2011-09-21 13:41:28SkS and Pielke Sr. Agree on the Important Issues
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Next response to Pielke.  Let's hear some feedback.

SkS and Pielke Sr. Agree on the Important Issues

2011-09-21 13:59:47
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

I wonder how this is going to be worked out:

- If we publish this without getting it approved by him, he may feel some things were taken out of context. How would you feel if he did that to you?

- If he produces his own equivalent document, separately, will he include everyone's comments as representing SkS?

- If we produce a joint document, it may lose a lot of zing, because he will likely want any surprises taken out.

Still, the last option seems the most likely not to backfire on us.

2011-09-21 14:19:04
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Everything in the post was just based on his comments, except the models part, which was based on his lack of comments.  But I wouldn't be opposed to taking that section out.

2011-09-21 14:29:01comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.16.87

We need to get something specific to ask him.. ie. a specific location where watts, spencer or christy was lying and ask him about it.

2011-09-21 14:38:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

dana,

If I had an exchange with someone, and he published his account of it without warning me or allowing me to look it over, I would not be happy; I would feel betrayed and upset. If you think everything is in context, then fine: If that's true, there shouldn't be anything for him to complain about, when he looks it over. But for you to publish it without giving him a chance to vet it could legitimately annoy him.

If you think he might object to some aspects, then warn him advance that there are certain aspects and framing that he might not like, but that's the way you think about it.

I think you're asking for a big fight otherwise - and the problem is that he will be in the right.

2011-09-21 14:50:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I don't have a problem with asking Pielke to review the post first.  It's just a bit weird, and I don't really think it's necessary, since it just summarizes what he said, often using quotes.

Robert - it does ask him two specific questions, but about his own cherrypicking, not Spencer and Christy.  It does also repeat the question about their low sensitivity claims being contradicted by the paleoclimate record.  But at this point he's made it quite clear that he's not willing to admit Spencer and Christy have ever done anything wrong.  I think that ship sailed with John's blimp post, and I made the point in this post that although he won't admit it, they're serial misinformants.

2011-09-21 15:13:48
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Some quick thoughts:

"Continuing to add CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is very risky, and the prudent path forward involves reducing their emissions as much as possible."

"...as quickly and as much as possible"?

"However, Santer et al. specifically noted that a minimum of 17 years is necessary to identify human effects in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), so why would they look at the 13-year trend?"

"...so why would "you" look at".....".  He showed it, and I don't think that he was suggesting that they do it.  And why RSS and not UAH which showed a slight warming trend?  Santer et al. used both.

 

Re models, Domingues et al. (2008) (PDF) showed that those models which inlucded volcanic aerosols did a good job simulating the OHC as quantified by two datasets.

 

Ocean warming:

And why 2003?  Why not 2004 or 2005 when the ARGO fleet coverage was much better, and why without recognizing and clearly stating that decadal variability (there are a few papers showing that now) can mean that there is a short period with a hiatus or decline when when the stat. sig. long-term trend is UP?

You should pull him up for his comment about OA too Dana

Pielke "Regardless of whether we reduce the alkalinity of the oceans"

Umm, we have already done that. He makes it sound like it may have happEned.  It is happening.  You could also direct him to our the SkS pamphlet at SkS.

 

I think it needs tightning up, but I fully realize that me saying that is incredibly easy.  Thanks for getting this started!

 

Another comment by me from another thread:

Pielke "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,"

 This is a false choice. Tackling global wamring also means tacking other environmental issues such as pollution and deforestation, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

2011-09-21 17:09:28
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

In the first paragraph you should make clear that this is our tentative summary of the discussion so far, he may disagree.

"Although CO2 is the most significant cause of the current climate change, we agree with Dr. Pielke that [...]"
That CO2 is the most significant cause is our opinion, not his.

"non-CO2 anthropogenic plus natural effects have likely had a NET small cooling effect over this period."

In the section "Ocean Warming" highlight the large discrepancies between the various estimates. Also add that we stand behind our answer that short time intervals are not suitable to assess the climatological trend and that the sampling of the full depth of the ocean is required.

2011-09-21 17:31:58What about water?
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
60.229.154.48

I haven't followed this closely but Pielke's comment about CO2 being 26%; Is he including water vapour in that? If yes your use of the forcings graph is misrepresenting him since H2O isn't a forcing. If he means CO2 is 26% of forcings, ignoring waters contribution, then you are on solid ground. Be careful which it is or you might end up picking a fight just because you have misrepresented him. If his 26% comment is unclear, clarify it or state in that section that this is based on assuming that his 26% comment is meant to be ex-H2O.

2011-09-21 22:14:02
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

I agree with neal. Get Pielke to see it first.

 

 

Also, 'must also be address through climate policy', I don't necessarily agree with everything that implies. The first policy comments you make leave me feeling a little cool. I would phrase it something like;

"most SkS commentators believe that the prudent path involves reducing their emissions as much as possible."

 

On the science: I'd restate the problem of noise. In the long run ocean heat ~ integral of the radiative imbalance (offset by tidal/geothermal), in the short run it's another noisy climate metric. ARGO misses the lower ocean and is still being fixed, just like you say.

Meanwhile most fast feedbacks are dominated by surface/atmospheric temperatures so using ocean heat only as a diagnostic stops you from diagnosing processes that are important for climate change.

 

 

On climate sensitivity past/present/future - sensitivity can change in time. Ice ages could have had a stronger albedo feedback than today for example. But it's a big discrepancy if Lindzen, Choi, Spencer & Braswell are correct!

2011-09-21 22:16:36
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Last ocean warming comment: have you double checked the figures and the uncertainties associated with those trends? Isn't 8 years too short to tell, but it's fairer to say that whilst the trend is positive, we can't currently rule out no heat gain. But choosing to say no heat gain when the trend is upwards is very strange.

2011-09-21 23:07:59comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.22.90

His 25% statement is consistent with the IPCCs statement though it is more or less the bare minimum.

Warming of 0.8... roughly 0.3 before the last 50 years and 0.5 after...

25% of 0.8 is 0.2... IPCC says at least half of the warming over the last 50 years which is 0.25...


Either way im somewhat glad he responded politely and now we can have a constructive dialogue.

2011-09-21 23:30:57maybe we are already here, but I wanted to say:
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

- It might be good to get a joint statement with Pielke, summarizing the essential points of agreement and defining issues of non-agreement ("issues for continued dialogue")

- This would have to be a bit dry; but the advantage would be that no one could claim that we lynched him

- Pielke can hang a copy on his blog, to prove he's current with what's happening with SkS

- We can use this as the basis for a comment series. But the OP should be the joint statement: Everything else is a comment, not an "SkS position"

- In the comment series, we could generate material for another round of discussion - if people think it's useful. Of course, before that, we can evaluate what we've gained or lost - what we've gotten for this investment of time and energy. But let's not attempt this evaluation before this complete first round of discussion has concluded.

 

2011-09-22 01:41:29
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Note on initial tone...  "...we would like to thank him for a relatively civil discourse to this point."

Nix the word "relatively."  It makes it a rather backhanded compliment and is not necessary.

2011-09-22 01:52:33
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Okay I updated the post to (hopefully) incorporate all the comments so far.  Have another look.

SkS and Pielke Sr. Agree on the Important Issues

2011-09-22 02:16:04
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana,

I have been mulling over your response, and think that I have some important observations/suggestions etc.  I am going to type them up now.  Please hold off publishing this.  I will post my suggestions by header to try and expedite things and make it easier to follow.  I am putting on my "Pielke hat" so I'm going to try and shred it-- so nothing personal OK?

2011-09-22 02:31:28
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Reducing CO2 Emissions - the Prudent Path

Dana, one of the objectives for him to state his position on reducing GHGs was so we could then point out the hypocrisy of him aiding , abetting and defending those who are aggressively opposing taking prompt and meaningful action.  We really have to hold his feet tot the fire on this one, b/c it exposes his "game".  He can't have it both ways.  One might also wonder that given he claims to share our concern (to be candid I thhink that is just his way of trying to appear to be reasonable), after he has so vigorously defended Spencer why he has ignored the following statement by Spencer, or why he has not distanced himself from it.

"Just as the deepening horse manure crisis was alleviated by the introduction of the automobile over a century ago, I suspect that our current worries over global warming will evaporate in the coming decades." [Link here]

I would consider including the above quote, and preface it with something like "While it is very encouraing that we and Dt. Pielke seem to be on the same side when it comes how one should deal with mitigating AGW, we are concerned/or confused that Dr. Pielke continues to defend pople like Roy SPencer who are very clearly opposedf to taking action and who thnik that AGW is a non issue, and then give the quote.  I would also perhaps note that he did not convey any urgency in taking action when he testified tot eh House of Representatives in 2011.

2011-09-22 02:37:25
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Climate Models are Useful Tools

"...underestimating the Arctic sea ice decline, generally failing to account for aerosol increases over the past decade, etc."

The point here is that uncertainty cuts both ways, it does not only cut towards lower climate sensitivity or impacts.  Rob pointed me to this recent Nature paper by Valdez (2011):

"State-of-the-art climate models are largely untested against actual occurrences of abrupt change. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that simulations of the coming century with these models will provide reliable warning of sudden, catastrophic events."

So the picyture they are curently painting could be very conservative.

"generally failing to account for aerosol increases over the past decade"

The models did not fail to account for the increase in aersols, those are a driver and input.  The problem is that they were not taken inlcude din the model runs b/c we do not know them a priori. So I would highly recommend rewording  that and leaving off the "etc"., eys ther eare other issues but that is too opened ended.  Inlcuding a reference (Kaufmann et al. or Solom et al would be a good idea).

I'd move the Domigues paper up to be part of the main para, it looks lost.

2011-09-22 02:40:44
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

CO2 Contribution to Global Warming

"To answer our own question, using the current CO2 forcing and a transient climate response of approximately 2°C for doubled atmospheric CO2, the atmospheric CO2 increase over the past century has caused approximately 0.9°C warming of the average global surface temperature (best estimate).  This is more than 100% of the observed surface warming (0.8°C), meaning that all other non-CO2 anthropogenic plus natural effects have likely had a net small cooling effect over this period."

Why did you choose a TCR of +2C?  He will probably ask or debate that or mention again that he thinks EQS is not a relibale or helpful concept.  I would check your numbers again, he likes to nit pick (as do I ) and use that as a reason to dimiss your point.   If you can thow in a reference at this point that would be great, in fact you should.  Again, we are not being tested here, the body of science is!

2011-09-22 02:56:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OHC as The Global Warming Diagnostic

 

I thbik that this part is OK, but that we are missing a golden oportunity and that as presented now it might backfire.  Here is my thinking.  The prportionality graph is good, but it kinda plays into his reasoning that OHC is The metric.  The reader sees that huge circle, and hears Pielke arguing that OHC is the one and only way to go and they think "he is right".

But we can fix this.  Show the reader how important OHC is and then show the reader how much OHC has increased the last 50 or so years (Murphy et al. 2009 has a graph, but the OHC are not current; the NODC graphic is OK but it does not show you what the other products on OHC are saying.  Is there anyway of grabbing that graph off the NODC site that you lionk too?  I could do a scrren capture using my Mac and email it to you, but the quality is not great)-- that sharp incline in OHC will then hammer home that, yes OHC is important and that it has increased a LOT.  I thbik to not include such a complimentrray graphic would be a mistake.

Isaac Held has also an interesting post on this subject of ocenaic verus terretrial warming.. Not sure whether or not it is relevant.  But I can't find a sound bite....

"However, as the graphic illustrates, nearly 7% of the energy goes into the rest of the climate system.  Moreover, measurements of OHC are a major challenge.  The ARGO network is relatively new, and doesn't measure the deep oceans.  Short-term noise in the data remains a concern. "

Good, but needs references, this is not our position it is what the research is saying.  Papers to consider.  Meehl et al. (2011), Katsman and Oldenborgh (2011), Domingues et al. (2008).

2011-09-22 03:10:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

From SkS

"SkS was dissatisfied with Dr. Pielke's answer to our question about reconciling his colleagues' arguments for low climate sensitivity and the paleoclimate record."

 

This sectioin is good, but I canot help feel that it is mssing something.  Good link before I forget.  ther ehas to be a way to stop him waffling or dismissing the concept of climate sensitivity.  Yes, there are no perfect analogs, but there are some very good ones like the PETM and the Pliocence, covered here at SkS.  Abtract here.

That reminds me, present acidification of the ocean is far greater than the PETM, and is probably unprecedented in the last 65 million years.

2011-09-22 03:24:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Alby's changes made.

SkS and Pielke Sr. Agree on the Important Issues

2011-09-22 03:32:49
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Ocean Warming

This section is good, but it could do with some more meat and some more references.  More on that in a bit.

I tried to reproduce you numbers for Levitus but I got a change for 2003-2009 of .06 x10^21.  I'm probably wroing but please check you umbers.  Could you give an example (to me) of how you arrived at your final answer?  Thanks.

We also have to give the data from von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011), IMO, which show an accumulation of energy since 2005 in the ARGO data.  they use all the ARGO data and find that "Global ocean heat content changes during this period account for 0.55±0.1Wm−2"

Now in addition to those numbers two points need to be made.  One, why only look at ARGO data down to 700 m (as Pilke has done on his blog), that is a physically meaningless depth (as I've said before) when they measure down to 2000m.  Palmer etl. (2011) demomstrate that "Trends in total OHC strongly constrain TOA, since the ocean is the primary heat store in the Earth System. Integrating OHC over increasing model levels, provides an increasingly good indication of TOA changes. To achieve a given accuracy in TOA estimated from OHC we find that there is a trade-off between measuring for longer or deeper."  So deeper is better.  I do understand that is one is comparing data between the beforew and after the ARGO floats wer eintroduced then it makes sense to look 0-700 m, as there was very little data below 700 m before then.

Second, in this presentation, the NODC say that the whole ocean was only adequately covered by ARGO in 2004-2005 (in agreement with von Shuckmann and Le Traon) .  The ARGO doe sby no means provide complete coverage.

Again, references that support the statement that short periods are of little value (Katman and Oldenborgh, Meeh et al.) and drawing conlusions as to long term trends from <10 years of data is dangerous.

2011-09-22 03:35:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

The following two SkS (and citations therein) also speak tot he importnace of deep ocean heat.

Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us´╗┐

Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle

I just wish we had a reference to say that we cannot then disregard or dismiss that heat, b/c he will make that point if we hammer on deep ocean heat too much.....

2011-09-22 03:39:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Just saw this:

"We understand that Dr. Pielke's sentiment"

How about:

"We acknowledge Dr. Pielke sentiment/belief on this issue...."

I for one do not share it , nor do I understand his opinion on this.

2011-09-22 03:41:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Maybe a better heading is that "SkS and Pielke are mostly in agreement on the critical issues."

2011-09-22 04:27:13
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Re Levitus - I put the data into Excel and added a linear trend from 2003 to 2009.

2011-09-22 04:30:00
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana, I did that too and got a slope of 0.0152 for Levitus, over 7 years that is 0.106 x10^22 J, or 1.06 x10^21 J

2011-09-22 04:32:55
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I'd like to renew my comment that the word "relatively" should be pulled from the sentence "...a relatively civil discourse..."  The relative level of civility is more likely to be personal perception to each reader.  You start on a better foot with the reader by being more magnanimous and thanking him for a civil discourse.

2011-09-22 04:44:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I must have multiplied by 6, Alby.  My mistake, since the data from 2009 is included too (I was thinking between 2003 and 2009, not inclusive).  Will update accordingly, and look at your other comments, and make Rob's suggested change.

2011-09-22 05:08:40
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

"relatively civil discourse" => "civil discourse"

"colleages" => "colleagues"

"Plus, humans are surface creatures, so changes to the surface are important to us, and also easier to measure.  Additionally,  most fast feedbacks are dominated by surface/atmospheric temperatures; thus relying solely on OHC as a diagnostic inhibits the diagnosis of processes that are important for climate change."

=> "Furthermore, we humans are surface-dwelling creatures, so whatever quantitative fraction of the Earth's surface is affected by climate change is highly significant to us. And most fast feedbacks are dominated by surface/atmospheric temperatures; so to rely solely on OHC as the diagnostic would be to disguise the progression of processes that will affect our experience of climate."

"And while they made" => "And while they have made"

 

Speaking tactically, I would separate agreements into a separate document than open issues & disagreements: We need Pielke to approve anything you call an agreement; whereas you don't for the second document (although it would be nice to get at least the wording of the issue agreed).

2011-09-22 05:36:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

In the post comments, Pielke disagreed on the accuracy (and value) of models.  I'll have to move that to the disagree section.  He confirmed agreement on reducing CO2 and partial agreement on the second point, but does not agree that CO2 is the largest forcing.  That one will need a little tweaking. 

2011-09-22 05:57:24
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Please read my reponse to him on the models....I do modeling, he is full of shit.  Honestely he is.  He is inflating uncertainty beyond all hell, and claiming the models are crap (which they can be, don;t get me wrong), but he then uses models to convince us of his pet hypothesis that land use change is d firrst-odder climate driver.  People in the know understand the limitatons of models and how to get the best from them, weather forecasters do that each and every day (something else that I have done).

I also made it clear that one does not necesasrily require models to guide policy on reducing GHGs as we have paleo data which suggests that it is the prudent thing to do.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed with him repeatedly citing his own work (who does that for goodness' sakes)-- some of which has been strongly critisized and overturned (see Annan's comments), but he still keeps touting it.

2011-09-22 06:08:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

Well, Alby, let's look at it another way:

- We're asking HIS opinions on various topics;

- He's written down his opinions as clearly and convincingly as he can in his own work;

- So what's so strange about his citing his own work?

If you were asking him if his opinions are well-accepted in the literature, that would be a different question.

2011-09-22 06:14:18Concerns!!!
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

1. What do we gain by publishing this article? in other words, we are we playing kissy-face with Pielke? He's a snake in the grass. His stature is raised. SkS's is diminished. Go back and read all the nasty things you said about him and his body of work in prior comment threads.  [Recall what Boehner did to Obama -- twice in fact.] 

2. If an article like this is to be published, the byline should be the authors who crafted it, not SKS.  

3. Nothing should be done until John Cook has had a chance to digest everything that has transpired since the posting of Dana's article.

4. The comment thread on Dana's article is still live and will continue to be live until Pielke ceases to post comments. Right now, you guys are shooting at a moving target.

2011-09-22 06:19:11
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Neal,

I gave my reaosons why it irks me and why it is bad on the thread.  My colleagues frown upon people citing their own work.  When reviewing a paper one can usually tell who the  author is, even if it is a double blinfd review, that is OK, but I do not like it if most of the citations are for one author, that sets off alrm bells for me. Have they considered all the science?  You may not know this, but there are a hell of a lot of peole working on land-atmosphere feedbacks and surface processes-- you would not even come close to knowing that by looking at Pielke's posts.

Additionally, Pielke continually appeals top his own authority and keeps cited debunked papers and hypotheses.  This is his pet thesis and he is expecting the world to follow him b/c of his view?  No thnaks.

2011-09-22 06:37:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

John H., what's gained is that we got Pielke to say we need to reduce CO2 emissions.  Now anytime a "skeptic" says we shouldn't, or cites Pielke's work, we can say "hey look at this, Pielke agrees we need to reduce GHG emissions".  It's gold.

We're not rushing to publish this either.  I'm not planning on publishing it for at least a couple days.  And I really don't know why you think SkS's stature is diminshed here.  I think the opposite is true.  We went toe to toe with a climate scientist, got him to agree on the most important issue discussed, and pointed out a bunch of errors he's making.  Pielke's not the one whose stature is raised here.

2011-09-22 06:39:33
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

JH:

- I'm thinking the development of this document could be used to help the discussion going on.

- Also, his stature is still quite a bit higher than ours in the CR world.

 

A:

- If he relies only on his own expertise and support, then it makes for a very easy rebuttal: "Your ideas don't seem to have much support among other researchers."

2011-09-22 06:40:04
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

While I do see neal's point, Alby has a point too.  All of Pielke's references have either been to his work, or that of a select few "skeptics" (Douglass, Christy, Spencer, etc.).  He claims not to be a 'skeptic', but he seems to only cite 'skeptic' work...

2011-09-22 06:56:09Out of curiousity...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Is it relatively easy to determine which of Pielks's co-authors are former or current students orf his?

2011-09-22 07:05:13Dana & Neal
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

You miss my point about the article you are working on. It raises Pielke's status in Deniersville because deniers will see it as SkS being co-opted by him. It will diminish our standing because our readers will question whay we are bending over backwards to reach agreement with an enemy like Pielke.

I am all for follow-up articles re Pielke, but I believe they should focus on a single major bone of contention one bone at a time. We've done this with Spencer, Christy, etc. Why should Pielke get special treament?

PS-- We can quote Pielke's comments anytime and anywhere we want to as long as someone doesn't accidentally delete the file. 

 

2011-09-22 07:12:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Deniersville is irrelevant - they're a bunch of morons (see Bishop Hill and WUWT) and not our target audience.  But if they now think more highly of Pielke, and Pielke agrees with us on reducing CO2 emissions, then that's a win for us.

We're not bending over backwards to reach agreement with Pielke, we're finding valuable common ground.  Nor do I think we should view him as an enemy.  We've now got a quote from him that we can use as a valuable tool.

2011-09-22 07:16:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

JH:

We can afford to give Pielke special treatment because he's dialoguing with us; and because he is the most respectable of the skeptics.

I don't think talking with him is giving up anything.

As Dana says, if we can get him to admit that CO2 is a problem, on a document that is not out of context, we can stick it to WUWT forever. They will have to back down from their position, "Pielke is a great expert! and he's on our side!", by having to add, "except when he's temporarily insane or something..."

2011-09-22 07:55:37models
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I made a number more updates.  Alby, can you add some more substance to the models disagreement section?  I've added you as a co-author, so you can go in and edit the text yourself.

SkS and Pielke Sr. Mostly Agree on Critical Issues

2011-09-22 08:02:54
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Heck, how did I become a co-author?

He won't belive the entire post now of course b/c I'm not using my real name.  Would he feel better if I used a fake "real-looking" name like James Taylor?

2011-09-22 08:13:37
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

We can remove your name later if you'd like, Alby.  I just wanted to give you the ability to edit the model language.  You know a lot more about it than me.

*edit* hah yeah, given your latest exchange, we probably should take your name off before it's published :-)

2011-09-22 08:37:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana,

Seriously, I do not wish my name to be a hindrance.  Delete it at will.

Please read my response.  To his little juvenile fit.  He has serious issues IMHO.  he msirepresents me and then gets pissed that it annoyed me?  What the heck.

Earlier I had to snip this from a post by Roger:

"I can see why some are having difficulting understanding the comments. However, this is a science weblog??"

Yes veryu polite is our Roger and that is after John nicely asked us to provide some explanation of acronyms.  I did, Roger did not.  If only we were smart enough to see his genius.

2011-09-22 09:07:26
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This is a really good post, Dana.  

2011-09-22 09:32:58Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The lamb lies down with the lion at its peril.

 

2011-09-22 09:35:16
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

John H. Just posted about the ScienceDaily article on the Meehl et al. paper.  They quote Trenberth:

"During these hiatus periods, simulations showed that extra energy entered the oceans, with deeper layers absorbing a disproportionate amount of heat due to changes in oceanic circulation. The vast area of ocean below about 1,000 feet (300 meters) warmed by 18% to 19% more during hiatus periods than at other times. In contrast, the shallower global ocean above 1,000 feet warmed by 60% less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation.

"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."

A pattern like La Niña

The simulations also indicated that the oceanic warming during hiatus periods has a regional signature. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes, especially around 30°S and 30°N in the Pacific and between 35°N and 40°N in the Atlantic, where surface waters converge to push heat into deeper oceanic layers."

So it seems to show that heat is buried deeper in the ocean when there is a La Nina and a cool phase of the PDO and the the SST anomalies have been showing that pttern for quite some time now-- so basically when the PDO is in a cool phase heat tends to be sequesterd in the deep oceans.  This is something to keep in our pocket when Pielke roles out the expected "well the heat is buried deeply it is not a concern", and "if it were being buried twe would be able to see it".  This statement addresses both those.

The "skeptics" just whine and misrepresent and nit pick, the real scientists here are the ones trying to get to the bottom of the issue.  That is Meehl et al.

2011-09-22 09:36:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John H.,

Not sure what you mean @ 9:32 AM.

Thanks for moderating that thread-- your doing a good job :)

2011-09-22 09:44:18
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Honestly, I think SkS has Pielke at a somewhat of a disadvantage because we are much better communicators than he is.  While he's very technical and posts lots of reference, he's almost unreadable to the normal person reading the posts.  So, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about who is the lion and who is the lamb here.

I'd have to add to that, his actual position on climate change is nearly indecipherable.  After all this I'm still not clear what he really thinks.  Yes, CO2 is causing warming and yes we seriously need to do something about it.  But Spencer's a good guy and Christy's a good guy and Watts is a good guy and the Heartland Inst. has been nice...  I mean, I almost want to send the guy the phone number for a good therapist. 

2011-09-22 09:44:45models
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Will you be able to draft up something brief for the models section, Alby?

Rob H - thanks.  I agree, we're much better communicators than Pielke.  I certainly don't view him as the lion to our lamb.

2011-09-22 09:57:52
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

I have spent a  to of time on this already, and need to continue on some data anlysis for a paper.  I would normally offer to help but I have gotten precious little work done so far this week thanks to Roger Sr.

I'm trying to think who else could do a good job, Dikran is well informed, as is Ari.  I do not think that sections needs much more work though, just tightening up.  He does not think the models are good and nothing we say will convince him otherwise, he is set in his opinions. So we just have to make a compelling and reasonable case to the readers, and not draw too much attention to that issue.  and as Ikeep saying, models are useful tools and one form of guidance, but we have others like paleo.

PS:  I was not offended that you inlcuded me as author, i ws trying to act surprised.  Sorry if it did nt come across that way.

 

2011-09-22 10:01:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

I concur.  Quite bizarre really.  Very annoying to try and engage someone like that actually-- but I called it in the first post, he is behaving just as I expected ;)  Certainly very difficult to have a constructive discussion. 

I'm going to back off, so I hope others do not let him waffle and pontificate at will on that thread.  Tom Curtis and others did an excelelnt job early on.

IMO, Pielke has not done himself many favours on this thread, and his little outburst did not help him either.

So if someone wishes to speak to him about metric for monitoring agw, then they can have at it, but we need to ahve a presence, he caaanot post unchallenged, b/c he says the darndest things.

2011-09-22 10:44:59
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Pielke bails out

2011-09-22 11:29:56
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Okay, well if anybody else has comments about models and their accuracy, they would be appreciated.

Given Pielke's weenie bailout (see grypo's link), unfortunately I'll have to change the tone a little bit.  Not too much, but this is why I said "relatively civil discourse".  He keeps playing the victim role, and it poisons the discourse.

2011-09-22 11:47:36
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Grypo,

Spin, spin, spin......

Good God but some people are incredibly juvenile.

2011-09-22 12:10:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I love how he says SkS has a negative tone.  He should spend a few minutes in the WUWT comments, or better yet, Bishop Hill.  They'd rip through his thin skin in 5 seconds flat if they read his "reduce CO2 emissions prudent path" comment.

2011-09-22 12:19:17
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

The way he kept referencing his own work was just insane.  I don't think he understands the difference between giving contrarian arguments a fair shot and acceptance into mainstream thought.  

2011-09-22 12:49:13
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Really!  He's obviously not spent any time at all posting on WUWT.  Sheesh!!

2011-09-22 12:49:49
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Don't let that stop you from posting our response to him.

2011-09-22 13:27:43update
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Here's the latest update on the response.  Slight tweaking of the title, intro, and models section.

Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions

2011-09-22 13:38:56
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.49.176

Just one nit-pick - how are climate models supposed to predict industrial aerosol trends anyway?

2011-09-22 13:42:22
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Another nit:

"That's a big discrepancy; can it be reconciled?  We don't believe so."

I'd change that to 

"That's a big discrepancy; can it be reconciled?  By looking at current evidence, we don't believe it so."

 

or something...  It's looks like an opinion the other way.  

2011-09-22 14:46:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Well, the models don't predict aerosol increases, but the modelers could have.  Hypothetically.  I can re-word that for clarification.  I changed "models" to "modelers".

Good point grypo.  Change made.

2011-09-22 16:40:17
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.49.176

A couple of more nit-picks:

-Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) measure down 10 to 1500 mtrs. I don't know why they changed from 2000mtrs in their previous study.

-I don't think it's strictly correct to say we are reducing the alkalinity of the ocean - see OA not OK part 12. Maybe just say we are making the oceans more acidic. Pielke has phrased it that way to make it seem less alarming.

Good job! 

2011-09-22 19:58:32
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

The modelers do not predict aerosol emissions from industrial activities, they use the IPCC scenarios. I think that model accuracy and projected industrial activity are unrelated.

The overall message of the second paragraph should be that although there are known weaknesses, overall climate modols do a good enough job. Note that his claim is that they're not suitable for "accurate regional impact assessments", i.e. for policy.
Instead of single modifications, let me rewrite the second paragraph to better show how I think it should be. Rewrite it at will.

---------

Climate models are by no means perfect and several weaknesses are recognized my the modelers themselves. For example, models tend to slightly overestimate the TLT trend, underestimate the Arctic sea ice decline, and decadal and sub-regional projections aren't yet satisfactory. However, despite their imperfections, climate models are reasonably accurate and give the correct overall picture. They are a valuable tool and it is the over-emphasizing of their (real or purported) weaknesses that does more harm than good because, unfortunately, we are not yet to the point of needing a fine tuning of our policies to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of human activities.

2011-09-23 01:19:36
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.178.2

Dana, I don't know if you have been following my discussion with Neal King in the "Calling John Cook" thread, but it is relevant to your blog article.  The key point is that, IMO, the most important area of disagreement between Pielke Snr and the IPCC concensus arise from his regional focus, something which is not discussed in your blog post.  The relevant parts of the discussion with Pielke are his exchanges with me and KR.

 

The following power point presentation helps clarify his emphasis:

http://www.abma.com/members/presentations/summer2010/10_SUMMER_GEN_SESSION_Pielke_Climate.pdf

 

 

2011-09-23 01:59:31
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  I don't think it serves any purpose for the readers to go back and rehash comments from the previous threads as you do in the opening paragraph.  I would just thank his for a vigorous discussion and move on to the points of the post.

If anyone is genuinely interested in what went down before they will go find it themselves.

2011-09-23 02:27:42
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Very good comments, thanks guys.

Rob H - I dunno, I hate to let Pielke play the victim role without at least presenting our perspective.  I'm not married to keeping the links to those comments in there, but I'd prefer to.

2011-09-23 02:31:38
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

dana,

please create a specific post for just the "gems", so that Pielke cannot confuse his statements in support of CO2 issues with other issues that he does not agree with. We need to have one posting that he has absolutely no excuse to walk away from - short of outright repudiation.

2011-09-23 02:39:48
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

So basically you mean make the Agreements one post, and then everything else in a second post, neal?

2011-09-23 02:46:30
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

dana:

Either: Two separate posts = Agreements and Non-Agreements

Or: Two separate posts = (Agreements that Pielke cannot walk away from) + (Everything = agreements + non-agreements)

In the second case, you would have duplication, but it might allow a more coherent view expressed in the second part.

In the first case, there would be no overlap.

2011-09-23 02:48:17What makes Dr. Pielke tick?
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Given his modleing background, I am extremely perplexed by his utter contempt for the climate change models that have been dveloped over the past decades. Could it be that "back in the days" he competed for funding to develop a climate model and was not selected?

2011-09-23 03:14:04
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana it just occured to me.  Early this year NODC made some changes to the Levitus data, and I do not know whether or not the changes were incorporated into those data that you looked at to calulate the trends for 2003-2009, probably not.  So he might pounce on that.  Follow the link for ADCII here:

For some reason both Spencer and Pielke are married to those Levitus data, why I do not know.  As you showed there are several analyses out there.

OK, I looked at the 3-monthly data trends for 2003-2009 and I get a change of 3.5x10^21 J for that window (0.0126 J per 3-months, for 28 months).  So he can pounce on that but that will lead to a higher number...For 2004-2010 I get 6.2x10^21 J (0.0221 J per 3-months, for 28 months), for 2005-2010 I get 1.3x10^22 J (0.0561 J per 3-months for 24 months).

Between 1991 and the end of 2010 I get an increas ein 0-700m OHC of 11.3x10^22 J (using a linear trend).  Eyeballing the charts I get an increase of about 5 x10^22 J/decade (or totoal increase of ~10x10^22 J since 1991).  So your rate in the earlier post (6.3 X10^22 J/decade)and mine here both seem to be on the high side.  Anyhow, a substantial increase, but we should have a post note with a caveat.

Dana, please check my numbers (I multiplied the 3-monthly rate by 28 for a 7-yr period).  Just a question to people, is this the correct way to present these data?

2011-09-23 03:20:02
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John H.,

"Could it be that "back in the days" he competed for funding to develop a climate model and was not selected?"

I do not know.  His contradictions and logical fallacies on the modelling front are truly bizarre-- the kind of things that really give his colleagues, like me, serious pause for thought.  Very unfortunate really.  I hope that I do not "go emeritus" one day.

2011-09-23 03:26:22
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

ASCII and netCDF?  Bah, I can't use either of those.  I can just add a caveat that the Levitus data has been updated, but still shows a positive trend.  How about that?  I mean we're just refuting Pielke's comment of "0 Joules", and no matter what data we use, that's wrong.

Will update the post to divide it into Agreements and Disagreements + Open Questions in a bit.

2011-09-23 03:29:02
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,  Given that I managed to piss off Roger so much yesterday, perhaps it is best if my name does not stand as an author for this post.  Again, I appreciate the opportunity and recognition, but I do not wish to be a liability.

I have pretty much lost a nother morning's work here.  So I might have a quick look at the modelling section over my coffee break;)  But I do not wish for that to preclude other people having a very critical and skeptical look at that section-- try and not just think about the content but how it will be read and how it might be framed or "attacked", and how it fits in with the rest of the post 9is is consistent with the rest of the post).  That of course applies to all the sections.

Also, I'm beginning to think that the less we say there the better-- he will just block quote the whole section or selected bits  on his blog and then "demohnstrate" using his papers why it is wrong.  So I do not wish to give him too many "speaking points", or create the impression that we think models are "the best"-- modelers (well most of us (sadly not all), understand the limitations of the models, and that they have strenghts and weaknesses, and also understand that they are not ruth but guidence and best used with another tools.  In weather to models as a "meteorological cancer" sometimes, b/c some forecasters get so focussed on the model output/guidence that they forget to look at real-time data/observatons or even out the widow-- so there has been a big push to get back to a balance, a good decision of course. 

Anyhow, more soon, and then I really, really am done.

2011-09-23 03:41:20
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  I'm just thinking about the reader.  It seems a little petty, from the perspective of the reader, when you have nitpicks in your lead paragraph.  I would suggest taking the high road and just ignoring them.  Even for the readers who have read Pielke's comments they will see SkS as being the "bigger man" by ignoring the snark and choosing to instead compliment him.

If you want to bring these up it's probably better to embed them into the article somewhere.  The lead paragraph should be about the main points of the post.  Linking to Pielke's more snarky comments just drags people away from your article and the main points you want to make.

2011-09-23 03:55:36
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

How about this Rob - I'm going to break it up by Agreements/Disagreements into 2 posts.  What if in the Agreements post, I don't mention the comments at all, but keep the current intro in the Disagreements post?

2011-09-23 04:27:36
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  I think that would be a far more effective approach.

2011-09-23 04:30:32
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Some more stats on the trend:

2003-2009:  p-val =0.57, so not even close to stat sig.

2004-2010: p-val =0.27, not even close to stat sig.

2005-2010: p-val =0.27, so that is sig. at the 95% confidenc elevel.

1991-2010 (20-yrs): p-val < 0.01, so that is sig. at the 99.9% confidenc level.

He says that he uses a baseline of zero at the end of 2002.  So I'm not sure that we are calculating our numbers the same way, he seems to be l0oking at the integreated change. I suspect that I am not reproducing his methodology, someone (e.g., Dikran) please check that we are doing this right.

Anyhow he reckons that Hansen is claiming that by the end of 2010 there should be "according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003." 

But there are no uncertainties or error bars provided by Pielke.  I find that for the Levitus data the OHC (0-700 m) increased by approximately 0.44x10^22 J between the beginning of 2003 and the end of 2010 (again applying a linear trend, surely he is not using end points)-- the p-value is 0.421Pielke says ZERO, which is odd, b/c earlier on that same post he says "It has now been at least since 2003 that there has not be significant heating of the upper ocean." [his typos]. So what is it "zero" or "not significant, if the latter then yes we can prpbably agree that ther ehas been no stat sig. warmingin the 0-700 m since 2003, followed with a big BUT.  I'm sorry but ~0.5x1022 J is very far from zero.

But this all misses the point, why should we expect the increase in OHC to be monotonic?  There are several papers out that show SSTs and OHC are known to have inter-decadal vraibility, and we also know from stats that looking at trends for periods <17 years or so is innapropriate and likely to give misleading answers.  Pielke also knows this as he has reviewed the papers on his blog.  Also, we know the oceans are not 700 m deep, and we now have fairly relibale data down to 1500 m or so, why focus on the top 700 m?  Why ignore such a large portion of the ARGO data?

Dana-- Rob P. I think point out that the VSLT (2011) data are for 10-1500 m, not down to 2000 m.  Sorry I probably introduced that error, anyhow, we need to fix that.

2011-09-23 04:31:09
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

If you click on the "ASCII" it opens up the data in Excel for you, or it at least did so on my PC.

2011-09-23 04:36:25
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana and Rob,

Re the Intro para.  I do not know-- some might perceive that as a personal attack (or wrongly an ad hom)-- you know, see he did "this".  I know I did that in the thread, but this is a blog post.  Not sure what to do, but yes, having that up first looks pretty aggressive.

I wonder if we should mention something at some point in those posts that people who follow SkS will have seen that SkS is open to entertaining a diverse scope of ideas and opinions on climate science, with differing opinions posted daily.  (quite contrary to Dr. Pielke's blog I might add).  He has tried to claim otherwise in his blog and I do not think that it should go unchallenged.

Talking of challenges. I would also consider challenging him to support his opinions with published works that he did not author or co-author...

2011-09-23 04:43:28
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

There is also an error in his calculations:

 

HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002] [corrected 6/13/2011 from input from Bob Tilsdale].

2003 ~0.67* 10** 22 Joules
2004 ~1.34* 10** 22 Joules"

He says "0.6x10^22/yr" but then integrates at 0.67x10^22/yr...

So by the end of 2010 the value should be 4.8x10^22 J by the end of 2010, not 5.36.

2011-09-23 04:58:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Alby - yes in our final question to Pielke, I made the point that looking at both only 700 meters and 8 years is insufficient.  Or I should say, I asked him if he agrees that this is insufficient, or something like that.

I did catch Rob P's correction (it was my mistake - I couldn't find the depth referenced in the link).  I just haven't had time to update the post yet.

2011-09-23 05:10:52
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Will be posting my final ideas is a few minutes here.

2011-09-23 05:30:24Comments by subject heading
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

CO2 Contribution to Global Warming

I would move the italicized text below to this section on the ocntribution of CO2 to global warming (I added the red bolded text, I think that we could leave out reference to TOA imblanace and NRC's endoresement of it, otherwise Pielke will probably fire back with his new wondermetric (NGoRF)-- interesting, if you Google that acronym you only get hits for, wait for it, Matsui and Pielke, none else seems to be on board)

"Dr. Pielke cites the 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report on radiative forcing of climate change in arguing that climate models underestimate the effects of land use change on climate.  The report does note (emphasis added):

"Regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climatic implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing."

However, the NRC report does not share Dr. Pielke's minimization of the role of CO2 or the continued importnace of TOA:

"The strengths of the traditional radiative forcing concept warrant its continued use in scientific investigations, climate change assessments, and policy applications"

"The largest positive forcing (warming)...is from the increase of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs])"

 

Caveat:  Dr. Pielke was on of the authors of that NRC report, so I actually got off lucky yesterday.  he can also provide many comments/paras that support his position, althugh they do not use as strong language as he does.

2011-09-23 06:15:19
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Climate Model Accuracy

I think that this section is pretty good, it is an honest assessment IMHO.

Dana, note when you suggested that we are in agreement with models on that Pielke thread, Pielke immediately moved the goal posts and argues that "No, they models have not shown skill at predicting changes in regional climate statistics."  

It is known that predicting regional changes and on a decadal time scale is very tricky and shows little skill.  but the models are getting some things right too, they correctly predicted an acceleration of the hydrological cycle (need to verify, read this though), they capture the Arctic amplification (so they are capturing some reginal changes quite well)  This is a good overview paper. Dai et al. (2010) has a paper on the regional response of the Palmer drought index, with many caveats of course.  But there is some value there of course; so let us not throw the baby (model) out with the bath water as Pielke seems to be suggesting.  He provides a paper that says how bad the precip is.  Yes, precip has always been and will always will be difficult.  But temperature is not as slippery (see the Allen and Ingram paper linked to above).  Anyhow from the abstract of the paper he links to:

"We show that the time integrated accumulations of precipitation produced by models closely match observations when globally composited. However, these models produce precipitation approximately twice as often as that observed and make rainfall far too lightly."

[Researchers have been aware of this issue for a while and have some ideas how to fix it.]

"Skeptics" like to pin everything on the models, they are a weak point, but in doing so they dismiss the paleo record.  Maybe include something about the paleo record.

Anyhow, I would consider for now is adding this quote:

"In the meantime, we need to be cautious. If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. According to the evidence from the past, the Earth's climate is sensitive to small changes, whereas the climate models seem to require a much bigger disturbance to produce abrupt change. Simulations of the coming century with the current generation of complex models may be giving us a false sense of security."

That is from a Nature paper here http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1200.html

So while some like Pielke try and assure people that the model's imperfections are a reason for pause and cannot be helpful, it may very well be that they may be giving us a false sense of security. 

I think it important to provide a couple of examples where the models are doing OK (see here, for example), and to get some feedback from Gavin Schmidt and/or Trenberth and/or Hansen to help us out here, even if it means delaying until Monday.  Specifically, can they provide some explicit example of what the mdoels are doing right, and say whether or not our assessment is fair.

2011-09-23 06:20:51
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I also really like this quote by Gavin Schmidt, but maybe keep this up our sleeve:

"In reality, aerosol-forming emissions, short-lived greenhouse gas emissions, and CO2 emissions are separate dials, controlling very different aspects of the Earth’s climate future. CO2 emissions play a distinguished role, because they ratchet up the Earth’s thermostat. It’s a dial you can turn up, but you can’t turn it back down. CO2 is a genie you can’t put back in the bottle."

[Source]

 

Although some may say that means that reducing emissions will not bring about cooling, so maybe it is not as good as I thought...

2011-09-23 06:20:57Proposal for the separate "agreements-only" posting
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

In our discussion with Dr. Pielke, we found ourselves in agreement on the following points:

The issues upon which we agree with Dr. Pielke are as follows.

Reducing CO2 Emissions - the Prudent Path

We believe Dr. Pielke framed the prudent path forward with regards to addressing the risks posed by climate change very well (emphasis added):

"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."

We strongly agree with Dr. Pielke on this issue, as we have previously written, and we hope climate "skeptics" heed his sage words.  Continuing to add CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is very risky, and the prudent path forward involves reducing their emissions as much and as quickly as possible.

Acting on the Prudent path

However, we remain concerned that Dr. Pielke continues to vigorously defend his colleagues who make statements that undermine this prudent path, for example Roy Spencer:

"Just as the deepening horse manure crisis was alleviated by the introduction of the automobile over a century ago, I suspect that our current worries over global warming will evaporate in the coming decades"

While it is very encouraging that SkS and Dr. Pielke seem to be on the same page when it comes how one should deal with mitigating climate change, we are concerned and confused that Dr. Pielke continues to defend his 'colleagues' who are very clearly opposed to taking this critical action, who think that man-made warming is a non-issue, and who communicate that belief to the public and policymakers (more on this below).

Other Climate Influences Must be Addressed

Although CO2 is one of the primary causes of the current climate change (more on the magnitude of its effects in the disagreements below), we agree with Dr. Pielke that other climate influences such as land-use change must also be addressed through climate policy.

2011-09-23 06:34:57My 2 cents
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I agree with Albatross's reaction to the introduction. Take out all of the snakry comments about Pielke's behavior. Given how he digs himself into a hole, we actually want to keep the door wide open for him to post comments.

Your aticle leaves me cold from this perspective. If the average reader,wants to see the complete text of Dr. Pielke's answers to Dana's questions, he has go to his website to do so, or has to read them on the comment thread to Dana's 2nd article. This just doesn't make sense to me.

To repeat msyself ad naseum, please post a straightforward article with the second set of Q&A's. Sit back and see what transpires on the comment thread over the weekend. Post the above discussed summary article on Monday or Tuesday.

2011-09-23 07:18:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Here's the Agreements post.  Still working on Disagreements.

Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions

2011-09-23 07:33:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

dana,

I re-iterate my proposal for an Agreements-only page at: 23 Sep 2011, 6:20 AM

It's based on your current text, but it's pure agreement: no blacks or grays. There is nothing that Pielke should find to bother him. I believe we need something that he CANNOT say no to. Otherwise, he will repudiate it, and the WUWT & BH guys will just claim we're faking it and faking the record as well.

Please keep ALL reservations, critiques, alternative views, etc., in the other posting(s). He's likely never to agree to this stuff anyway.

2011-09-23 07:40:51
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Disagreements: Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions

Agreements updated.

2011-09-23 08:05:15Gotta ACCENTUATE the POSITIVE
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

I believe that in the AGREEMENTS posting, everything should be all "love & light". You can keep the reservations in a different version that combines As and Ds.

Per:

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium's
Liable to walk upon the scene

Reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3jdbFOidds

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

"Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has responded to our last set of questions and answers, and we would like to thank him for a civil discourse to this point.  To sum up the discussion, there are some points on which we agree, others on which we disagreedid not find agreement, and a few others which require further clarification.  In this post, Wwe will summarize the agreements in the text below, based on our understanding of Dr. Pielke's comments.  We will address the disagreements and open questions in a separate post."

 

"Continuing to add CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is very risky, and the prudent path forward involves reducing their emissions as much and as quickly as possible."

I think he is very likely to object this is stronger than he anything he said. We don't really need this sentence.

 

"Although CO2 is one of the primary causes of the current climate change (more on the magnitude of its effects in the disagreements a separate post), we agree with Dr. Pielke that other climate influences such as land-use change must also be addressed through climate policy."

 

"Although there remain substantial disagreements between SkS and Dr. Pielke on a number of issues, including the magnitude of the role CO2 plays in climate change, wWe are pleased that we were able to find common ground with Dr. Pielke ion the need to take serious action to reduce human CO2 emissions.  We also agree that other anthropogenic emissions (including aerosols) and land-use change are issues which must also be addressed (for example, see the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation [REDD])."

Although our disagreements with Dr. Pielke cover a wide range of issues we did not find agreement with Dr. Piellke on all issues, the need to address these problems is the most important issue in our discussions, and we hope he will communicate the 'prudent path' to policymakers when next given the opportunity.

2011-09-23 09:00:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Revised accordingly.

2011-09-23 09:09:34on Agreements
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

OK, two small changes proposed:

- "land use" => "land-use" when it's an adjective, as in these two cases.

- "Although we did not find agreement with Dr. Pielke on all issues, we feel that the need to address these problems is the most important issue in our discussions, and we hope he will communicate the 'prudent path' to policymakers when next given the opportunity."

2011-09-23 09:40:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana et al.,

Modelling experts have been contacted to provide feedback on the climate model section.  I will let you know if they reply-- they are really busy so they probably won't, but one never knows unless one tries.

2011-09-23 09:44:34on Non-agreements
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

"Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has responded to our last set of questions and answers, and we would like to thank him for a civil discourse to this point. Unfortunately, in the meantime Dr. Pielke has taken offense to some challenging, but relatively benign comments (and frankly made a few offensive and snarky comments although we think he got in a few licks himself), and decidedemed that his interaction with SkS iswas over."

"question is a difficult complex one"

"radiative forcing" => "radiative-forcing" : adjectives are hyphenated

"To answer our own question" => "To answer our ownOur view of this question is that"

"a small net small cooling effect"

"land use change" => "land-use change

"Moreover, measurements of OHC are a major challenge" => "And the degree of accuracy of OHC measurements is still quite uncertain" or words to that effect.

"whatever quantitative fraction" => "whatever the quantity, the fraction ... that is affected"

"as the sole diagnostic"

"While it is very encouragingwe are happy that SkS and Dr. Pielke seem to be on the same page find common cause when it comes to how one should deal with mitigating climate change"

" 'colleagues' " => " colleagues "

"unfortunately, we are not yet to the point of needing a fine tuning of our policies to mitigate and/or adapt to the impacts of human activities." I guess you are being ironical; however, the danger of irony is that it is ambiguous. I am not quite clear what you are trying to say.

"sea level rise" => "sea-level rise"

For both this posting and the "happy" one, the reader should be invited, by link, to read the transcript of the session to verify that the summary is an honest presentation of Pielke's comments, and are not taken out of context.

2011-09-23 13:27:38
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Thanks for those useful edits Neal.

I usually nit pick, but I've found myself busy with technical stuff of late.

2011-09-23 13:49:16
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Updates made.  Let's plan to post these on Saturday to give Alby's modeling guys a chance to look it over.  I set them both as Embargoed so anybody who's provided with the URLs can read them.

Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions

Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions

Should we post the Agreements and Disagreements simultaneously, or give them some space apart?  I think we should at least post them both on the same day.

2011-09-23 17:36:42on Agreements
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

dana,

URL: Readers are invited to read Dr. Pielke's comments : This has to go back to the SkS discussion session, not to Pielke's questions. This is the first-order test that a reader can apply to verify that this is, indeed, what Pielke said. In fact, you should probably give the comment #s for the excerpted or referenced texts.

"Dr. Pielke ion" => "Dr. Pielke  on"

2011-09-23 17:45:05
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

dana:

URL: As before, link to the SkS discussion session, and reference comment #s if you think you think your point is controversial.

"Although Dr. Pielke appears to have terminated his interactions with SkS": It would also be fair to link to Pielke's summary of the session; probably at the top. Treat him as we would like him to treat us.

2011-09-24 04:04:22My thoughts
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I believe there are significant upsides to posting the "Agreement " piece on Saturday/Sunday and waiting for a few days to post the "Disagreements" piece. The susices include:

1. Having the opportunity to fine-tune the "Disagreements" piece based on the comments received and the pushback from Pielke et al.

2. Posting both pieces on the same day will inevitably lead to tangled and intertwined comment threads. We have a hard enough time honchoing one comment thread, much less two simultaneously.

3. Pielke will be more inclined to post comments on an "Agreements" peice if the "Disagreements" piece isn't also starring himn in the face.

What are the downsides to putting some daylight between the two posts?

2011-09-24 04:16:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

JH: I agree with you.

2011-09-24 05:01:19
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

One very tiny change you might make.  The place in the Pielke quote where you include the "[sic]" should be handled differently.  I believe with smaller typing errors like that it is common practise to correct the error and place the word in brackets.  In other words, the sentence should read...

"I am very much in favor of energy sources which minimize the input [of] gases and aerosols into the atmosphere."

Use of [sic] is more a technique (I believe) of pointing out an error where you might be indicating the writer wasn't clear on the meaning or the significance of the error.  Bracketing a correction is just a way of indicating that you made an adjustment to the writers actual words without pointing out any error in meaning or intent.

2011-09-24 06:33:17
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

I'm fine with breaking the two posts apart.  We'll do Agreements tomorrow, then Disagreements a day or two later, depending on whether Pielke responds.

Rob - technically [sic] just means "this is how the original text reads", as a way of denoting that the typo is from the original source, not from a reproduction error on our part.  But I can just correct the error as you suggest.

2011-09-24 06:48:54
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

I agree with Rob: As I read it, when you use [sic], you are hinting, "Look, don't blame me if this idiot can't spell." When you use [], you are being a little vague about why you're changing it: It could be that you're changing the capitalization or punctuation because you're excerpting the phrase, or to add or remove a personal name, or whatever; but you imply that you are conveying the exact sense of the original.

2011-09-24 06:59:17
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Ah.  Here's some good information on use of corrective brackets and the use of [sic]....

 

Adding corrective braces can be useful for this.

Instead of "He go into the sunset" you could gently correct with "He [goes] into the sunset" .
Instead of "I'm going to do it careful" you can use "I'm going to do it [carefully]."

You can also use "[sic]" if you want to leave the error present, and highlight its presence.

 

Source.

2011-09-24 07:11:56
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I have a friend who is a professor of English (graduated with a PhD from Purdue) about an unrelated question on writing.  She mentioned that people or groups will often adopt an official "style."  One way of doing this, she says, is to get a copy of the official AP writing manual and just adhere to their standards.

I'll see if I can locate a copy that we can use as a reference.

2011-09-24 07:37:20
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Whudda ya know....   http://apstylebook.com

There's even an iPhone app.

2011-09-24 08:20:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

It depends on the context.  In my line of work, we often have to copy parcel descriptions.  They're legal documents, so we have to copy them word for word.  When they have typos, we just use [sic], since we can't correct them, but want to show that it wasn't a typo on our part.  That's where I was coming from.  But I'll change it.