2011-10-28 15:07:00Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary

2011-10-28 15:26:02
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.180.165

Brilliant!

2011-10-28 15:50:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Thanks logicman (and KR).  Took a while to find all those quotes and links.  But unlike Pielke, I didn't want to rely on a faulty memory of the events.  To me, if you're going to claim somebody said something, you'd better provide a link and/or quote.  Apparently Pielke doesn't hold himself to the same standards.  Again he comes off looking pretty bad.

2011-10-28 15:51:03
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
69.138.165.234

Agreed.

2011-10-28 16:03:33
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Thorough.

2011-10-28 16:42:21
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Good by me too - FYI, I think I have the first reference Pielke made to the stratosphere - in a goalpost-shifting move in comment #103 of the SkS disagreements and open questions post, a response to Dikran Marsupial.  So far as I can see it is his only reference to stratospheric temperatures, either at SkS or on his own blog:

  • Dikran Marsupial - Regarding

    "What exactly is the hypothesis that you seek to support using the post-1998 trends?"

    I suggest that the hypothesis be that

    "The lower tropospheric global annual average temperature trend (TLT) from 2002 until now cannot distinguished from a zero trend."

    using data from http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    Also,

    "The lower stratospheric (TLS) global annual average temperature trend from 2002 until now cannot distinguished from a zero trend."

    and the trends during this time period are different than the trends earlier in the time period.

    I will be interested in what you conclude.
  • [end quote]

    Apart from the complete bollocks statistics and the goalpost-shuffling (troposphere to stratosphere), was he really expecting a detailed response to that??

     

    The graph of 700-1500m ocean warming linked by Albatross in comment #101 might also be useful to highlight, if the source is sound.

    2011-10-28 16:47:59
    Rob Painting
    Rob
    paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
    118.93.248.7

    Very good indeed!

    2011-10-28 18:15:08
    Dikran Marsupial
    Gavin Cawley
    gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
    139.222.14.107

    skywatcher, also in this post

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=117&&n=1025#65346

    soon after, I said I was happy to accept that the "hypothesis" that the TLS trend cannot be distinguished from a zero trend, so it isn't as if his hypothesis was ignored.  It wasn't, I just pointed out why it isn't an interesting hypothesis.

    I think it would be well worth pointing out that Prof. Pielkes repeated evasion and unwillingness to answer direct questions was substantially responsible for the argumentative tone of the discussion.

    2011-10-28 19:03:11
    Albatross
    Julian Brimelow
    stomatalaperture@gmail...
    198.53.65.169

    Hi Dana,

    Great synthesis!

    1)  "We would like to reiterate that this dialogue began with Dr. Pielke accusing SkS of ad hominem attacks on Spencer and Christy."

    I'd add "falsely accusing".  He also made a really snarly comment to John h about not understanding science and one to Daniel too.  Those rude, snobby comments should be highligted.

    2) "Unlike Anthony Watts, SkS does not create or publish cartoons which mock individuals."

    Are you 100% absolutely sure of this?  Better go through each and every cartoon, and revise accordingly if necessary. In fact, I might suggest dropping this, it makes us sound defensive, but retain the Watts examples somehow.

    3) I don't like that this rather long discussion about 'tone" is up front, i think it should be at the end and perhaps shorter.  

    4) "Dr. Pielke's recollection here is simply wrong.  We originally raised this issue because Dr. Pielke had claimed on his blog that OHC has not increased whatsoever since 2003. "

    I'd also include ZERO in brackets after whatsover...."whatsoever (i.e., ZERO) since 2003.  That is what he did on his blog.  I'd also quote him, he says:

    "SkS spent a lot of time trying to argue that this is not significant"  Not true as far as i can recall.

    "but to ignore that heating of the upper ocean has mostly stopped ignores the obvious"  Defintely not true, as your quote shows.  Dana, please nail his arse to the wall , make him eat his words.

    5) You need to provide a source and cation for the OHC and land energy graph.

    6) Also, in that same quote I took issue with re OHC, he first says that "warming on the upper ocean has been reduced in recent years.", (he is referring to 0-700m again) then he says a few lines later that "heating of the upper ocean has mostly stopped".  He needs to make up his mind, the latgter statement is demonstrably false.

    7) "We are somewhat puzzled as to why Dr. Pielke has such a difficult time accepting this data."

    "These data" or "the full compliment of Argo data.

    8) Re the TLT, I'd rub Santer's name in his face, Pielke does not like Santer, and besdies, it can't hurt to cite a paper or two in the post.

    9) Re stratiospheric cooling, I'd highlight   "there are significant uncertainties in the temperature observations" in the stratopshere.

    10) Re "We did not ignore this question - there were many questions going back and forth during our discourse, and if Dr. Pielke asked one about stratospheric cooling, we simply missed it"

    I looked at all his blog posts, I could not find that question.  It must have been buried deep in one of the threads.  If it was that important, he should have brought attention to it in one of his blof posts.

    11) "In order to achieve that goal, climate "skeptics" spread misinformation and attempt to sow doubt in the minds of the public."

    And in the mids of politicans and policy makers.

    12)  "Pielke's Self-Sabotage"

    Too aggressive and snarky (accurate though).  Maybe somehting candid but polite?

    13) " for example, quote mining recent statements by various climate scientists and emphasizing uncertainty"

    I'd even say inflating uncertainty.

    14) "But there are also aspects of the climate system which we do understand well, including its main drivers"

    Perhaps write "key aspects that are understood well to the point that we BOTH agree that we need to limit GHG emissions"

    If you say "main drivers" he will trot out his main drivers again and say that we are ignoring them.

    15) "So what do we gain by emphasizing the uncertainties?"  I'd add "....uncertainties, especially when we know that uncertainty cuts both ways"

    16) That last link you provide to WUWT belew my mind.  He has been told time and time again that the trend for short windows is statistically meaningless, and also meaningless b/c we know that there is marked variability in the system.  And there he goes postig it as the feature graph on WUWT.  But notice what the bastard has done-- he has switched from RSS to HadCRUT, and we know that HadCRUT has a cool bias, especially of late when the Arctic has been wamring rapidly. 

    2011-10-28 19:04:46
    Albatross
    Julian Brimelow
    stomatalaperture@gmail...
    198.53.65.169

    Dikran,

    "I think it would be well worth pointing out that Prof. Pielkes repeated evasion and unwillingness to answer direct questions was substantially responsible for the argumentative tone of the discussion."

    Yes, agreed, good point and should be noted.  Him introducing the TLS data in those threads was part of his attempt to shift the goal posts and obfuscate, and that should be noted too.  

    2011-10-28 20:50:11
    MarkR
    Mark Richardson
    m.t.richardson2@gmail...
    192.171.166.133

    I would turn the snarky part into focussing a bit more on the science. Something like:

     

    Throughout the dialogue, Dr. Pielke accused SkS and our commenters of being "snarky." We ignored these accusations until now because we are interested in science, and accusations about tone are a distraction. Dr. Pielke concludes his latest blog post saying

    "I suspect many readers turn off SkS because of the tone they use in the comments."

    We invite Dr. Pielke to compare the tone in the SkS comments to the caustic tone in the comments of the blog of the man he defends so vigorously, Anthony Watts, and then to compare the scientific content of the posts. We consider the scientific content to be the most important part of the debate.

    2011-10-29 01:35:24Reaction
    John Hartz
    John Hartz
    john.hartz@hotmail...
    98.122.98.161

    The article lacks a "powerpoint" initial paragraph. In addition, the title is kind of sucky,

     

    2011-10-29 01:39:51Suggestion
    John Hartz
    John Hartz
    john.hartz@hotmail...
    98.122.98.161

    The "A Brief Word about Attitudes" section should be moved to the end of the article. 

    2011-10-29 01:44:35Suggestion #2
    John Hartz
    John Hartz
    john.hartz@hotmail...
    98.122.98.161

    Put the laundry list of relevant SkS articles in a tab at the end of the article.

    2011-10-29 02:05:48
    Albatross
    Julian Brimelow
    stomatalaperture@gmail...
    198.53.65.169

    Dana,

    Been musing this morning...posted the above after midnight, so sorry if it looks rushed, it was!

    In the section "Anthropogenic wamring" he misrepresents our position on several fronts.  I do not have time to look into it now, but this is the offending paragraph:

    "SkS accepts a lower value of the positive radiative forcing from soot (black carbon), dismisses two other aerosol effects from NRC 2005 and ignores that some of the radiative effect from the added CO2 would have been adjusted for by a warmer climate system since its introduction."

    What I said on the other thread.  "There are several issues here-- we used the most recent values in the literature for BC, we did not dismiss aerosol effects and we do not ignore "that some of the radiative effect from the added CO2 would have been adjusted for by a warmer climate system since its introduction", this is a complete strawman, b/c he did not account for that in his accounting either."

    Also, I find it peculiar him accusing us when he elected to almost exclusively pick those values of forcings which would minimized the relative forcing of CO2.

    I urge others to check the "tone" (as well as the content of this post)-- it shouldd be direct, assertive, candid, but civil, not smack of defensiveness or whining or be too snarky (the latter is something i seem hopeless at not doing). All t's crossed and i's dotted.  Sorry that i cannot offer more input, but have other obligations for most of the day.

    PS:  Just to confirm the section "A brief word about attitudes/tone" is actually very long in relative terms, so not brief.  So shorter would be btter, but that does not mean it cannot be as devastating.  And again, consider moving that section to the end or near the end. One option is to make a couple of comments early only, say that we ignored thatuntil now b/c we wish to speak to the science, and then near the end provide more specifics.  Somehting like MarkR suggested above.

    2011-10-29 03:13:11revised
    dana1981
    Dana Nuccitelli
    dana1981@yahoo...
    64.129.227.4

    Okay I made the suggested revisions (hopefully I didn't miss any).  Might post this later today, so let me know if there are further comments.

    2011-10-29 03:17:42
    Albatross
    Julian Brimelow
    stomatalaperture@gmail...
    198.53.65.169

    Hi Dana,Squeezing in comments here and there as I find snippets of time.  Thanks for putting this together, I really appreciate it, and know that you too are very busy right now.

    2011-10-29 03:44:33
    Albatross
    Julian Brimelow
    stomatalaperture@gmail...
    198.53.65.169

    Dana,

    "SkS used the most up-to-date radiative forcing estimate for black carbon (and also noted that one previous study estimates the value is higher), did not "dismiss" aerosol effects, and did not "ignore" Dr. Pielke's so-called "adjustment" from a warming climate."

    Thanks for inlcuding this, I might suggest being a little more specific-- values for O3 and BC were in fact both higher than stated in the IPCC AR4 for our Skeie column and thatw as also thus reflected in our estimates of expected wamring and relative contribution of CO2.

    "Rather than examining the causes of the slowed TLT warming trend"

    I'd be very careful of your wording here-- some say the warming has not slowed, the trend and its magnitude depend on the time interval used, if one uses the right interval (17 years) no significant slowdown is evident. Is this consistent with what we /you have written before? Be clear that you are referring to this short window, but that the long-term trend has not slowed, the warming is not going to be monotonic, so people should not use short-term trends to claim that the warming has halted-- that term is very definitive and misleading and Neal gave him a hard time for that poor choice of words.

    "data in an attempt to argue that TLT and OHC have not increased since 1998/2002/2003/etc. "

    add "and then claim that AGW has halted".  Rub it in.

    2011-10-29 04:24:11
    Dikran Marsupial
    Gavin Cawley
    gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
    139.222.14.107

    dana, on the section on stratospheric cooling, it may be a good idea after giving a link to his brief mention to give a link pointing out that I did give a direct answer to his point (which was addressed at me specifically)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=117&&n=1025#65346

    "I do not dispute the fact that your first two hypotheses are entirely true, however, as I pointed out neither of these facts are at all surprising because the timescale over which the trends are calculated are too short for us to reasonably expect to be able to reject the null hypothesis even if it is false. Thus the test, and therefore the hypothesis, is essentially meaningless."

    The TLS hypothesis was the second one, yes it is factually correct.  I think it is worth pointing out that we can give direct answers, unlike Prof. Pielke.

    2011-10-29 07:56:59
    thingsbreak

    things.break@gmail...
    66.7.151.194

    "did not provide any reason to doubt the SkS best estimates of 0.79°C average global surface warming from CO2, and 0.65°C from the net anthropogenic forcing."


    Although the kind of reader that will go through this post will already be aware of the reason why CO2 is responsible for more warming than the net, it might be useful to throw a paranthetical explanation in there just to be safe.

    2011-10-29 08:17:48done
    dana1981
    Dana Nuccitelli
    dana1981@yahoo...
    64.129.227.4

    Got it, any other comments?

    2011-10-29 08:48:48
    Albatross
    Julian Brimelow
    stomatalaperture@gmail...
    198.53.65.169

    Great job Dana!  He'll still spin it mind you, but whatever...

    2011-10-29 08:55:05
    dana1981
    Dana Nuccitelli
    dana1981@yahoo...
    64.129.227.4

    Thanks Alby.  Of course he will, but that's his own problem.  I'm going to publish this now.