2011-09-18 02:24:45I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness-- Pielke Sr.
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

We have a golden opportunity here folks.  We cannot let this pass unchallenged.  That comment ought to haunt Pielke Snr for many years to come.

Yes that Pielke thread is a bit of a mess, in part to Pielke-- people would not have to keep repeated themselves if he answered their relevant questions.   But what did people expect, he is a master obfuscator?  In my opinion, it needs cleaning up some more, but it has served its purpose.  It does not reflect well on Pielke.  Police know that to implicate a criminal all they often have to do is keep them talking. After waffling for a while, Pielke has finally outed himself with that comment. 

I am stunned, stunned that he believes that statement to be true.  It places everyhting in perpsective and outs him as being biased, but worse yet endorsing the misinformation, distortion, attacks, and even threats from WUWT.  Moreover, it suggests that he thinks that WUWT is a reputable science site.  Why would he consider Anthony to be "devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness" in his ONE paper, and not to apply that work ethic elsewhere in his work?  It makes no sense.  It also confirms that Pielke is indeed biased and that his skepticism is one sided.

Again, Golden opportunity folks.

2011-09-18 02:29:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

I recommend saving that one for a later exposé. Right now, it will just get lost in the rush.

2011-09-18 02:46:00
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I agree with Neal.  But let's do keep this one in our back pockets!  It might be interesting to do a later post with that Pielke comment and then go through and collect various vile quotes from Watts (there are soooo many) to list in contrast to this point.

2011-09-18 02:49:41
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Yes, an ace up our sleeve....

2011-09-18 02:56:30
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I also agree that Pielke is also a denier of the highest order.  Maybe he is aspiring to Watts' example.

As I pointed out in a different thread, Pielke's gig is to get rid of the surface temp and satellite data and replace it with OHC.  Yes, "replace."  Not add to, replace.  OHC is a non-temperature related metric and therefore has less of a personal impact relative to the perception of the general public.  Heck, it's hard enough for people to in the US to grasp degrees centigrade.  Joules might as well be something from another planet.

Note:  Never EVER repeat his framing of this discussion.  Never use the term "diagnostic" in relation to global warming.  If Pielke or anyone else ever starts talking about a single diagnostic, immediately reframe the discussion to "many lines of evidence."  OHC is just one measure of global warming that adds to the many lines of evidence we have.

Quite literally, Pielke is to OHC what Watts is to the Surface Station Project.

2011-09-18 02:58:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

Rob,

What have you got against the word "diagnostic"? Why should we cede that word to Pielke?

2011-09-18 03:18:03
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Neal...  Because we are walking into a trap.  A very BIG trap.  

Pielke wants to completely change how people look at global warming.  He wants a single "diagnostic."  That is how he has already framed the issue.  Honestly, it's not the best framing and we can kill it before it takes on any life of it's own.  The way to do that is to reframe the issue with our own BETTER framing.  John's line of "many lines of evidence" (in exactly those words) is really excellent framing that is backed up by everything this site is about.

2011-09-18 03:23:03
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I'm not saying never use the word "diagnostic" but it would be a very good idea to NEVER use that word in relation to OHC.  Definitely never ever say the words "single diagnostic."  Instead find every opportunity possible to repeat the line, "many lines of evidence."

I'm sorry, I know I'm sounding like a broke record here but it's just striking me now how powerful this is.  I don't know if you've read George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" but it's very highly recommended reading in relation to how to use language effectively.  

2011-09-18 03:26:32
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,  Rob is correct-- one must look at the body of evidence.

Also, the recent trends in OHC depends on which corrections you apply, over which depth you apply etc.  It is not a silver bullet that it has been made out to be by some-- in an ideal world yes, but the real world is very different.  It is one of many diagniostics/metrics, and it is also undergoing some growing pains like the MSU satelllite data did, continually evolving, especially since the ARGO data have supplemented the XBT data.

Right now the curent slow down ore cesation in OHC gain (again that depends on which dataset one uses and over which depth one chooses to integrate)  is working in the deniers' favour, just like the faulty MSU data did.  But in the long term (tehy are cherry picing again, since 2003 etc.) the trend in OHC is up, and significantly so.

2011-09-18 03:28:51somewhat related (I think)
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.173.192

Here is another snippet from one of Dr. Pielke's comments:

"On the ocean data (particularly the upper 700m) it is considered spatially well sampled and robust since 2003. It will replace the surface temperatures as the diagnostic to monitor global warming. Surface air temperatures will always be important, of course, (e.g. growing season length etc) but it is not a measure of heat by itself."

My first reaction when I read this was: "Says who?" I can't really picture the scientific community ignoring the surface temperatures just on Dr. Pielke's say-so. Also, "since 2003" doesn't really sound like a very long (or long enough) timeframe.

2011-09-18 03:30:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

I've heard of Lakoff; and heard him on the radio; but never actually read his books.

It would never actually occur to me to try to fit all the phenomena to one parameter. It would be an interesting theorem or law if it could be shown; but it hardly makes any sense to assume it.

2011-09-18 03:48:07
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

BaerbelW...  I saw that comment too.  Please note the active voice.  "It will..."  This is what Pielke wants to do and it's a very very bad thing.  It's another delaying tactic from the denier set.  Watts surface station gig is about spent.  They fixed the MSU data.  For a couple years they had ice extent "recovering."  They need a new delaying tactic that can carry them for the next decade.  I think they are going to hang their hat on OHC.   They want everyone to ignore all the other data and only look at the OHC data.

The best response would be to hammer on "many lines of evidence."  If we can make this stick here at SkS then we should start pushing other bloggers to use the same phrase.  

I also really love that this is a line that originated from our grand poobah himself.

2011-09-18 03:50:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

Rob,

JC seems less than enamoured by the gpb term.

2011-09-18 03:52:23
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I hadn't caught on to that.  Thanks Neal.

2011-09-18 05:19:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Rob P is working on a rebuttal to the 2003 cherrypick, but we have to decide how to proceed with the Pielke discourse first. Also, Pielke doesn't want to use OHC, he wants to use the upper 700 meters of OHC. He wants to pretend the deeper oceans don't exist because a significant amount of heat is going there. His response to that is basically 'we don't know how it got there so it can't be there', which is just dumb. Once he did admit that incorporating deep ocean heat measurements from recent studies would lead to the conclusion that OHC is increasing, but less than models predict. Less than models predict because aerosols are slowing the warming, but he doesn't talk about aerosols. He just wants to argue the models are wrong like every other denier. And yes, the Watts comment is great to have in our back pocket.
2011-09-18 05:24:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.16

Dana,

Could use some input at:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2778&r=40

2011-09-18 06:01:27SkS would do well...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

to keep hammering on the "multiple lines of evidence" theme -- not only in reponse to Pielke, but also in every article where it is appropriate to do so.

"Lines of evidence" resonnates with the avergae person in ways that our "inside-baseball" articles about the chemistry and physics of climate change never will.  

2011-09-18 07:39:43
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.60.46

Pielke - "On the ocean data (particularly the upper 700m) it is considered spatially well sampled and robust since 2003"

Rubbish of course. Only since the November 2007 has the ARGO network been sufficiently robust. And Pielke himself did his own calculations a few years back, claiming the network was sufficiently robust only from 2005 onwards. Considering the ARGO floats are carried by currents and yo-yo up and down sampling different areas of the ocean, it's nowhere near as simple as Pielke likes to make out.

I'll make sure to highlight that in the Cherry-Pielk-ing posts. 

2011-09-18 08:12:45Rob Painting
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Don't forget to review the comment thread to the SkS article posted a year or so ago about the "Miisng Heat." If my memory serves me correctly, Pielke particpated in the discussion. 

2011-09-18 11:02:46
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

John...  Thank you.  I think you're exactly right.  The point is that the phrase, as John Cook likes to say, is nice and "sticky."  It's easy to comprehend and it makes sense.  It also allows us to make very polite remarks in response to denier claims, like, "Hm, that's very interesting and may well be correct but ultimately there are many lines of evidence that point toward AGW being correct."  It's also a chance to link to some of SkS's great graphics that back up that point.

2011-09-18 12:23:25GPB
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
For the record, I don't take myself so seriously that I care what nickname people use for me - but I am a bit jealous that Robert has a cool moniker like the Cryosphere Kid (but even he hates that one).

Many lines of evidence is a powerful phrase and we can't repeat it enough. But even if we hone in on OHC, we still find global warming. It's only when you narrow in on the upper 700m that you get more variability over the last 8 years? Why? Because it's exchanging heat with the deeper water. That's why OHC over 2000m is damn near monotonically rising.

2011-09-18 12:49:29
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
139.168.35.47

Then

The 'Eureka Laureate' it is!

Don't forget, Pielke Snr was involved in producing the paper analysing the surfacestations.org results. So he has a vested ego interest in backing Watts. So the only recent science he has published has actually supported the mainstream, perhaps not want he wanted.

Personally I am rather concerned at the volume of critique's of individual skeptics we have produced over the last few months, as a percentage of total posts. For a newcomer to the site it can feel like they are arriving at a battlefield. And this also gives the posts a strong anglo bias since all the skeptics are Yanks, Poms & Aussies.

I suggest that it is time to draw a line in the sand and focus back on the science. Go back through older posts, update them and repost so they are current. Talk about new research - aerosols, PETM, Cryosat-2 etc. Complete the rebuttals.Summaries of areas of climate science. Re-examine Climate Sensitivity. More on the history of Climate Science.

Interesting stat, if you can pull it out JC, wouid be traffic to threads ranked against how old the threads are.

SkS is about rebutting the skeptic science, not the skeptics themselves. And leading with what your opponent is saying is bad psych. How many people in the broader public have ever heard of Pielke, Lindzen etc. I would suggest it is only the engaged cognosenti on both sides. Joe and Jane average have never heard of them.

I can understand the urge to go after the mendacious s!&ts but is that the best use of our time & resources?

2011-09-18 13:06:52
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

We should start a thread for a nickname for you John.  So far we have Grand Poobah, Eureka Laureate, and I think Mr. Potato Head could also be nominated, if you remember back to that one picture... ;-)  We'll let you vote of course.

BTW, what studies do cover down to 2000m?  I'm not very familiar with that data.

2011-09-18 13:55:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Von Schuckmann is the big one, Alex.  See graham's post, for example.

2011-09-18 17:19:27
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Alex, each of those names sounds worse than the last: a monotonically decreasing sequence in dignity.

John, if those are the options, I'd stick with GPB.

2011-09-19 00:01:18
Steve Brown

brownsg@gmail...
80.177.115.133

Grand Poobah, most definitely.

2011-09-19 00:49:08Grand Poobah
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I used the term in the first section of last week's Weekly Digest. I did not, however, capitalize it. I'll make that correction now. 

2011-09-19 00:54:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

JH,

I'd hold off on that: As far as I knew, JC doesn't really care for the name.

All I was saying was that the other titles offered so far are worse.