Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 Next
Comments 74501 to 74550:
-
dana1981 at 02:12 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dr. Pielke, we would like to do a post summarizing where we agree and disagree. Do you concur or have any comments on the following summary of agreements? We Agree on: 1) The need to reduce human GHG emissions 2) That while CO2 is the largest single contributor to global warming, there are other factors which we must also address 3) Climate models are certainly not perfect, but are useful tools which have made fairly accurate climate projections thus far -
Albatross at 02:12 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dr. Pielke asserts quite confidently here and elsewhere that land use and land cover change are first-order global climate driver. As I mentioned before, he is reluctant to place a figure on that in terms of global radiative forcing. He then suggests that we read his paper. OK. Some quotes: "In terms of an effect on the global average radiative imbalance, Forster et al. suggest that this direct biogeophysical radiative impact of LULCC [Land use and land cover change] since pre-industrial times is a reduction in the global average radiative forcing of 0.2 W m-2 ±0.2 W m-2 which is small relative to other global climate forcings. Reasoning of this kind has led to the role of LULCC being mostly omitted from the climate models used in previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments of climate projections and historical reconstructions (although deforestation is included via emission scenarios of CO2)." More work is being done in this area. "The role of LULCC is not limited to radiative forcing of climate and is not adequately assessed as a globally averaged forcing. LULCC is a highly regionalized phenomenon with regional-scale climate impacts that can vary in the sign of the change." Mostly in agreement, although when it comes to driving global climate the globally-averaged radiative forcing is what counts, and you seem to be reluctant to provide a number in that regard. "We still do not know if global-scale teleconnections may result from LULCC. We hypothesize from models that they are possible but LUCID showed that models did not agree on such remote impacts. Moreover, the assessments by the IPCC shows considerable regional divergence from a given forcing so it is premature to conclude that LULCC does [or does not]trigger remote effects". Indeed. Yet you appear to be continuing to assert quite adamantly and confidently (especially in public) that LULCC is a first-order affect the global climate, and inflate the associated uncertainty to distract from taking prompt action on reducing our emissions. Your book chapter seems to raise more questions than answers though. I think occam's razor applies here. Dr. Richard Alley agrees, "The biggest control knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's climate history". -
NewYorkJ at 02:01 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
On framing and trapping, Dr. Pielke tried the same thing over at RC. Dr. Steig didn't bite. Response 1 Response 2Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Any more comments about Dr. Pielke's framing and/or debating tactics will be summarily deleted. The focus of this discussion thread is climate science. -
Albatross at 01:54 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dr. Pielke, Thank you for your responses. Just wish to deal with some outstanding issues: "But nowhere, at least where I can find does he indicate the magnitude of this forcing in W m-2 (with error bars) or in terms of his preferred units, Joules. He appears to be stating a fact without providing a quantifier to justify his assertion." Dr. Pielke has still not provide a number (or range) as requested, instead referring us to yet another roof his papers. Dr. Pielke has not commented on the paper by Sitch et al. (2005)? I'm sorry, but I am still not clear on exactly what transpired in the publication of your EOS manuscript. I find it hard to believe that EOS would have subjected the opinion piece to peer review when they state that "Eos does not publish original research results". How many people reviewed your manuscript? The header says nothing about when it was submitted or accepted for publication. I demonstrated that the the IPCC and are not ignoring or laying down land use and land cover, and that this issue needs more attention, and it is receiving attention with some AOGCMs now including dynamic vegetation. That has not acknowledged by Dr. Pielke. Dr. Pielke also seems to be operating under the sadly correct presumption that most of he government representatives have not read the IPCC assessment reports. I showed that his position on the urgency on taking action is not shared by the AGU to whose authority he tried to appeal and that he did not communicate his urgency on taking action when he addressed the House of Representatives. Re models, I am very familiar with models and validating and verifying models thanks, have read the literature extensively on verification and validation have even published papers speaking to model verification. But I must insist that telling the public and government representatives that models are hypotheses is factually wrong and misleading. One can use various metrics and methods to validate and evaluate models-- in fact, in Chapter 12 of your book you discuss several options for evaluating models, and I did not see the term "hypothesis". Of course, one can use t-test to determine whether a newer model configuration is superior to an older one using t-tests, for example. Regardless, nowhere in your book, that I can see, (even in Chapter 12 "Model Evaluation") do you entertain the notion that models are "hypotheses". So I find the epature from wha you right in your text and what you tell policy makers and government officials unfortunate.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Please edit the typos in your original post. -
NewYorkJ at 01:52 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
If I may make an observation on points 1 and 2... alan_marshall (#43): "It is likely that Pielke thinks he can entrap Sks, cherry-picking words or phrases in Sks’s response in an effort to discredit it, outside of the context of Sks’ well structured and comprehensive analysis of the evidence." I think that's right. For example, when I wrote "At any rate, I don't see how anyone could state the IPCC is at odds with Hypothesis 2a" Dr. Pielke responded with "I am pleased, however, that you see the need to move towards hypothesis 2a. " Dr. Pielke was eager to frame my position, although I made no statement to that effect. It's an easy observation to note that both 2a and 2b are compatible with the evidence (see the radiative forcing chart SPM.2) and are not mutually exclusive, an observation he seems to have a hard time conceding, perhaps because it's critical to his argument. -
chris at 01:45 AM on 22 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
critical mass (@ 213); re:"DM #199 and you make some good points - but I find it hard to explain why a scientist like Dr Lindzen gets it right in over 100 papers and then goes off the rails in the critical area of climate sensitivity and then refuses to retract or acknowledge what others claim as errors."
Yes, it might seem difficult to explain, as Dikran says, that does seem to happen occasionally. Notice that others don't "claim" that some of Dr Lindzen's assertions are "errors". Some of Dr. Linden's assertions are objectively errors. So when Dr. Lindzen asserted that a response to global warming will be a "drying" of the upper troposphere such that the water vapour feedback is negative, we know categorically that this assertion is incorrect in the light of uncontroversial direct measurements. When Dr Lindzen uses (as a basis for another claim for low climate sensitivity), an astonishingly flawed selection of time periods for comparison with top of the atmosphere radiative flux measurements, the error is not a matter of opinion, but an extant and blatant fact. Why do a tiny number of scientists assert that they have priviliged insight into the workings of the climate system in contradiction to the evidence, and attempt to support this with astonishingly flawed analyses? In my opinion matters of scientific ethics can be summed up in consideration of "good" and "bad faith". The vast majority of scientists wish to find out about the natural world, and do their utmost to ensure that their work is correct and interpretations consistent with the evidence. A tiny number of scientists seem to have other motivations. In fact there is lots of information about some of these individuals that can help us to understand motivations, but it can be rather difficult to state this without appearing to categorise according to non-scientific criteria (even if the relevant information is also uncontroversial and objective fact!). -
Stephen Baines at 01:41 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
VTG...you forgot 6) Preemptively framing the debate using false dichotomies. This tactic can bog down the discussion in fruitless discussions of semantics or terms of debate, making it seem hopeless (apparent draw = "skeptic" win). Or it can trap those who are unwary in apparent self contradictions if they accept said false dichotomies as the terms of the debate. -
VeryTallGuy at 01:40 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
And my last word on this (promise), John Hartz @78 "Although Dr. Pilke's relationship with Anthony Watts is a bur under many of our saddles, let's confine this discussion thread to the science of climate change." This is exactly why personalising the science with "Christy Crocks" etc was a mistake. It implies that certain scientists paper are favoured over others because of who they are. The inevitable result has been a focus on personalities and politics rather than the science. Christie, Pielke et al have little to offer on the science, and the debate is now where they want it.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] I will hold your feet to the fire. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:36 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dr Pielke... Just as a side note here, I don't want you feel like everyone is just piling on here. We have a very vibrant community of people who are very enthusiastic about the climate debate and they all have questions. It's just the nature of a comments forum like this that everyone is going to post their question. You just happen to be the subject of this post and so all that enthusiasm is getting directed at you. We all greatly appreciate you taking the time to read our questions and comments and responding as you can. Just bear in mind that it's an internet forum and even with heavy moderation can get somewhat cacophonous at times. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:36 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
75, VeryTallGuy, While I find your tone a little abrasive, and I'm not sure how I would feel if I were Dr. Pielke, I think you make very valid points. It relates somewhat to my concerns, which I will broach once things reach the last three SkS questions and Dr. Pielke's answers to them. At that time your points will, I think, be more applicable. For now, however, I think the discussion should proceed as it is, without reference (yet) to your points. When your points do arise again, I (personally) would like it to be in terms of an honest and fruitful discussion with Dr. Pielke, rather than being perceived as an assault. That will require a modified, less caustic and direct approach. -
VeryTallGuy at 01:34 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Stig @77 Yes, spot on - "The fallacy of balance" is another common tactic. Pielke has IMHO very carefully chosen which questions to answer and which not to. DSL @78 Indeed - although Pielke's (and Curry's) stated admiration for WUWT is probably primarily intended as a wind up to other academics. In which it is highly effective, another masterclass from RPSr. -
SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
VTG, you might also have mentioned "hypocrisy," argued by the open question on the One-Sided Skepticism thread and reiterated through Pielke's "Of course" response in answering dana1981's question set--a response that is in direct opposition to the project of WUWT (a site that Pielke has shown admiration for, or at least for its moderator).Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Although Dr. Pilke's relationship with Anthony Watts is a bur under many of our saddles, let's confine this discussion thread to the science of climate change. -
Stig Mikalsen at 01:25 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
VeryTallGuy @75 Well said. I also noticed Pielke's devotion to balance in his "We need more reaching out between the different groups. The Heartland Institute and Skeptical Science have this reaching out in common". You know, the "two equal sides"-tactic. That said, I think Pielke sr. actually this time has answered at least some of the questions. Kudos to Dr. Pielke for that. -
Tom Curtis at 01:13 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
pbjamm @70, you raise an interesting point. I believe the most important cause of the rapidly retreating arctic sea ice extent (and volume) is the reduced albedo from the melting of sea ice and reduced snow extent. While technically a feedback rather than a forcing, that is itself a regional event so this is one case where Dr Pielke can claim that regional factors are more important in the particular evolution of the regional climate than are global factors. To see this, we need only compare the distinct reaction between Arctic and Antarctic. Having said that, it still remains true that the initial reduction in sea ice extent was a consequence of the enhanced greenhouse effect, a global factor. So even when regional factors dominate the particular evolution of regional climate (an hypothesis 2a situation) understanding of the long term evolution of the regional climate may only be understandable by reference to global factors. -
VeryTallGuy at 01:06 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Seems to me that Pielke’s case is in many ways a tour de force of familiar skeptic tactics. Notably 1) “If we don’t know everything, we must know nothing” fallacy. Expertly done with the "as we don’t know detailed regional impacts, global warming is irrelevant” line. 2) Cherry picking of datasets. Firstly, brilliant delivery on the “OHC is the only measure that counts” issue being at the same time basically scientifically sound (most of the heat does, of course, go into the ocean) yet at the same time spectacularly myopic in ignoring the rather inconvenient multiple other lines of evidence. Secondly, in using only the most recent data from ARGO on OHC rather than the whole record. 3) Shamelessness. Showing truly admirable chutzpah in switching seamlessly from the UAH temperature to OHC as preferred metric when UAH ceased to show the right trend. 4) Obfuscation. When challenged, don’t answer the question but move on. Magnificent examples in the current brouhaha: moving the discussion on from his attack on SKS to his preferred topic of the OHC issue. Also throughout the thread referencing largely irrelevant papers rather than actually answering questions. 5) Avoidance (via taking the moral high ground). He has carefully avoided defending the obviously unjustifiable elements of Christy’s testimony - by claiming to want to move the discussion on the science. And who could argue with that, on Skeptical Science? You've got to hand it to him, he's a class act -
Stephen Baines at 01:01 AM on 22 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
Critical mass "My point is that the authors of this site seem to automatically accept that a pro-AGW scientist such as Dr Trenberth or Dr Hansen will get it right (even when they disagree with each other) and if one of the 'usual suspects' says something different then they generally must be wrong." Whatever his past successes, Dr Lindzen's viewpoint on climate sensitivity is not widely accepted in the scientific literature because observations and modeling results do not bear it out. Predictions based on his viewpoint also fail spectacularly to represent past trends in temperature. If you read the linked threads, you find that SkS is merely reporting the evidence for and against his positions. It does not presume he is wrong a priori because he is a "skeptic." It shows he is likley wrong because his positions put him at odds with the data and our understanding of physics (based on lots of data). The same can be said for many of the other "skeptic" positions. The evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that you are almost forced to argue that the evidence is wrong to hold an opposite opinion. I guess that's one reason one often hears AGW skeptics spout conspiracy theories about data manipulation. As for intentions, I cannot explain why Lindzen refuses to back down on his positions, nor can most of the climate scientists I personally know (note that I am not one). As DM notes, it does on occassion happen that brilliant scientists head down the wrong track, for whatever reason, sometimes spectacularly so. Past success does not guarantee future success. Though it does warrant a measure of personal respect, it does not excuse his ideas from critical inspection. -
pbjamm at 00:55 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
If regional climate is governed by regional land use changes then what exactly is happening in the Arctic to cause the sea ice to melt? -
nealjking at 00:42 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
In all seriousness, there may be aspects of issues which we can agree to, and other aspects that we cannot - at least not in one session of discussion. In that case, it may be useful to document items of agreement, which can be recorded; and items for further discussion (if that seems to be fruitful). I believe Dana is taking a few notes, so maybe if we can spell out the agreements and isolate the items where no further progress is likely today, we will be able to cover more ground before everyone runs out of steam. Does that make sense to people?Moderator Response: [John Hartz] I concur. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:36 AM on 22 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
critical mass wrote: "but I find it hard to explain why a scientist like Dr Lindzen gets it right in over 100 papers and then goes off the rails in the critical area of climate sensitivity and then refuses to retract or acknowledge what others claim as errors." Actually that is all too common a career trajectory, it is not difficult to think of excellent scientists that have gone badly wrong when they have strayed even slightly from their field of primary expertise. Scientists are very prone to Dunning-Kruger, you get used to being an expert but most of the time you still have to start at the beginning when moving into a new field, which doesn't come easily to some. There is no need to question motivation, and I would avoid doing so as (i) it is pretty irrelevant as to whether the science is correct and (ii) it (quite rightly) contravenes the comments policy. -
SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Moderator - To be more specific, in my comment here I was considering the regional/global distinction, which received a 'move along' admonition, not the phrasing of 'which statement do you agree with'. I consider posing repeated statements that you attempt to get agreement to a rhetoric exercise, and am (personally) quite done with that. Cattle prods may be appropriate there. But as a different issue, framing the question of climate as regional, when the changes in regional climate are driven by global climate change, is disingenuous. And (again, my opinion) an attempt to avoid dealing with those global issues. And I think Tom Curtis agrees with me, and has expressed it quite clearly.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Given the structure of Dana's article, it was inevitable that this comment thread would contain multiple comment threads. My concern is that we not create a Gordian knot. -
critical mass at 00:23 AM on 22 September 2011One-Sided 'Skepticism'
#200 chris DM #199 and you make some good points - but I find it hard to explain why a scientist like Dr Lindzen gets it right in over 100 papers and then goes off the rails in the critical area of climate sensitivity and then refuses to retract or acknowledge what others claim as errors. There is either an issue of bad faith or political motivation here or an irreconcilable difference of opinion. My point is that the authors of this site seem to automatically accept that a pro-AGW scientist such as Dr Trenberth or Dr Hansen will get it right (even when they disagree with each other) and if one of the 'usual suspects' says something different then they generally must be wrong. Michael Sweet #204 mades this point for instance: "Currently Dr. Hansen and Dr. Trenberth are debating about "missing heat" versus aerosol cooling. It seems likely that one of them will be wrong in the end. Since neither has made an outrageous claim, when the energy path is finalized neither will look bad". I would suggest that had the likes of Dr Lindzen made a claim like the 'delayed Pinitubo rebound effect' as a contributor to the recent reduction in warming imbalance as postulated by Dr Hansen, this site would be condemning it as a 'flawed hypothesis' and even bizarre or unhinged. -
nealjking at 00:15 AM on 22 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Moderator: It's called a joke. I cannot believe KR was offended by that. -
nealjking at 23:55 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
KR, #69: The first two topics seem very closely related, and have received about 60 comments. I think the SPCA should be concerned!Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Your admonition registers on my Snarky Meter. Please keep it civil. -
SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Moderator(s) - While I have no desire to beat dead horses, the repeated urging to move to the next topic after less than a full exchange (i.e., at least one back-and-forth) on previous topics is rather counterproductive.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] While I understand your frustration, we need to "keep those doggies moving" before winter sets in. -
grypo at 22:57 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Just to let everyone know, especially Dr. Pielke, as he has become interested in SkS's outreach attempts (which is a good thing), SkS has several posts within the last few months that discuss reaching out to those with differing viewpoints for policy ideas. I cover Scott Denning's Heartland talk I introduce free market ideas for Libertarians scaddenp's GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right? I also discuss climate ethics that I believe can be a bridge between the political divide As far as your son's "Climate Fix", while I can't personally endorse that this will solve the overwhelming problem we face, there are certainly ideas in there that we can all agree on. SkS, as far as I know, is not against any particular policy, just agrees with the science institutions asking for legislation that will fulfill the needed purpose of assisting us through the coming global challenge.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Let's move the discussion forward to the next topic, i.e., the metrics for measuring climate change. -
chris at 22:27 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Jonathan @63, Your comment certainly highlights why we should make every effort to maturely address the science that informs us on the contemporary, short and longer term magnitude of the climate response to enhanced greenhouse forcing. We already have some good insight into both the magnitude and timescales. This issue (hard-headed and mature assessment of the science) is one of the sub-texts of this thread. Dr. Denning, in the video linked to several times here makes a forceful statement on this exact point. Incidentally, I should point out that I came across Dr. Denning's lecture while perusing Bart Verheggen's excellent blog, and so owe him a hat tip! -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 22:17 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Regional weather patterns are driven by global atmospheric and ocean circulation. I don't quite follow how regional land use changes can have an impact on globally driven weather. The only exception to this, that I can think of, is convective rainfall on the local scale. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this subject. Of course from the emission point of view land use change from agriculture and forestry accounts for 30% of GHG emission. Increasing emissions from these sector has a significant impact on atmospheric GHG forcing. With increasing global population and demand for food it is very likely that emission will continue to rise. Better management is required to meet global demands while preserving existing forestry. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:16 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Jonathon The flaw in your argument is that current emissions may be causing a small amount of climate change in the short term, but committing us to large scale climate change on longer timescales. In that case waiting and adapting may be much more costly (or impossible) than mitigation now. This is a real concern, hence climatologists interest in equilibrium as well as transient climate sensitivity. -
Tom Curtis at 22:15 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dr Pielke @50, consider the following hypothesis:"Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences on
Although it is an amended version of your (amended) 2b as presented in your post @32, the shift from a regional to a global focus is fundamentally important. By making that shift it states a hypothesis which I suspect most SkS commentators will agree with, but which you clearly disagree with. In contrast, I (at least) believe that whether purely regional forcings or global forcings are most significant to changes in climate in a particular region at present depends strongly on the region in question. The recent, and unusual aridity of South West Western Australia, for example, is almost certainly due to changes in the Hadley Cell brought about by global warming. I have no doubt that you can point out regions in which the regional forcing is clearly more significant. But I have no doubt that by 2100 the climate response will be dominated by global forcings at all scales. You attempt to rebut this perspective in responding to KR @49, but frankly I am not buying it. I live in a state whose weather is dominated by wind patterns in the central Pacific, thousands of kilometers away, wind patterns I have never personally experienced. It is true that the rain that fall on my head falls only in Brisbane, and the wind that blows in my face blows only in Brisbane. To conclude from that that we can determine the strongest influence on the weather I experience by determining the strongest forcing in the immediate vicinity of Brisbane is a non-sequitor; and indeed, a complete failure to understand the distinction between weather and climate. From a different perspective, the largest seasonal influence on my quality of life is the Northern Hemisphere Winter. The increased consumption of oil for heating drives up petrol prices while I enjoy summer sun, and has a far larger direct impact on my quality of life than any regularly recurring event relating to Brisbane weather. And note that it is the NH Winter. It is not the Seattle Winter, and the Moscow Winter and the Oslo Winter, as if these are somehow separable and could occur at distinct times. If they could, they would have little or no impact on me. But they are not separable. The NH winter is an irreducibly hemispheric climactic event, and any attempt to analyse it as the sum of many regional events will completely misunderstand it.regionalclimate are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases including CO2. The adverse impact of these gases onregionalglobal climate constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades."Moderator Response: [John Hartz] If this were a conference call, I would politely ask Dr. Pilke and Tom Curtis to continue this discussion off-line. Having said that, let's move the discourse to other topics that have not yet been addressed in any depth on this comment thread, e.g., the metrics for measuring climate change. -
Jonathon at 22:02 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Bart, In the long run, your assertion is correct; we need to limit how much we change the environment. In the short term, the magnitude of global warming is important, because it will dictate how we should proceed with our limits. If the magnitude is great and the timeframe is short, then drastic actions need to be undertaken immediately. If the magnitude is low and the timeframe long, then we can take the time to implement the best possible adaptive measures with minimal impact on the populace. -
bartverheggen at 22:00 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
For those who prefer reading over video watching, here's a little recap of Scott Denning's talk at Heartland. -
bartverheggen at 21:44 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Pielke Sr's reply to Q3 is worth noting, as it highlights that people can agree on the broad question of what needs to be done, while disagreeing about details of the scientific picture. Quoting Herman Daly: "if you jump out of an airplane you need a crude parachute more than an accurate altimeter." "3. Do you agree that continuing on our current business-as-usual emissions path presents an unacceptable (in your opinion) risk to the biosphere and to human society in general within the next century? Pielke Sr: Of course. The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. We do not need to agree on the magnitude of its global average radiative forcing to see a need to limit this accumulation. The biogeochemical effect of added CO2 by itself is a concern as we do not know its consequences. At the very least, ecosystem function will change resulting in biodiversity changes as different species react differently to higher CO2. The prudent path, therefore, is to limit how much we change our atmosphere. By continuing to argue on global warming and its magnitude, I feel you, and others, are missing an opportunity to build up a larger consensus on how to properly deal with the myraid ways we are altering the climate and the environment, in general. Even if there were no global warming (or even cooling) in the coming decades, we still need to limit how much we change the environment (including land use change, nitogren deposition, CO2 etc)." -
nealjking at 21:35 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dr. Pielke, I don't see the need to restrict attention to ONE focus. Surely we can walk and chew gum at the same time? -
chris at 21:31 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Incidentally Dr. Pielke (re @ 56), as you say Scott Denning did indeed engage with the so-called "skeptics" at the Heartland Institute. He lambasted them for their nit-picking and obfuscation of the science, exhorted them to start taking the isues seriously, and questioned whether their unwillingness to engage maturely with these issues might be because they are "cowards"! He did this in an engaging and admirable manner but his point was deadly seriously. Would that everyone involved with obfuscation and prevarication on issues of profound importance would take his sentiments to heart. -
chris at 21:18 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dr Pielke, your conclusion:"Regardless, however, it is the changes in regional and local climate statistics that matter and that is where our focus should be."
seems to be relevant to adaptation policy but is not helpful in consideration of mitigation policies, unless you mean that it is the local scale consequences that should impel us to address mitigation at the global scale (which I guess is a pretty obvious point, but maybe you could confirm that you agree with this). For example if our best understanding on warming-induced precipition regime changes to global warming indicates progressive latitudinal expansion and severity in the currently drought-susceptible latitude bands, then this is something that can only really be addressed by mitigation on the global scale, even if we are already committed to having to make local scale adaption policies. Once the terrestrial environment stops being a net sink for anthropogenic greenhouse gases, these considerations will become ever more pressing. The same could be said for sea level rise. Efforts at mitigation requre global scale consideration. Impacts and adaptation will occur on the local scale [The Dutch Delta Commision on sea level rise is taking local implications of 21st sea level rise on the 1 metre plus scale very seriously, whereas presumably the inhabitants of North India have little concern about 21st century sea level rise, but do have concerns about warming induced attentuation of mountain glacier sources of water supplies and so on.] So we're stuck with adaptation at the local scale. The extent to which these become difficult and then possibly unacceptable burdens on our resources depends on our willingness to make the difficult decisions at mitigation on the global scale I'm glad that you (Dr. Pielke) respect the views of Dr. Denning and hope that you agree with the sentiments he presented in his recent short talk where he highlights both the reality of the issues and a mature approach to addressing them. He clearly consders that consideration of greenhouse gas forcing on the global scale is the issue that needs to be addressed. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:11 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Prof. Pielke Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear, I was not asking for your views on tropical temperature trends. I was asking for your view on that specific paper by Douglass et al., which as I pointed out contains a very severe statistical error that fundamentally undermines the conclusion drawn. I note that the paper you reference cites the Douglass et al paper as "pointing to the potential for fundamental problems with the models", however it hardly provides support for such a contention as the methodology used did not show that the observations were inconsistent with the models as claimed. Do you think the method used by Douglass et al. is statistically sound? A direct answer would be greatly appreciated. By the way, on page 2161, Christy et al. (2010) says "This implies there is a 3% chance that the trend is non-positive in a statistical sense". This appears to be a clear example of the p-value fallacy. A 3% probability of observing a trend at least as great assuming the null hypothesis is true is not the same as there being a three percent probability that the null hypothesis is true. N.B. I will happily discuss Christy et al. (2010) (which appears to also have statistical errors) with you after you have answered my question regading the Doulgass et al. paper. -
pielkesr at 21:03 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
chris - I am glad you brought up Scott Denning's involvement with the Heartland Institute. I know Scott quite well (he and I were colleages at Colorado State University) and I respect his views. Even more importantly, he is willing to engage with the community you call "skeptics". It is also commendable that the Heartland Institute was willing to provide a forum for alternative viewpoints (much as Skeptical Science is doing with my comments although I do not fit in the label of "climate skeptic"). We need more reaching out between the different groups. The Heartland Institute and Skeptical Science have this reaching out in common. -
pielkesr at 20:59 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Chinahand - you write "Human influences are dominated by our use of fossil fuels causing the emissions into the atmosphere of both greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2, and aerosols." The human effects on the enviroment are certail much more than from fossil fuel emissions, so I assume you mean human influences on the climate system. Your way of framing as a hypotheses fits with hypothesis #2b, which has been rejected, in my view (and that of many of my colleagues, as exemplified in the WIREs paper I included in an earlier comment. -
pielkesr at 20:55 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Dikran Marsupial - for my views on the tropical temperature trends, see Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010: What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sensing, 2(9), 2148-2169. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/r-358.pdf -
pielkesr at 20:54 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
alan_marshall - You make a fundamental statement which is not supported by the science - You write "The first is correct because the climate is driven by CO2. The major forcings are CO2, methane, etc. and their positive feedback through water vapour, as illustrated diagrammatically on the Sks site." Climate is driven by the spatially and temporally variations in solar heating of the Earth by the Sun. CO2 and the other greenhouse gases represent one major way the climate system responds to this source of energy. -
pielkesr at 20:49 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Albatross - regarding #42, perhaps this new paper will clarify for you the role of land use/land cover change as a first-order climate forcing Pielke Sr., R.A., A. Pitman, D. Niyogi, R. Mahmood, C. McAlpine, F. Hossain, K. Goldewijk, U. Nair, R. Betts, S. Fall, M. Reichstein, P. Kabat, and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2011: Land use/land cover changes and climate: Modeling analysis and observational evidence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Invited paper, accepted. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/r-369.pdf where we write "For those regions that have undergone intensive LULCC, or will undergo intensive change in the future, failure to factor in this forcing has profound consequences. Investments in adapting to ongoing human-induced climate change and natural variability will remain founded on incomplete and potentially misleading information. This in turn leads to a higher risk of misaligned investment in climate adaptation, which is a vastly more expensive outcome than the costs of resolving the impact of LULCC on the Earth’s global and regional climate. Unless we undertake a thorough assessment of the role of LULCC on climate, an incomplete understanding of the role of humans in the climate system will persist." -
pielkesr at 20:45 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Albatross - You make two errors in your comments. First, a Forum article in EOS is peer reviewed. Second, you write "As someone with numerical modeling experience, I'm confused by Dr. Pielke's (who is a modeler) claim that "Models themselves are hypotheses", in his book "Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling" which is on my bookshelf here, he says on page 1 that "....it is necessary to understand the basic physical and mathematical foundations of the models...". Quite different from what he said in his testimony. He then says "There is no way to test hypotheses with the multi-decadal global climate model forecasts for decades from now as step 2, as a verification of the skill of these forecasts, is not possible until the decades pass." This leads me to conlcude that Dr. Pielke is of the opinion that models are nothing more than untestable hypotheses...it would be a great shame if he thinks that his life's work amounts to that." Models have a basis in fundamental physics (their dynamic core) and also include engineering components (i.e. tunable paramters) as discussed in my book. Their forecasts can be tested, and if the model prediction and the observations are in a large enough disagreement (e.g. determined by skill scores or other tests), the model is rejected as providing skillful forecasts. For forecasts from the climate models, decades from now, we have to wait for those decades to pass. I hope your misunderstandings are corrected. I am pleased that you have my book. :-) -
pielkesr at 20:38 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Tom Curtis - I have framed two distinct testable scientific hypotheses. The relative importance of enhanced GHG forcing and ocean acidification (from added CO2) is certainly included. We will just have to disagree and move on, if you will not present two testable hypotheses of your own which we can discuss.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] If this were a conference call, I would politely ask Dr. Pilke and Tom Curtis to continue this discussion off-line. Having said that, let's move the discourse to other topics that have not yet been addressed in any depth on this comment thread, e.g., the metrics for measuring climate change. -
pielkesr at 20:34 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
KR - You write "I have to strongly disagree (as I have before, on other venues) with your emphasis on regional effects over global effects." The weather that affects people is regional and local in scale. The global average tells us little, if anything, about weather patterns such as droughts, floods and so forth. It may be that a higher global average surface temperature is correlated with changes in frequencies in these extreme weather events; the models have not shown skill in such a prediction. Regardless, however, it is the changes in regional and local climate statistics that matter and that is where our focus should be. -
Brendon at 20:28 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
I am very surprised to see a scientist even consider asking question number three. Why would you only look at a small subset of data, unless you are motivated by what you wish to find. -
nealjking at 20:21 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
MODERATOR: - I get the impression that the steam has run out for Issues 1 & 2. Would you please formally announce that the topic is shifted to Issue 3: on preferred diagnostics for global warming? - I note that Dikran Marsupial's post at #44 seems relevant to the new topic. - Of course, if Dr. Pielke has more to say on 1 & 2, we can re-adjust. -
chris at 20:20 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Having read this thread, and observed the efforts of Dr. Pielke to avoid addressing simple observations and interpretations with simple forthright statements (as opposed to creating the impression that our understanding and policy should be centred around nit-picking issues of semantics and sentence construction.... ...I cannot recommend highly enough the short talk by Dr. Scott Denning at the recent Heartland Institute "Climate Science" meeting. Dr. Denning knows how to call a shovel a shovel, and cuts through exactly the sort of prevarication and nit-picking that is such a drain on productive discourse and policy making. Can't be recommended highly enough. -
Chinahand at 19:40 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
I think I understand Prof Pielke's scientific desire to say things are alot more complicated than just CO2, and even just Greenhouse Gases. I agree land use changes, aerosols, black carbon, sulphates etc have important impacts. My main point, though, is that if coal, and other fossil fuels, were used less then many of these issues would be reduced. CO2 is being used as a proxy for Carbon, which is being used as a proxy for fossil fuels - which contain sulphates, emit aerosols, and cause carbon black. This is about framing - and reading the different statements I find the nuances interesting, but a bit too nit-picking, but hey this is a debate about science where details matter. But basically isn't the hypothesis: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and increasing due to population growth and increased energy output with economic growth. Human influences are dominated by our use of fossil fuels causing the emissions into the atmosphere of both greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2, and aerosols. The adverse impact of the use of fossil fuels on regional and global climate, along with land use change from increasing population, constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades. This tries to cut away from the nit-picking science and goes to the basic causes - our economy is based on fossil fuels, our population is growing and increasing its use of these fuels and this is effecting the climate. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:25 PM on 21 September 2011Hockey stick is broken
Albatross, looking at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/qsrfig1.csv it has the series result only without any supporting data or metadata (e.g. # of trees). Here's the data released roughly 10 years later: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/YamalADring.raw Please let me know if I've missed something, but it seems cut and dry to me. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:55 PM on 21 September 2011SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
Prof. Pielke, please could you comment on the paper by Douglass et al. Douglass D. H., Christy, J. R., Pearson, B. D. and Singer S. F., "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions", International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pages 1693–1701, 15 November 2008 This paper purports to show that observed tropical trophospheric temperatures are inconsistent with model projections, however the statistical test they used is obviously flawed (it would reject the theoretically ideal model which had perfect physics, infinite temporal and spatial resolution and an infinite ensembe to give a perfect characterisation of internal climate variability). Do you agree that this paper is flawed and the conclusion not supported by the evidence?
Prev 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 Next
