Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Chart of the Day

UPDATE: below

William DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. His post, "The Global Warming Hypothesis" appeared May 4th on Climate, and compares ocean warming predicted by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), where James Hansen is the director, verses observed ocean heat:
The graph below shows the increasing deficit of upper ocean heat from 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. Actual heat accumulation is plotted from observed data (using ARGO) and shows the overall linear trend (after Willis and Loehle). Seasonal fluctuations and error bars are not shown.

The projection displays a range representing the two ways of calculating heat accumulation discussed above. The upper limit assumes that virtually all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans . . . The lower limit scales the total radiative imbalance to the surface area of the oceans . . . The upper limit represents the actual GISS model projection.

source: Dipuccio

The 5.5 year accumulated heat deficit for GISS model projections (red line) ranges from 6.48 x 1022 Joules (using Willis) to 7.92 x 1022 Joules (Loehle, extrapolated to the end of 2008). Pielke is more conservative in his calculations, given the substantial margin of error in Willis’ data (±0.35). Accordingly, he assumes zero heat accumulation for the full 6 year period (2003-2008), yielding a deficit of 5.88 x 1022Joules (Pielke, "Update. . ."). Loehle’s work, which was not yet known to Pielke in February of 2009, has a much smaller margin of error (±0.2).

These figures reveal a robust failure on the part of the GISS model to project warming. The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2. Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed. Solving for Riin Eq. #1, the average annual upper ocean radiative imbalance ranged from a statistically insignificant -.07 W/m2 (using Willis) to -.22 W/m2 (using Loehle).


For over 200 years, the people of Boston have been quite effective at "pushing back against the ocean."


Anonymous said...

What a daunting term: Anthropogenic Radiative Forcing

But let us not be blinded by its density.

Assuming arguendo that this article is valid, certainly it should not be used to suggest that the world does not have a warming problem. That would be akin to having one in a group of blind scientists state that the elephant cannot be thirsty because there is plenty of liquid on the floor where he is standing.

The article should be used instead to argue that scientists must develop better measurement tools, not that they should discontinue their endeavor.

DiPuccio himself concludes in his article, "Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis."


MaxedOutMama said...

Carl - As far as I have been able to tell, the AGW-fanatic crowd (very separate from the average) explains this by postulating that the heat is somehow hiding deep in the oceans and will eventually reemerge as a Godzilla, ravaging Tokyo, NYC and London. I am talking about various papers, not rantings on websites.

I don't find the AGW=Godzilla hypothesis plausible, but the true believers are not going to take any data showing cooling as anything but temporary. They seem to believe in their models over any observations.

Carl said...


I'll be addressing the measurement tool issue Friday. I've never disputed that temperatures have increased somewhat--and I support "serious debate and reanalysis" on whether "the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete."


Agreed. Though I've previously posted this and am trying to assess two vigorous "Fiskings" of that chart.

OBloodyHell said...

> For over 200 years, the people of Boston have been quite effective at "pushing back against the ocean."


They've been destroying the wetlands for centuries?!?!?!?How much longer can Mother Nature absorb such rapacious destruction?!?!?!?:oP