The inaugural Cherry Pielk-ing post.  Pielke wrote a post with "comments" on Santer et al. 2011 chalk full of cherrypicking.  Since I'd already covered the paper in a Christy Crock, this wasn't hard.  Fortunately Pielke's comments were mainly to different parts of the paper, so there's not a lot of overlap.

Cherry Pielk-ing #1: Atmospheric Warming

Hi Dana,

This looks a lot like my recent SkS post critiquing Pielke ;)

Nicely done though.  I have some ideas on how to maybe sharpen it up, but I need to rest and am not in the office tomorrow.

Given his tendency to use nit picks to dismiss arguments, I would note that the 1882/1983 event was almost as strong vent(and for some months as strong) as the 997-1998 ec.  It depends on which index ones uses ONI, MEI or DOI.

"And the short-term surface warming during an El Niño is reflected very clearly in the TLT data; much moreso than in the surface temperature data (Figure 1)."

I know what your saying, but it does not come across clearly-- they TLT data are much more senistive to ENSAO events than are the surface data.

"To illustrate the juiciness of this cherry," 

Nice :)

Re him using the RSS data, perhaps I am off base, but he says "for example, in the figure below from the RSS MSU data [the same data that is used in the Santer et al study]"

I read that to mean that he used the same data as in the Santer paper-- had I not read the paper, I would have taken it to mean that Santer looked at the RSS data only.  That is not true.

To press the point home, there should be a re-cap of the One-sidedness post, that is just a response to Pielke's response:

- Stating the open questions in the Updates

- Adding a couple of the zingers from Albatross' later comments

No fat, just a listing of the "open wounds".

Guys. see my post here. I get why you are talking about Mon Senior but its time to get it over and move on.

Dana

you may explicitley say that he should have performed a proper significance test on the trend with the data he used. Satellite datasets have high variability and monthly data show a high degree of autocorrelation. His "That's 13 years" is very unsound by itself, regardless of the 17 years found by Santer et al.

Glenn,

I responded to you on that thread.

To summarize: I disagree with you completely.

Alby - I did get the idea from your comments.  I'd be happy to add you as co-author.  I'm very big on giving credit where credit is due.

neal - I don't think we should relate this to the 'one sided' saga.  I think in this series we need to stay focused on just the issues we're addressing (here the 1998 cherrypick).  We can continue to talk about the 'one sided' saga in another post, since Pielke has responded to our questions and asked us some of his own.  I think they should be two seperate issues.

Glenn - we're just addressing a climate myth here.  It could have come from Spencer or Monckton or Motl or whoever and the post would have been the same.

Riccardo - good point, thanks.

Hi Dana,

Thanks-- I appreciate that.  Sure, why not, please include me as a co-athor.  I'll do my best to contribute more where I can-- you are a better writer than I am though :), 

"since Pielke has responded to our questions and asked us some of his own"

Am I missing somehting? ;)

Glenn, I took have commented on the other thread.  I'm not sure why different rules/tactics should apply to Pielke.  I do not recall this "debate" when the Lindzen, Spencer , Monckton and Christy series were proposed. Mon Senior is probably very much hoping that we do move on...;)  He tries to sel himself as a reasonable "lukewarmer" (se his EOS article), but in reality he is a master obfuscator and confusionist.

What we do want to avoid is a tit-for-tat and flame wars...the fact that he does not allow comments makes avoiding that problematic, best thing is to not be provoked into knee-jerk posts, but stick tot he facts and highlight that he is a serial cherry-picking and that his purpose is to confuse, create doubt and downplay the seriousness of the consequences of AGW.

See Pielke 3, Alby.  Have added you as co-author and incorporated your comments.  Let me know if you have any others.

If we're going to respond to Pielke directly concerning his response to our Update (see the Pielke 3 thread), I believe we should put a delay on initiating the Cherry-Pielking series:

- It could really poison the atmosphere for what we are trying to explore with Pielke; and

- It is not urgent.

If nothing develops of our direct exchange with Pielke, you can always come out with this, suitably modified & informed by whatever we learn or whatever points we make from the exchange. But if we come out with this right now, he will probably get pissed off right away.

Can we put this on hold?

Actually I just asked that question in the Pielke 3 thread.  I agree, while doing this exchange with Pielke, this series would undermine it, so we should hold off for now.

like the title "Cherry Pielk-ing" for the series. It's way too limiting and is trite to boot.

"Pielke Piques" is a winner!

PS --In my mind's eye, Dr. Pielke Sr. will always be known as "Roger Weasel."

This just came out

The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the "missing heat" during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

"We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future," says NCAR's Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study. "However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line."

 

 

"This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean," Trenberth says. "The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences."

 

 

 

These patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event, according to Meehl. He adds that El Niño and La Niña events can be overlaid on top of a hiatus-related pattern. Global temperatures tend to drop slightly during La Niña, as cooler waters reach the surface of the tropical Pacific, and they rise slightly during El Niño, when those waters are warmer.

"The main hiatus in observed warming has corresponded with La Niña conditions, which is consistent with the simulations," Trenberth says.

To me this completes a logical trifecta - observations, models, and physical theory pretty much in complete agreement to deal with a theory.

Interesting and relevant to our argument with Pielke concerning OHC; but I don't know if it will put him under any further pressure. He already seems to be arguing with NCAR on the general OHC picture.

It's just another piece in the puzzle.  A lot of his argument hinges around getting better answers to why it hasn't warmed as much in last ten years.  This study furthers the argument that it goes deeper than measurable by ARGO.  It's certainly not THE but it is A nail :)

Can I make a comment about the title?  (Of course you can, Rob.)  The spelling of "Cherry Pielk-ing" looks funky to me.  I think it would be important to spell his name correctly and make it "Cherry Pielke-ing."

Abstract:  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1229.html

There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend¹ (a hiatus period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere for this recent decade indicates that a net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W m⁻² (refs 2, 3) should be producing warming somewhere in the system^4, 5. Here we analyse twenty-first-century climate-model simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m⁻² as observed for the past decade. Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades. The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and may be linked to La Niña-like conditions.

Good study - I'm a fan of Meehl, and of course we know Trenberth and Fasullo do good work.  This will be very relevant for Rob P's 'no warming since 2003' rebuttal.

Rob - agreed, Cherry Pielke-ing probably makes more sense.

Thanks Grypo, I've got a copy of the Meehl study. Makes perfect sense, in La Nina, the Eastern Pacific cold water is welling to the surface from the deep. This promotes cooling of the air above the upwelling and allows this formerly cold water to begin to be heated by sunlight, bolstering OHC. So the thermohaline circulation is a big player in OHC. 

Pielke's assumptions rest upon the ocean being one-dimensional - heat isn't even distributed laterally in the ocean, only downwards. That's pretty bizarre.

Dana,
ask tamino for a graph comparing the subtracted trends he does using multiple regression for the satellite sensors versus the station centric ones. This will give you your definite proof of the impact of EL Nino on sat sensors.

Naming a thread for Pielke will just start the whining about ad homs all over again.  Besides, why single out Pielke as a cherry picker?

muon - cherrypicking is Pielke's M.O.  Almost all of his arguments are cherrypicks.  Anyway, we're not going to launch this until after we're done with with the Pielke discourse, at which point his whining won't matter.  I suspect he'll do a lot of cherrypicking in our back-and-forth too.

Muoncounter...  Pielke is a big boy.  I wouldn't worry about him too much.

Rob,

We're still thinking about how to deal with Pielke, so if this were going out before we were through, I would aso be concerned. However, Dana says this is scheduled later.

Rob, does the paper make any assumptions about the last 10 years based on increased La Nina activity because of the timing of the 30 year cycle?  Do the 5 model runs agree on the timing of the 'hiatus', and is it for that reason?  

Grypo - is this still your e-mail? (gryposaurus@gmail.com) - if so I'll send you a copy.

yes, thanks!

Sent.

Great.  It appears my intuition was correct.  They covered that 20-30 years cycle part well.  It's not definitive, and the error bars around the 300 meter depths during 'hiatus' periods are large (although that's not the important part, deep ocean error bars are small), but having a coupled model that hindcasts well and mimics what we were already confident in as physics theory makes a solid logical argument as to where this "missing heat" is.

Prunus Pielkensis

A variety of indigestible cherry.

The label "Cheery Pielk-ing" sucks. It is totally eigth grade.

I disagree, I think it's a pretty near perfect title.  It's memorable and a perfect description of what Pielke does (constant cherrypicking).

As long as we are fully aware that, as soon as it becomes public, we will have crossed a bridge with Pielke, that may be impossible to cross back.

All,

"Naming a thread for Pielke will just start the whining about ad homs all over again.  Besides, why single out Pielke as a cherry picker?"

I agree, I know it is temepting to go for the throat, but I think we ought to hold of starting another series, especially if the button can in any way be perceived or contrived to be offensive (impossible it seems).  How about "Pielke's Picks").

Perhaps the best way to go is to see how Pielke repsonds to our answers.  If he repsonds with more BS and cherry-picking, then we are obliged to call him on that and pint out to readers that this is is modus operandi.  W ecan then figure out how to do that as delicately as possible to try and not damage his very fragile ego too much.  Honest to God I do not know how he survioves peer-review, but he does, which makes me think this indignance is all contrived.

Dana,

While the title is accurate and cathcy-- see where doing that that has landed us?  I would sugget something less edgy, "Pielke's Picks", if SkS chooses to push forward.

But like I have said elsewhere, I think that we should let Pielke decide his own fate.

We're not going to start this series until we're done with the back-and-forth with Pielke.  And if he's actually reasonable and admits OHC doesn't present the full picture and global warming hasn't stopped, we might not even need the series.  But I think the chances of that happening are about as good as Lubos Motl declaring that SkS is his favorite website on Earth.

The only reason we had a problem with the other series was that some don't like "Crock".  There's nothing offensive about Cherry Pielke-ing.

There's nothing offensive to the AUDIENCE about "Cherry Pielke-ing".

There wiil definitely be something offensive to Pielke.

The question will be, Do we care?

If we can get an honest exchange of views with good content, then Yes; if not, No.

Hi guys,

Do we care?  No. But I must admit, delaing with a petulant person like Roger Sr.is exhausting, and I am already long tired of it. 

Apropos of names, I just got an inspiration:

You know, I could go with "Christy's Cuckoos": a cuckoo is a bird that lays its own egg in the nest of a different kind of bird. Upon hatching, the interloper tosses out the legitimate eggs and/or hatchlings, and assumes the role of the infant - essentially stealing a set of parents.

In the same way, Christy has planted distorted arguments in the nest of public opinion and Congress, to usurp the role of the actual conclusions of 97% of the working climate scientists; thus giving rise to the next generation of - cuckoos!

Never let it be said that I lack a sense of humor!

Good one Neal :)

While cuckoos may be appropriate, you know the deniers would say "now SkS is calling Christy a cuckoo!  Ad hominem!".  I don't think people would interpret it the way we intend.

Yes, "cuckoo" has negative connotations.  But I still like it-- off the record :)

Calling someone "cuckoo" is still, imho, within the bounds of teasing.

Calling someone an "a-hole" or a jerk is not.

Calling someone, or someone's output, a "crock of sht" is a challenge to a fight.

Altering a person's last name is juvenille.

Dana - how about "Pielke's Cherrypicks". I don't really mind "Cherry Pielke-ing", but it may come across as taunting Pielke after our exchanges with him. And I don't mean through a "skeptic" lens, it'll look bad to everyone.

Valid point.

Not bad Rob.  Not as memorable as "Cherry Pielke-ing", but there might be less objection to it.  We'll broach the subject of the series title again once the direct dialogue with Pielke is finished.  At that point the appropriate tone for the series will be clearer.