An Error In The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers On The 2005 Global-Average Radiative Forcing

Climate Science ^ | 3/5/07 | Roger Pielke Sr.

[ricks_place]

The 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers has a significant error that I have yet to see discussed...

“We observe a net loss of 3.2 (±1.1) × 10**22 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth’s total surface area)….”

This loss of heat from the upper oceans is also consistent with little if any heating in the troposphere over the last several years ... Even if the heat has been transported deeper into the ocean than the about 700m depth analyzed by Lyman et al, the radiative imbalance that is available to alter the global average surface temperature trend is much less than reported in the 2007 IPCC SPM, and, indeed, for at least the period from 2003 to 2005 is a negative value! Thus, the data indicate a very different picture than presented by the IPCC....

What these observations mean is that the statement in the IPCC SPM that there is a positive radiative forcing of 1.6 [0.6 to 2.4] Watts per meter squared in 2005 (when this was not true based on real data) is a particularly egregious error. Rather than relying solely on model based estimates to calculate a global radiative forcing, the authors of the IPCC Report should have also used real world data for the assessment of the net radiative imbalance...

[ricks_place]

little if any heating in the troposphere over the last several years

AlGore, Inconvienent Truths Keep Piling Up!

[BuffaloJack]

I doesn't matter.
It's not about the climate. It's about socialism and the push toward world government.

[Old Professer]

I think he said they are fudging the data.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Rather than relying solely on model based estimates to calculate a global radiative forcing, the authors of the IPCC Report should have also used real world data for the assessment of the net radiative imbalance..."

Picky, picky -- why bother digging up real world data, when you have perfectly good data from a model? </gorebot>

[BigFinn]

I watched this video that puts it all in perspective and, for those who are not scientists, explains clearly the debacle that is "Global Warming". Here

[Dilbert56]

The so-called "real world" is just a creation of Fox News and right-wing extremists on talk radio, sponsored by Halliburton.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

---

oopsie...

[NRA1995]

At least the Van Allen Belt isn't on fire!

[Mugwump]

You're dating yourself.

I oughta know... I saw that movie 40-odd years ago.

[adorno]

between 2003 and 2005

That's a measurement of such a short period of time. The climate change theorists keep emphasizing to the "skeptics" that short term changes are not significant in the overall scope of "global climate change". Even if the statistical analysis for that short period of time were to be correct, it wouldn't be fitting to include it in the long term climate change studies.

If the "skeptics" were to point out that in the last 3 years that the globe's average temperatures had gone down, then the "global warming" theorists would be quick to point out that global warming occurs over long periods of time and that such short periods are insignificant.

The "global warmists" want to have it both ways.

[bikerMD]

Well, either you're closing your eyes To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge

Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated

By the presence of a pool table(Global Warming) in your community.

Ya got trouble, my friend, right here,

I say, trouble right here in River City.

We've surely got trouble!

Right here in River City!

Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule!

Oh, we've got trouble.

We're in terrible, terrible trouble.

The last Con Artist to sound this alarm was called the Music Man. But the Internet Man is hollering through the same bullhorn.

[NRA1995]

fun movie though, especially the pink squid.....can't help myself, whenever global warming comes up that movie comes to mind, sweat pouring off Walter Pidgeon as they try to escape the UN troops

[AaronInCarolina]

Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, but there is a bit of a qualifier that goes with this paper. I am a skeptic of skeptics, so don't get me wrong, and don't blame the messenger, but there is some uncertainty about the study upon which Mr. Pielke's conclusions are based. I read Pielke's blog everyday.... in my opinion it is the best, and he is one of the most rational and reliable climate scientists in the industry. But this particular conclusion and statements are based upon a study known as Lyman et. al. 2006, which found, based primarily on ocean buoy data known as Argos, that sea surface temperature had decreased since 2003. The Argos system is a relatively new system, and there has recently arisen concern that it may have a cold-bias that may make data unreliable. The Lyman paper actually acknowledges this possible problem, and says that even without the Argos data, other data sets indicate a cooling trend, although smaller in magnitude and with a larger uncertainty bar.

I would link to the thread at climatesci.colorado.edu, but it currently seems to be down. I will link to it later.

[Matchett-PI]

Please ping me when you do your post. Thanks! bttt

[SteamShovel]

The so-called "real world" is just a creation of Fox News and right-wing extremists on talk radio, sponsored by Halliburton.

I like it!

[westmichman]

"Surprise, surprise, surprise!!" said Al Gomer.

[edsheppa]

The "global warmists" want to have it both ways.

What are these two ways? Your two paragraphs sound to me like having it only one way, i.e. in both cases the short term fluctuations are not important, only the long term trends.

[adorno]

What are these two ways?

I guess my statements were confusing.

Whenever anybody makes points out about how cold it's been this winter, the global warming alarmists will promptly point out that short term weather changes are no indicative of climate change.

Yet, when temperatures skyrocket by 1 or 2 degrees from one season to the next, the global warmists will promptly point to that as clear evidence of global warming.

In essence, short-term weather changes that favor their side are OK to them, but short-term weather changes that blow apart their theory are not OK by them.

[edsheppa]

Ah, that is clearer. And there are many True Believers promoting AGW. Their double standard is certainly very annoying. But they don't have the a monoploy on it as there are also many True Believers on the other side. These too embrace only the evidence supporting their position.

[IOWAfan]

I think we overloaded the server I can't get to the source website.