other foot, and it isn’t just me:

“I had noted that Pielke Sr. loves to cherry-pick climate data over short time spans to make misleading scientific claims about climate. Climate, of course, is about long-term trends”.

Joe Romm, July 2009

And for completeness, Realclimate respond on several issues following an attack on them by Pielke. Read it and decide for yourself if there isn’t a bit of a pattern emerging here.

Did Global Warming stop during this period?

So far I’ve dealt with uncertainty, our requirement to acknowledge it, and the inadvisable nature of making assumptions based on short term data. There is much more to all this, as you can read at Realclimate and Pielke’s blog, where ocean heat arguments come up regularly. To this journalist, they seem rather circular; what I do take from all this is that nobody really know that much for certain. Including Pielke.

When we turn to the other issue I believe is important, things seem a little clearer, because there is a pervasive logic that must surely apply. It is this statement that troubles me:

“This means that global warming halted on this time period”.

It cannot be controversial to suggest that if you are considering whether a phenomenon is taking place or not, one would evaluate all the manifestations of that phenomenon. Ocean heating –whatever the hell is going on down there – is only one part of the jigsaw. Let’s just assume for a moment that the oceans did not heat up for five years. In order to assert that global warming has halted in this period, we would also expect to see no negative mass balance in the Arctic or Greenland ice cap for the same period. Since Pielke insists there is no time lag there should be no lag in cryrospheric responses either where those responses are so closely coupled to ocean temperatures. Yet the ice has melted at prodigious, and accelerating rates - something else that Pielke denies.

Another response we would expect to see in the data would be sea level rise. It is curious to note that Pielke also disputes this area of study in much the same fashion; according to him, reports that sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate are simply ‘not true’.

So according to Pielke, for five years oceans did not heat up, ice did not melt and sea levels did not increase. This is too much research for one man to debunk. It goes against a heap of science across several disciplines, the same science summarised in the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress. It is at this point that Pielke’s position begins to assume the characteristics ascribed to him by Romm, Schmidt and others (including me). It does not look like good science, it looks like partisan obfuscation, smacking not so much of scepticism but confirmation bias. I will refrain from invoking the ‘D’ word.

I will conclude with a broad sweep of my own: the NOAA 2009 State of the Climate Report. The link is to their news story of the release, which they title “Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries”. In the report they catalogue ten key indicators of a warming world. All of them have demonstrated phenomena consistent with anthropogenic climate change, the same phenomena Pielke says were not happening.

Roger Pielke Sr is a well-credentialed man. He is widely published, a bona-fide expert, and his competence cannot be questioned. He is also a human being, and we are all from time to time victims of our beliefs, where ideology and resistance to change are justified using all the tricks, the clout and the guile we learn throughout our lives. But data doesn’t change because you don’t like it. Disingenuous claims about climate change are used to obfuscate, delay and hinder any progress on this subject, be it scientific, commercial, industrial, social or political.

Scientists like Pielke have a responsibility not to put dangerous myths into the hands of those whose interests are very different from that of the majority. Science and politics may not mix very well, but each can provide sufficient fuel with which to burn each other’s books.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  3  4  5  

Comments 201 to 226 out of 226:

  1. Thanks J Murphy @199:)
    0 0
  2. Huh? Pielke made that statement on February 15, 2008...7:00 am This is the timeline for the paper by Willis et al. which he is citing: Received 22 August 2007; revised 24 January 2008; accepted 22 February 2008; published 14 June 2008. Pielke wrote on this before it was accepted, but he cites it as being "in press".
    0 0
  3. SS regulars, Seems like you're being a bit pedantic here. Somebody at R/C, was it Rasmus? titled this plateau "a pause". Pielke Sr. says 'has halted since 2004' or to that effect. Only time will tell whether the R/C line - that it is a "pause" is correct or not. However Pielke is right no matter what, that in 2008 (or 2009 or 2010) "This means that global warming halted on this time period." This shouldn't be controversial, he is not saying AGW is finished. The POV / idea that it's only a pause will be proven right or wrong. Pielke is accurate, even if you don't care for his wording or lack of caveats. Considering the ocean temp lags the energy imbalance, it's fascinating that it has leveled off even temporarily at a time when warming is supposed to be accelerating. (Yes, noisy signal & sensor limitations understood).
    0 0
  4. radar30331, Google "global warming has halted".
    0 0
  5. @ Radar30331 A key assumption made by Dr. Pielke is that there has been no significant warming of the deep ocean layers during the 2004-2009 period. Even Dr. Pielke admits that this key assumption an neither be proved or disproved because the requisite database simply does not exist. The "accuracy" of Pielke's postulate will therefore likely never be proven or disproven.
    0 0
  6. Dr Pielke, first of all, sincere thanks for engaging so positively here, it is genuinely appreciated. Unfortunately, there is nothing in your response which in any way addresses my fundamental point, which is that the variability in the monthly data is not just a small amount, but at least an order of magnitude too large to justify your claim that a monthly snapshot can provide a planetary heat balance on that timescale. I must confess I find it disappointing that you haven't effectively responded on this. I do agree that, in principle, looking at a planetary heat balance in Joules rather than degrees would be better, however in practice the long term data is simply not available at the moment. Also, temperature is much more easily understood by the layman, enabling the science to be more accessible, which is vital if the right response is to be made.
    0 0
  7. VeryTallGuy @206, I concur. I would also add that while practically everyone here agrees that OHC is a good metric, it is only so if it can be measured properly/accurately. The disagreements amongst the various analysis techniques of the Argo data suggest that there are issues that preclude making definitive statements. Dr. Pielke has still not stated why he has chosen the NODC data over the other datasets available (e.g., Hadley, PMEL, von Shuckmann et al., Lyman et al., Trenberth).
    0 0
  8. Anyone, How did NOAA/NODC develop the methodology for computing OHC from the data collected by the ARGOS buoys? Was it done in-house, or through contract? Was an advisory committee of outside-the-agency experts involved in the development process? Has the methodology that was produced and used since been reviewed in a published paper? Has the methodology been tweaked since it was first used?
    0 0
  9. Badger, go here for more information:
    0 0
  10. Albatross, Thanks for the link. I posed the questions in #208 because there are two basic issues about the OHC as computed by the NODC embedded Dr. Pielke's hypothesis. One is the slope of the trend line and the other is the "missing heat." Most of the discussion on this thread appears to be focused on this issue. Everything else being equal, if there are undetected flaws in the methodology used by the NODC to compute the OHC of the upper layer, those flaws could very well produce underestimates of the OHC. If this were the case, the "missing heat" may not be missing after all. Personally, I believe that most of the “missing heat” is in the lower layers of the oceans.
    0 0
  11. Albatross, As it turns out, I had already been to the NODC webpage that you provided the link to. The only narrative provided on this webpage is a link to: “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems,” S. Levitus,1 J. I. Antonov,1 T. P. Boyer,1 R. A. Locarnini,1 H. E. Garcia,1 and A. V. Mishonov1 Received 31 December 2008; revised 26 February 2009; accepted 18 March 2009; published 11 April 2009 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009 As best I can tell, this paper does not provide answers to the questions I had posed in #208. I have a contact in NODC and will pose the set of questions to him.
    0 0
  12. #173 Moderators comment (Graham) and #200 Badgersouth My interpretation of Graham's comment is that it reflects an underlying thinking that there is a linear relationship between scientific findings and political action. The argument being put there is that Pielke snr should not report on the science of global warming because his comments might be used by climate change deniers for other purposes. But if we take the point of view as argued by Pielke jnr in The Climate Fix that the science and politics ought to be more separate than that then the logic of Graham's moderator's comment is not valid.
    0 0
  13. Hi Badger @211, Yes, I too am frustrated by the lack of explanation for them (NODC)adjusting the data in back January 2010. Please do let us know if and when they get back to you. Hopefully they provide a substantive answer.
    0 0
  14. Albatross and (Moderator) following from this thread an authoritative post on the OHC analysis would be really interesting. Can you suggest someone who might be prepared to do that ?
    0 0
  15. VTG - are you volunteering?.
    0 0
  16. Re: Badgersouth "The 'accuracy' of Pielke's postulate will therefore likely never be proven or disproven." This goes back to what I said originally, that IMO posters here are being too picky in expecting him to include caveats that you wouldn't insist on in the top line of consensus AGW abstracts. If Pielke can't make conclusive statements because "the requisite database simply does not exist" then Hansen, Steig, Lyman or whomever can't do so either right?
    0 0
  17. @ Radar30331, As they say, “The devil is in the details.” What have Hansen, Steig, Lyman, postulated about the heat content of the ocean system?
    0 0
  18. @ Radar 30331 Lest there be any confusion about the meaning of the second sentence of my post #205… It reads: “Even Dr. Pielke admits that this key assumption can neither be proved or disproved because the requisite database simply does not exist.” The phrase, “the requisite database simply does not exist” refers specifically to the lack of data sufficient to compute the heat content of the lower ocean layers for the tome period 2004-2009.
    0 0
  19. @ Radar 30331, Are you stating in post #216 that Dr. Pielke's simplifying assumption about the heat content of the lower ocean levels not increassing during the 2004-2009 period is nothing more than a "caveat"?
    0 0
  20. VTG, Great idea. I would take it further, A post from NODC and another from PMEL (i.e., groups who obtained different trends in the data between 2004 and 2008/9. Or someone with a good understanding of OHC and the earth's energy budget. For example, Dr. Tremberth or Dr. Palmer. As far as I can tell, Dr. Trenberth does quite a bit of outreach, but he is of course ridiculously busy.
    0 0
  21. Albatross 220, Better yet... the NRC create a special committee to delve into this entire ball-of-wax.
    0 0
  22. Speaking of the heat content of the lithosphere… Check out: “Using Underground Clues to Determine Past Atmospheric Heat” posted yesterday (Sep 13) on Science Daily.
    0 0
  23. Badger, Or a workshop which brings all the top scientists in the field into the same room for a week. Something has to be done to sort out this mess. Lyman et al. (2010) have tried and shed some light on the myriad of problems, but I think more still needs to be and must be done on this file. For now, and until shown otherwise, Lyman et al's (2010) conclusion that there has been robust (I bit of an overstatement in my opinion) warming in the global oceans should be taken as the latest and best understanding, and certainly does not support stating that "global warming has not been occurring since 2004".
    0 0
  24. Here, via an email exchange, are the responses from Tim Boyd of the NODC to a set of questions that I posed to him -- see Badgersouth 208. The methodology we use for computing OHC from Argo floats and moored buoys (TAO/PIRATA/RAMA) is the same method we developed for prior data types (CTD, bottle, XBT, MBT) as detailed in the following publications: Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, R.A. Locarnini, H.E. Garcia, and A.V. Mishonov, 2009: Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett. , 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155. Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, 2005: Warming of the World Ocean, 1955-2003. Geophys. Res. Lett. , 32, L02604, doi:10.1029GL021592. Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, C. Stephens, 2000: Warming of the World Ocean. Science, 287, 2225-2229. The basic method remains the same, with some variations, as described in the papers. The largest variant is the correction of XBT data as described in the 2009 paper. The work was done here at the National Oceanographic Data Center. There is, at the moment, no advisory committee. However, the heat content values and method of calcuation are compared by other research groups to their own and others heat content estimates and to model output and to heat content estimates for other parts of the Earth's climate system. The time varying problem with the XBT temperatures was discovered during such a comparison.
    0 0
  25. This from NOAA-NODC: "A second XBT Fall Rate Workshop* will be held August 25-27, 2010 in Hamburg, Germany." Wonder what their findings were?
    0 0
  26. Dappledwater #215 Way beyond my expertise I'm afraid, I'd be bound to get all sorts of things wrong, like claiming spurious accuracy for data, making wide reaching conclusions not supported by other datasets, err.... Seriously, I'm a very, VERY long way from being qualified to post on OHC. Interested to hear what an actual expert would say though.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us