Posted on 03/19/2008 5:42:11 AM PDT by gallaxyglue
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group NewsMain Home
Message From R.A. Pielke Sr. August 30, 2006 Mismatch Between Multi-decadal Global Climate Models Predictions And The Global Radiative Imbalance Filed under: Climate Change Metrics, Climate Models — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 6:59 am There is a clear mismatch between the model predictions reported in the 2005 Science article by Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev 2005. “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications” , and the observational results in the Geophysical Research Letters paper by John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, and Gregory C. Johnson entitled “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean��?.
The abstract of the Hansen et al article reads,
“Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include: (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) confirmation of the climate system’s lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.”
However, the new Lyman et al 2006 study which also is based on the same “precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content” report that the global radiative imbalance for 1993 through 2005, for the entire 13-year period, was an average warming rate of 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 , as a result of the 2003 to 2005 period which has a diagnosed radiative imbalance of -1.0 (+/- 0.3) W/meter squared.
The Comments on the Climate Science weblog with respect to earlier weblogs on the Lyman et al 2006 paper (see and see) include raising the issue on the relationship of this recent cooling to the reported continuing rise in the global average sea level. This is an appropriate scientific question.
However, if the upper ocean heat content data was considered precise in the Hansen et al 2005 study, and was used in that paper to bolster the confidence in their ability to model global climate process, then the same confidence should be placed on the recent diagnosis of observed cooling. The mismatch between the data and the model predictions, however, raises serious questions on the ability of the multi-decadal global climate models to accurately predict even the global average variability and long term trend of the radiative imbalance of the climate system.
« Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Response to Seasonal Modulation of Ocean Color: Impact on Interannual Climate Cimulations in the Tropical Pacific by Raghu Murtugudde New Papers on the Importance of Land Use/Land Cover Change on Climate » 11 Comments » Some of the modelers (Hansen et al ) do not seem willing to concede this point however.
Overall, this has been a difficult month for the most eager in the modeling arena. First comes the ocean heat data. Then new data from Antarctica which demonstrate that polar amplification and increasing snowfall is still not occuring as “projected” in the IPCC models. Some readers on RC are even suggesting that this idea be scrapped.
These raise more serious questions. A few in the modeling community seem to have trouble objectively synthesising sound observational data. Instead, they risk the perception that data is used selectively to make their case (granted this can occur on both sides).
The Argo temperature data is clearly of very high quality (hardly anyone will argue otherwise). The sea level issue is related, but is determined by another technique that has way more assumptions and interpretations implicit. For now, my money is on the temperature data. It seems Josh Willis feels this way too. It is really hard to make the point that Willis is antagonistic toward the Hansen crowd.
Comment by Bryan Sralla — August 30, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Seems there are more and more difficult months for modelers lately…
Ocean cooling, no hurricanes in the Atlantic yet this year,
It’s time to switch back to fear of global *cooling*!
Oh, wait! We already have!!!! http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml
Comment by Steve Hemphill — August 30, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Re #1: So, Bryan, is it correct of me to interpret that last sentence of yours as saying you think Josh is antagonistic toward the “Hansen crowd”? Interesting if so.
The rest of your comment seems to basically question Jim Hansen’s competence. I wonder if Roger agrees with that.
Comment by Steve Bloom — August 30, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
Steve- Jim Hansen has completed important research contributions to climate science. He has, however, overstated the capabiltities of the models to predict (and explain the proccess) of multi-decadal global climate predictions. We have, for example, questioned his scientific conclusions on the Climate Science weblog
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2005/08/02/pielke-and-christy-comment-on-hansen-et-al-science-paper-entitled-earth%e2%80%99s-energy-imbalance-confirmation-and-implications/
of which Jim Hansen replied to, see
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2005/08/08/comment-from-jim-hansen-on-the-august-2-climate-science-posting/
Jim has the scientific credentials to debate the climate science issues. However, this does not mean that he is always correct.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — August 30, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Roger,
Measurements of the Earth’s albedo have shown a gradual decrease in SW radiation from the 80’s through to the ’90s. This trend is apparently reversed since 2003 (see ). Has anyone yet made the link between this observation and the Lyman paper?
Francois Ouellette
Comment by Francois Ouellette — August 31, 2006 @ 7:50 am
Roger, sorry for screwing up the link tag in my previous post! Clicking on it still leads you to the Palle et al. paper.
Comment by Francois Ouellette — August 31, 2006 @ 7:52 am
Re #3: No Steve, you may have misinterpreted my very sloppy prose. As you are aware, Willis has in fact been supportive of the Hansen modeling (as indeed it has been important for climate science), and was no doubt surprised by his own results. Now, some hint that he may not have been as careful in his latest research as he has been in the past. I have never before heard Josh Willis accused of sloppy research. The fact that he has the reputation of being careful and measured is what makes these latest results so important.
Comment by Bryan Sralla — August 31, 2006 @ 9:05 am
Re #3 again: One more thought. You clearly misinterpret when you say I question Jim Hansen’s competance. Hansen is a brilliant researcher, and few will argue otherwise. It is not Hansen’s competance that I quarrel with. It seems however that some (mostly non-scientist types)take results that are on the outer edge of Hansen’s error bar, and trumpet those. For some reason, Hansen does not seem to issue corrections to these as stenuously as he chastizes those who would question the use of the models as accurate predictive tools. This is concerning.
Comment by Bryan Sralla — August 31, 2006 @ 9:24 am
Hi Bryan, care to provide some examples?
Further, it appears to me that there is a difference between a ten year trend and a two year trend (OK, in both cases trend is somewhat of a stretch, how about record?) especialy on a blog that always considers variability. And here we have the basic conundrum, the science answer is wait, but the policy question is what are the consequences and costs of waiting in either case.
Comment by Eli Rabett — September 3, 2006 @ 8:42 am
Dear Mr. (professor?) Pielke I JUST CITE YOUR PAPER “UNRESOVED ISSUES…MULTI-DECADAL” IN AN OP-ED SUBMISSION THE THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE IN RESPONSE TO AN OP-ED BY brian lambert a former film and media critic for the St PAUL paper pleading for “Truth not Balance” in reporting on ??global warming?? Was that paper published and what is the proper cite?
Comment by Clarkson Lindley — June 22, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Clarkson- Thank you for your interest in our research. Our paper is “in press” and can be cited as
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.
Should we worry about global cooling?
If day to day weather is any indication, it’s always warmer before a cold front.
The Earth must have slipped into that negative 0.23 W/m2 range since 2005.
What this proves is that no one yet has "precision" measurements of the ocean temperatures at different depths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.