2011-11-18 15:57:55Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

With a brand spakin' new animated GIF, which I'll add to the global sea ice rebuttal unless anybody has comments on it.

Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students

2011-11-18 16:59:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Nicely done Dana.  I am busy much of the day tomorrow, but I'll do my best to comment now.

SkS actually has a few posts on Antarctic sea ice (see below).  He is also missing the most important point, the accelerating loss of land ice from Greenland and WAIS is the conceren here, not to mention the loss of glacial ice over the continents (some nice charts somewhere on SkS for that too). Sea ice in the vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula and other portions of the WAIS (such as near the PIG) are also decreasing, and that ice is important for buttressing glaciers.  This is the sort of misninformation and misrepresentation that one would expect from serial misinformers such as Monckton , not a climate scientist.  Maybe you should make a note of that in the post.

Loss of Arctic sea ice is also of interest because of many rwasons inlcuding but not limited to Arctic amplification, damage to ecosystems, it is also no longer buttressing ice shelves (see Dr. Luke Copeland's findings re the Canadian ice shelves), same in the Antarctic with marked ice loss in the Bellinghause and Amundsen seas.

Telling students that wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing (I did some analysis on this a while ago, and the rate of increase was not stat sig for almost all the months-- see here 15:35 PM on 1 December, 2010 ) and is somehow "offsetting" or countering Arctic sea ice loss and loss from WAIS and Greenland is not only wrong but very misleading and disingenuous.  He really needs his butt nailed to the wall for this.

Regardless, the trend in  global Arctic sea ice is down--see Cryosphere todays' map.

Also see:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Antarctic-ice-melting-or-growing.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-southern-sea-ice-a-basic-rebuttal.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-basic-overview-of-Antarctic-ice.html [see post #32, #49 and #104, last one gives st significance of global trends]

As I noted  on the last post above (A basic overview...):

"Global sea ice coverage and volume is down.
Continental glacier and ice sheet volume is down.
Greenland ice sheet volume is down.
Antarctic ice sheet volume (mainly WAIS) is down." 

After reading Pielke's answer the students would have no idea about those worrying observations.

2011-11-18 17:19:53
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

I'd also hammer him for directing students to obscure pseudo science 'skeptic' blogs instead of the vetted sicentific literature.

"You would be surprised how many of them do not follow the behavior predicted by the multi-decadal global climate model predictions"

This is misleading, they do a pretty good job when one inlcudes the right forcings such as volcanism.  See Domingues et al. (2008):

"On average, the decadal variability of the climate models with volcanic forcing now agrees approximately with the observations, but the modelled multi-decadal trends are smaller than observed. "

One can see it much better in their figures.

 

"Dr. Pielke then repeats the cherrypicking-based myth that global temperatures are cooling (see Figure 1),"

 

You should link to your refutation of this myth. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/continued-lower-atmosphere-warming.html

And

http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html

 

"While it's certainly true that there are other forcings causing both warming and cooling, a more informative answer would have emphasized the dominant role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the recent warming trend."

And maybe note that GHGs will dominate even more in the future as we continue to increase their levels by burning FFs, and from positive feedbacks.  Or something like that, sorry, I'm tired and need to sleep.

It should be a teacher's job to inform, to elucidate, to enlighten, not to obfuscate, confuse and misinform.

2011-11-18 19:26:38
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.123.20

I'd be tempted to say that Pf. Pielke should be embarassed to post such answers.

2011-11-18 20:53:32
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.246.34

-Typo under the 1st animated GIF - "If the human poulation

-"orginal data" (last Pielke answer)

"which, aside from being a blog, doesn't even seem to support his claim of cooling temperatures" = "which, aside from being a blog, and not supported by peer-reviewed literarature (?), doesn't even seem to support his claim of cooling temperatures."

Very good post, sullied only by the fact the Pielke has his head buried so far up his backside. Which wouldn't be a problem if he weren't a serial misinformer.

2011-11-19 03:43:36
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good comments guys, thanks.  I've corrected the typos and added the suggestions to the text, particularly more beef to the ice section.

I'm not sure about saying Pielke should be embarassed.  I certainly agree that he should be, but is that perhaps being a little too aggressive in the post?

2011-11-19 03:48:37
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

I do not know Dana, that came from Neal and he is pretty conservative about rhetoric.  Personally, I think it needs to be said.

I would even suggest going so to far as to say that CIRES should be embarassed, but I realize that that is probably too far.  maybe it should also be embarassing for those affiliated with Pielke.

2011-11-19 03:53:05
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!" 

2011-11-19 05:23:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Dana,

Tks for incorporatingmy suggestions.  I have rea dthe piece again and thought about it while shovelling snow with outr littlest one.

Some sentences that might need tightening up and other issues that might need addressing:

 

1) "and an apparent desire to blame global warming on anything but CO2."

Maybe it is more accurate to say to "to dowplay the role of CO2 in global wamring".  He might, rightly, fire back that he is on the record saying that we must reduce emissions. But then that oc course raises the question why he is playing these games.  I think we need to try and preempt his response.  The line (or variant therefo) you used in your summary might be appropriate:

"Dr. Pielke's behavior [here again] undermines his stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate change.  We recommend that Dr. Pielke stop sabotaging his own goal and instead implement a new policy."

I know you have said it before, but repeating the message is important IMO.

 

2) "As we showed during our discourse with Dr. Pielke, the CO2 contribution to the global surface warming over the past century is 0.64 to 1.28°C, with a best estimate of 0.79°C."

Provide some context-- that theobserved wamring is about 0.8 C.  Thjat is it is a hell of a lot more than an "influence", it is a climate driver.  God I ahte t when these guys play word games "influence" my arse.

 

3) "climate is much more complex than is commonly reported by the media and even the IPCC."

There he goes mentioning the media and IPCC in the same breath.  This is insulting, the scientists whose work is reporte din the IPCC ARs know damn well that the claimet system is a complex system, all the mor ereasont o not go around poking it with sticks.

 

4) "Dr. Pielke then repeats the cherrypicking-based myth that global temperatures are cooling"

Bold that text to make it stand out?  He has been told and shown repeatedly why this is wrong to say, and why it is not even true.  This is a lie-- i know you cannot say that, but a "myth" is not quite strong enough IMO.

 

5) "Why Dr. Pielke links an obscure blog rather than referencing peer-reviewed literature is a mystery, and a climate scientist should be able to do much better.  Additionally, Tisdale's blog doesn't even seem to support Pielke's false claim of cooling temperatures."

Keep this above the text, it gets "lost" under the figure otherwise and breaks upt he message-- well at least for me.

 

6) "I have concluded we know much less about the future climate than is claimed by the IPCC and the media."

He is conflating the media and the IPPC.  Also, the IPCC doe snot do science, he knows that damn well, he used to be par tof the IPCC.  They write assessment report sin which they summarize the body of knowledge and scientific understanding.  Theya re not making claims....This stuff is quite subltle but the impact on th eend message to someone who does not know better is huge. Not sure how you succincly address that, but I tihnk it needs to be called out.

Anyhow, this sentence has nothing to do with the original question.  They did not ask know about uncertainty, they asked "what do you predict the effects on the global temperature will be?".  He did not answer the question.  Regardless uncertainty is all the more reaosn to be prudent, not less.  Uncertainty cuts both ways.

 

7) "This may be Dr. Pielke's worst answer of them all."

His reference to the slow (stat insignificant) growth of the Antarctic sea ice is also a red herring.

 

8) "Melting is a response to warming. However, not all glaciers and ice caps.."

Hang on, this is beautiful, not sure why I missed.  Earlier in repsonse to the students' question 2 (maybe number them?)  he says "For example, the global average temperature anomalies are cooling!", now he is saying "Melting is a response to warming", that is glaciers and sea ice are melting becasuse it is warming!  Well, please make up your bloody mind and stop confusing students with internally inconsistent arguemnts.

 

9) "Additionally, Dr. Pielke has neglected to mention that the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet, especially the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is declining"

Dana that link is old, from circa 2008.  Somehwere John has a post with the GRACE data through 2010, but I cannot find it.  I found the update for Greenland though. 

 

10) "However, Dr. Pielke fails to mention that even OHC and total global heat content have been increasing (Figure 3),"

I would not say 'even'.

 

PS:  "and the fact that the Arctic sea ice decline (a.k.a. "Death Spiral") is far more rapid than the very slight Antarctic sea ice increase (Figure 2). "

I would also note that the decrease in global sea ice is stat sig. whereas the increase in Antarctic sea ice is not stat sig.  Moreover the sea ice around Antarctica is decreasing in the vicinity of the WAI, and that glaciers and ice shelves are not being buttressed as much by the sea ice, leading to the possiible destabilization of the ice sheet.  Don't take my word on that maybe MSpelto has some better insight.


PPS: Maybe day that he has done the students and aschool a disservice?

2011-11-19 05:54:41
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

Very nice job.  If I could make one recommendation, Dana, it would be to revise the last section header from:

Pielke Chooses Misinformation Over Information

to:

Pielke Chooses Myth-Information Over Information

or some such.  For that is what he is doing:  mythinforming.

2011-11-19 06:54:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.123.20

dana,

I would still say, "Pf. Pielke should be embarassed to post such answers.", at the end. He's supposed to be a professor, not a spin-meister.

2011-11-19 10:09:18
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.123

I'm being pedantic:

Question:

    If the human [population] continues to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at this rate, or even at an increased rate, what do you predict the effects on the global temperature will be?

What the Science Says:

Dr. Pielke has failed to even answer the question in this case, which is quite simple.  If CO2 emissions continue to rise, the effect on global temperatures will continue to rise as well.

 

Strictly speaking, CO2 effect could be increasing while temperature decreasing for other reasons.

2011-11-19 13:17:43That bit where I said don't directly engage deniers...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246
That doesn't apply in this case. Pielke hasn't just jumped the shark, his recent behaviour is akin to playing leapfrog with a school of sharks. Disgusting misinformation from a credentialed scientist.
2011-11-20 04:51:26updated
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Okay, the post has been revised to include the new comments.  The end is a bit harsher about his behavior.

2011-11-20 05:11:46Missing a word
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Change from:

Overall, Dr. Pielke's answers to these high school students' questions are nothing to be proud of.  Rather than providing straightforward scientific answers, Dr. Pielke has chosen misinform these students with a number of his pet climate myths (that global warming has magically stopped, that it's caused by anything but CO2, that it's not an urgent concern, and that OHC should be the global warming metric). 

To:

Overall, Dr. Pielke's answers to these high school students' questions are nothing to be proud of.  Rather than providing straightforward scientific answers, Dr. Pielke has chosen to misinform these students with a number of his pet climate myths (that global warming has magically stopped, that it's caused by anything but CO2, that it's not an urgent concern, and that OHC should be the global warming metric). 

2011-11-20 05:13:10
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Fantastic!  I'm surprised that you could read all my recommendations with all my typos-- sorry Dana, I was typing as fast as I could b/c I was in a big rush.

2011-11-20 05:13:40
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Thanks Daniel, got it.

2011-11-20 11:04:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Dana,

When do you plan on posting this?  I am working on another Pielke project and would like to try and coordinate the timing. Don't worry about my end, I'll do my best to be in synch with you, if it does not work out, it is no big deal.

2011-11-20 11:26:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

I was planning on going with it on Monday, North America time (Tuesday Aussie time).

2011-11-20 11:48:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Tks a mil Dana!

2011-11-20 18:56:52Pielke "project"?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246

Sounds intriguing, Alby :-)

2011-11-21 03:51:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Afraid not John, just some unfinished correspondence Re Pielke that I need to take care of ;)

2011-11-21 14:30:10
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Hi Dana, excellent post, but I'sd like to suggest a correction or two to the response to the question about polar ice caps and glaciers.

I note that the original question is specifically worded such that the issue is land ice - "polar ice caps and glaciers".  Pielke diverts sideways onto sea ice, and of course places the red herring about Antarctic sea ice.  This is two levels of misinformation down, like the dream states of Inception - first onto sea ice, then onto the Antarctic sea ice cherry.  

I would alter the paragraph below the lovely animated GIF, as it mixes sea ice and land ice.

"Dr. Pielke's answer gives the false impression that melting glaciers and ice caps are not a major concern, which could not be further from the truth. ** The decline in Arctic ice volume is even more rapid and concerning than the decline in extent. Loss of Arctic ice is also of great concern because of the resulting amplification effect - reflective ice giving way to dark oceans, causing more absorption of radiation and accelerated warming."

1: Pielke neglects even to mention land ice glaciers and ice caps, or their contribution to sea level.

2: He suggests the sea ice melt is not a great concern, but wasn't asked about that - the latter part of your paragraph is a good debunk of that.

Maybe insert these sentences at the asterisk above:

** "Dr Pielke neglects to mention the rapid decline of land-based glaciers and ice caps, and cherry-picks one misleading measure of sea ice.  He fails to consider the three-dimensional nature of sea ice either."

You then discuss land ice in the next paragraph - essentially answering the original question from the students!

2011-11-22 03:15:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

'Polar ice caps' can refer to either land or sea-based ice, skywatcher.  But I'll incorporate some of your suggested changes.

2011-11-22 03:15:46
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Skywatcher,

Good catch!  Pielke is guilty of, once again, not considering the full body of evidence.  Worse yet, he is doing so with students.

I like the idea of Dana answerting their actual questions properly. 

2011-11-22 09:28:14
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

No probs Dana, to me when  'ice caps' are mentioned it's all about glacier ice, whether it's Vatnajokull or Greenland - I'll blame Doug Benn for teaching me that!  I would also always separate out discussion of glacier and sea ice, as the dynamics of each and their response to warming is quite different, but to the uninitiated they are easy to confuse.  But I'm happy with the changes you made - it's a very good and necessary article.  Thumbs up from me, even though it's already published.