2011-09-21 07:57:54Responses to Pielke's responses to our responses
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.104.94

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sks-responses-to-pielke-sr-questions.html

Pielke has given his "corrections" to our answers.

I think the best person to respond is Dana. Perhaps Dana would like to use this thread to work out some ideas before responding. I suggest that it would be sanest to respond to ONE item at a time:

- restate it

- give your view

- ask for follow-up on that single item

- repeat until done

 

Then go to the next item.

If two items are inextricably linked, handle them together.

 

Avoid the appearance of a "pack attack".

 

I am going to copy in whole Pielke's response:

//////////////////////////////

pielkesr at 07:28 AM on 21 September, 2011

My response and answer to your questions might be clearer in my weblog post on this but I have entered it here too.


Dr. Pielke's questions are underlined in the text below, and the answers from SkS follow.

1. Of the two hypotheses below, which one do you conclude is correct? (see Dr. Pielke's post for the two hypotheses offered)

The two aren't mutually exclusive, and both are correct. CO2 is the dominant radiative forcing causing the current global energy imbalance.

R.Pielke Sr. Response -

First, let me thank you for moving on to actual science issues.

In response to your first answer, they actually are separate hypotheses and only one of them can be correct.

We discuss this in

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf

where we wrote

"Hypotheses 2a and 2b are two different oppositional views to hypothesis 1. Hypotheses 2a and 2b both agree that human impacts on climate variations and changes are significant. They differ, however, with respect to which human climate forcings are important.......... we suggest that the evidence in the peer- reviewed literature (e.g., as summarized by National Research Council (NRC) [2005]) is predominantly in support of hypothesis 2a, in that a diverse range of first-order human climate forcings have been identified."

"We therefore conclude that hypothesis 2a is better supported than hypothesis 2b, which is a policy that focuses on modulating carbon emissions. Hypothesis 2b as a framework to mitigate climate change will neglect the diversity of other, important first- order human climate forcings that also can have adverse effects on the climate system. We urge that these other climate forcings should also be considered with respect to mitigation and adaptation policies."

and

"The evidence predominantly suggests that humans are significantly altering the global
environment, and thus climate, in a variety of diverse ways beyond the effects of human emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2. Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human climate forcings in altering regional and global climate and their effects on predictability at the regional scale. It also placed too much emphasis on average global forcing from a limited set of human climate forcings.

2. Of the two perspectives below [from Mike Hulme], which one do you agree with? (see Dr. Pielke's post for the two perspectives offered)

Again, the two perspectives are not mutally exclusive, and both are correct. As Hulme notes, they are simply two different framings. In terms of climate policy, the second framing is probably more appropriate, as addressing climate change will involve more than just CO2 emissions reductions.

R.Pielke Sr. Response -

If the second framing is more appropriate, we have made progress towards agreement as that framework fits with hypothesis 2a. I also suggest you contact Mike Hulem for his view whether both perspectives can be "correct".

3. What is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming?

SkS doesn't have a preferred diagnostic - all lines of evidence must be taken into account. It's important to look at all the data in totality to monitor global warming (surface temperature, ocean heat content, atmospheric temperature, TOA energy imbalance, sea level rise, receding ice, etc.).


R.Pielke Sr. Response -

Global warming or cooling involves changes in Joules of heat in the climate system. This involves changes in heat in the oceans, land, atmosphere and cryosphere. As concluded by Jim Hansen and others, the ocean is by far the component of the climate system where the large majority of this heating and cooling occurs. Receding ice, surface temperature, atmospheric temperatures make up only a relatively small portion of global warming and cooling.

What is your best estimate of the observed trends in each of these metrics over the last 10 years and the last 20 years?

10-year trends are generally not statistically significant (see Santer et al. 2011, for example). The approximate best estimate observed trends for some of these metrics over the last ~20 years are as follows. TLT: 0.18°C per decade. Surface temperature: 0.18°C per decade. Ocean Heat Content (OHC) upper 700 meters: 6.3 x 1022 J per decade. Sea level rise: 32 mm per decade. Arctic sea ice volume: -2900 km3 per decade. Glacier mass balance: -180 mm w.e. per decade.

4. What do the models’ predict should be the current value of these metrics?

The surface temperature change is roughly consistent with model predictions, though perhaps a bit on the low end. The predicted TLT trend is approximately 0.26°C per decade. Sea levels are rising faster and Arctic sea ice is declining far faster than models predict.

OHC in the upper 700 meters increased more than the models expected from 1961 to 1999, and has increased less than models project since 2003. There are a number of factors that may explain the recent discrepancy:

as noted above, this is too short of a timeframe for a valid statistical evaluation;
models generally do not take the increases in aerosol emissions over this period into account;
there is a wide range of estimates of upper 700 meter OHC trend since 2003, varying by nearly two orders of magnitude; and the oceans are much deeper than 700 meters, and the so-called "missing heat" may very well reside in the deeper oceans (i.e. see Meehl et al. 2011).
We have discussed this subject previously here and more recently here, taking the deep ocean into account.

One reason that we like to rely on multiple lines of evidence, rather than depend on one single indicator, is that any one can be wrong. The history of the UAH measurements comes to mind: the measurements were in conflict with other methods for tracking temperature change (and with climate model projections) for over a decade; eventually, most of the discrepancy was resolved (in favor of the models) only after very subtle analysis of the physical behavior of the instruments.

R.Pielke Sr. Response -

The oceanographers who work with the ocean heat data are convincing (at least to me and a number of other colleagues) that since the completion of the Argo network, it is a robust metric (within defined uncertainty bars) such as Josh Willis placed on the figure he provided me for the article

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-334.pdf

5. What are your preferred diagnostics to monitor climate change?

That depends on how "climate change" is defined, but again, it is necessary to look at all lines of evidence and data.

R.Pielke Sr. Response -

You avoided answering this question. This is actually an essential issue to resolve. The NRC (2005) report [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=200] defines climate change as

"The system consisting of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere, determining the Earth’s climate as the result of mutual interactions and responses to external influences (forcing). Physical, chemical, and biological processes are involved in interactions among the components of the climate system. "

This is much broader than just global warming and cooling. Please clarify your view.

6. Is global warming (and cooling) a subset of climate change or does it dominate climate change?

Again, that depends on how "climate change" is defined. Long-term global temperature and climate changes are both ultimately caused by global energy imbalances.

R.Pielke Sr. Response -

The recognition that climate changes can occur without any global energy imbalance is central to the much needed broader view of how humans are altering the climate system. Please clarify what is "climate change" in your view.

Now that we have answered your questions, there are a few issues on which we would like to understand your perspective, Dr. Pielke.

SkS Questions for Dr. Pielke

1. Approximately what percentage of the global warming (increase in surface, atmosphere, ocean temperatures, etc.) over the past 100 years would you estimate is due to human greenhouse gas emissions and other anthropogenic effects? And the past 50 years?

This is a good question. It is a still incompletely understood mix of a variety of human caused radiative forcings (e.g. CO2, methane and several other greenhouse gases, land use/land cover change, black carbon (soot), sulphates, and other aerosols) and natual climate variations.

Several years ago I did a back of the envelope estimate and came up that ~26% of the positive radiative forcing was from CO2; see slide 12

in

Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2006: Regional and Global Climate Forcings. Presented at the Conference on the Earth’s Radiative Energy Budget Related to SORCE, San Juan Islands, Washington, September 20-22, 2006. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/09/ppt-69.pdf.

This number certainly changes through the last 100 and the last 50 years, and remains uncertain.

The complexity of these radiative forcings is discussed in some detail in NRC (2005) -
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/. Despite the vigor with which you criticize Roy Spencer, he actually has been instrumental in elevating our awareness that natural variations in cloud cover, as a result of temporal variations in atmospheric circulation features, as causing long term variations in the TOA radiative imbalance.

2. Do you find Spencer, Lindzen, and Christy's arguments that equilibrium climate sensitivity is in the ballpark of 1°C or less for doubled atmospheric CO2 plausible? If so, how do you reconcile this low climate sensitivity with the paleoclimate record, for example needing to explain ~5°C swings in average global surface temperature between glacial and interglacial periods (i.e. see the figure below from Hansen and Sato 2011)?

I do not find the glacial and interglacial periods as useful comparisons with the current climate since when we study them with models, they have large differences in imposed terrain (e.g. massive continetal glaciers over the northern hemisphere which will alter jet stream features, for example).

In any case, I find the discussion of the so-called "climate sensitivity" by all sides of this issue as an almost meaningless activity. I posted on this in

So-Called “Climate-Sensitivity” – A Dance On The Head Of A Pin -
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/so-called-climate-sensitivity-a-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin/

3. Do you agree that continuing on our current business-as-usual emissions path presents an unacceptable (in your opinion) risk to the biosphere and to human society in general within the next century?

Of course. 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.

By continuing to argue on global warming and its magnitude, 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, in general. Even if there were no global warming (or even cooling) in the coming decades, we still need to limit how much we change the environment (including land use change, nitogren deposition, CO2 etc).

4. Do you agree that continuing on our current business-as-usual emissions path presents an unacceptable (in your opinion) risk to marine ecosystems in the form of ocean acidification within the next century?

Regardless of whether we reduce the alkalinity of the oceans (since there may be buffering from the added CO2 through mixing from below) we will be altering ecosystem function both in the oceans and in the atmosphere. Since we do not know the consequences of doing this, the smart thing to do is to work towards reducing the extent we alter the chemisty of the oceans and the atmosphere.

5. Do you think that we should begin to move towards a low-carbon economy, thereby reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions?

I am very much in favor of energy sources which minimize the input off gases and aerosols into the atmosphere. Much of my career has been involved with reducing air pollution (both in research and in policy). What we should move towards is an economy with as small a footprint on the natural environment as possible.

In terms of how to do this with respect to carbon emissions, I completely agree with my son's perspective as he presents in The Climate Fix - http://theclimatefix.com/

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
2011-09-21 08:15:59
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

#1 - I disagree with Pielke that the two are contradictory.  Seems like a semantics issue to me, but I think we can find common ground.  CO2 is the dominant driver, but other factors are important to, as we said in #2.

#2 - we're basically in agreement.

#3 - There's a few points we can make here.  1 - sure most of the energy goes into the oceans, but certainly not all of it.  2 - the oceans are not well-measured, so relying on them as the sole diagnostic of global warming is frankly rather foolish.

#3b - Pielke didn't comment on.  I guess he doesn't disagree with our response.

#4 - basically the same as #3.  We can probably just combine these into one response talking about deficiencies of relying solely on OHC data.

#5 - I don't really know how to respond.  There are so many 'diagnostics to monitor' pertaining to climate change, and we certainly don't prefer any metrics over others.

#6 - defining climate change - not fun.  Any suggestions?

Our #1 - Pielke says "~26% of the positive radiative forcing was from CO2". I'll have to look at his slide, but I think we're going to have to take him to task for that gross underestimate.

"Despite the vigor with which you criticize Roy Spencer, he actually has been instrumental in elevating our awareness that natural variations in cloud cover, as a result of temporal variations in atmospheric circulation features, as causing long term variations in the TOA radiative imbalance."

Will have to take him to task on that one too.  Barry Bickmore's response will apply here.

Our #2 - He dodged the question.  Will probably have to ask him to answer it again.

Our #3 - "The prudent path, therefore, is to limit how much we change our atmosphere."  We'll have to highlight this agreement.  This will be a useful quote in the future.

Our #4 - his answer is reasonable enough, similar to #3

Our #5 - We seem to agree, though I'll have to look at Pielke Jr.s "climate fix"

2011-09-21 08:18:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Much more reasonable than I expected, overall.  I think we need to follow up by asking specifically about a few of his cherrypicks (TLT since 1998, OHC since 2003).  And our response should certainly highlight the areas where we agree.

I'll need help with his #5 and #6 though.

2011-09-21 08:35:12
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.104.94

I'm going to propose discussion on item 1. Are you familiar enough with Hulme's article to begin with that?

I notice he doesn't list #6 ? Don't see why, maybe I'm missing something.

A couple of folks should look at RPj's page on that topic.

2011-09-21 08:44:32
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.104.94

Tom Curtis is already starting in on question 1.

2011-09-21 08:47:19
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.26.176

1) I agree with Dana, this appears to be a semantics issue.  I actually think that making a general statement about our position, instead of forcing ourselves to frame it as an answer to the question, would be best, and thus the answers to the questions could be inferred.

2) See above.

3) Joule measurements cannot give us an accurate idea of how much warming we have left, we need to look at the energy imbalance for that.  At least in this perspective, the TOA energy imbalance is more important - the rest is simply internal variability due to movement of heat.  You simply will not have all of the energy within a system that will be there at equilibrium temperature, if you're not at equilibrium.

In either case, is OHC even useful for us in every respect?  Monitoring surface/TLT temperatures is important too, those affect terrestrial plant life for instance, as well as dictate other feedback responses such as glacial ice melt, cloud cover, so on.  Some metrics are more pertinent than others to knowledge on the effects climate change and global warming will have on us.

3b) I don't know Dana, I don't think it's safe to say he has an opinion either way without him explicitly stating so.  For the sake of a follow up, we can probably assume that this particular detail is irrelevant now.

4) Yeah, he didn't comment again - he brought up the robustness of the Argo dataset, but that wasn't a point touched on in our Answer.

5) Since when was "climate change" a system?  I don't think that that is the actual definition he gave.  In any sense, we ought to consider giving a definition ourselves that we here agree on, and working from there.  If climate change can be called a change in the system describes by Pielke's quote, then we can bring up SLR, ice melt, specie endangerment or migration, crop yields, heat wave frequency or intensity, so on.

Careful though, we should still emphasize the multiple lines of evidence aspect.

6) This was a weird question from the get-go.  To consider temperature necessarily independent or necessarily dependent on how you define climate change is silly.  Temperature is an aspect of the climate, but changing temperature can cause more changes in various other aspects of the climate (e.g. hydrological cycle).  It's still technically part of "climate change," but it is driving "climate change."

 

Our1) Agree Dana.

Our2) There's no point in asking for him to answer it if he's taking the position that the premise of the question is a red herring.  It's a complete dodge of course, but it's not like he's hiding his views.  He's just going to say he doesn't have any.

Our3-5) Yeah, seems fine.  FWIW I find his usage of "prudent path" ironic, consideirng our own series against the document that shared the name. 

2011-09-21 08:57:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Guys,

Can we perhaps starts a thread for each question?  Or is that too much-- that would be 11 threads (6 for his and five for ours)?  We should have thought about this ahead of time.....Or we could direct people to the most appropriate exsisting thread to discuss each issue further.  SO maybe a moderator could post a list of appropriate threads to deal with each question (or questions) and then shut down that main thread and everyone can take it form there.

Maybe the best though is for Dana et al. to not respond "inline" (let the SkS crowd discuss at will) but to write another blog post in response.  Let him know that we have seen his posted reponses and then say we'll get back to him.

#1 he dodged the question.  we asked him for a percentage of the warming, not radiative forcing.

#2 He dodged the question.  Yes, ther eis no perfect analog from the past, but we know from past climate change that the climate system is relatively sensitive to changes in forcing.  That is the point, and he knows it.

 

Pielke "Roy Spencer, he actually has been instrumental in elevating our awareness that natural variations in cloud cover"

I am not aware that he had done this.  Someone ought to post a list of paper sof others who have worked on clouds other and before Spencer.

Someone had a graphic at SkS along the line sof where does all the that go....where is that?  

He did not focus on land use change-- maybe i can take credit for that ?;)  i origionally had in my first post that he would extensivley cite his own work, but deleted it b/c I thought it was too snarky.  it looks like he exclusively cited his own work-- that is not looking at the body of science !

 

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.

 

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

Umm, we have already done that mate, you are not paying attention.

I would not get into a debate about hypothetical and framing re Hulme-- that is just playing into his attempt to fabricate doubt and uncertainty and fabricate debate.  Let us just agree to disagree with that and focus on the science and solutions.

2011-09-21 09:02:49
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'll draft something up tonight for review, and we'll go from there.  I'm probably not going to keep every Q - where we agree I'll summarize, where we disagree I'll summarize, where he dodged questions I'll repeat them, and then I'll ask a few new ones about his cherrypicks.

In the meantime if you have any more comments, keep them coming.  Good stuff so far.

2011-09-21 09:05:53
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.133

This is going to drain a lot of our resources (time) and attention of our readers. It's a distraction, a lot of semantic, policy or environmental issue at large, with just a bit of climate science. Why not take the opportunity that he didn't ask any other question to end this "constructive discussion" here?

2011-09-21 09:12:07
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good point Riccardo @9:05 AM.

Actually, I think his repsonse is rather underwhelming, i expected way more obfuscation and fireworks.  Focus on the fact that we are in agreement. So let us not stoke the fire...!

Dana are you fmailiar with REDD?  This is but one example of how we can tackle AGW and environmental issues.

2011-09-21 09:21:49
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.104.94

Riccardo: I don't think we're boring our readers: The ones who are not interested can do something else for awhile. But actually it's human nature to like to watch a fight. If we handle it well, I think it helps us overall.

Dana: We don't have to get all wrapped around the axle on his philosophical distinctions. If something gets too complicated, we can basically say, Well, we don't see it that way; and reframe the issue along more practical/pragmatic lines. It's an exchange of views, not the bar exam. We have no need to meet his expectations.

2011-09-21 11:02:35agreed
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

That's my plan, neal.  That's why I'm going to go point-by-point, but rather summarize.

And I think it's important to ask him a couple cherrypicking questions, because as it stands, I wouldn't want to launch a Pielke's Cherries series at this point.  But I think we should present him with his cherrypicks, explain why they're wrong, and see if he stands behind them.  Just a couple examples to see how he reacts.

Anyway, will start drafting the post right now.  Expect a draft in a few hours.

2011-09-21 13:45:04
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.54.84

I'm usually one to fire off a lot of salvos against people who muddy the waters on climate science.  But here, I want to point out something strongly positive stated by Dr. Pielke.

 

In the deniersphere people often argue against human influence on climate and that 'CO2 is plant food'.  He has given us his unreserved opinion on this to the effect that CO2 is changing the climate and that we are responsible.

 

3. Do you agree that continuing on our current business-as-usual emissions path presents an unacceptable (in your opinion) risk to the biosphere and to human society in general within the next century?

Of course. 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.

By continuing to argue on global warming and its magnitude, 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, in general. Even if there were no global warming (or even cooling) in the coming decades, we still need to limit how much we change the environment (including land use change, nitogren deposition, CO2 etc).

 

These arguments are a strong rebuttal to the deniers who are promoting the interests of the fossil fuels industries.  I would give great prominence to Dr. Pielke's views in this regard and thank him sincerely for being so bold as to make comments in support of the consensus on climate science.  His agreement that BAU poses an unacceptable risk to human society will not earn him any brownie points in the deniersphere.  Quite the reverse, I would say.

2011-09-21 14:01:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

logicman,

Check out:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=2838&r=1

2011-09-21 14:03:43Kudos to everyone
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

So far (thru comment #40), the discussion thread has been very civel and enlightening. Pielke has given us a lot of material to digest. Let's not go overboard on rebutting each and every item in great detail on the thread. We should, in my opinbion, analyze the major areas of contention in a series of subsequent articles. Articles get read by a lot more people than do the comment threads.

In addition to the issues we have with Pielke's statements in this continuing dialoge, Pielke constinues to post new controversial material on his blog site. His hubris is a sight to behold. It is also his Achilles heel.

Pielke's post of Sep 20 is "Torpedoing Of The Use Of The Global Average Surface Temperature Trend As The Diagnostic For Global Warming" [The graphic is straight out of a comic book.]

He starts this post with: 

"There is a new paper by Gerald Meehl of NCAR and other collaborators  that has been announced in the media; i.e. see in the International Business Tribune [h/t to Watts Up With That]"

Pielke's post of Sep 19 is "New Paper “Land Use/Land Cover Changes And Climate: Modeling Analysis And Observational Evidence” By Pielke Sr Et Al 2011"

This paper deserves our careful scrutiny.

  

 

 

2011-09-21 14:40:07
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.54.84

nealjking: thanks for the 'heads-up'.

2011-09-21 14:44:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

logicman - that's exactly how I approached it.  The title and first part of the post prominently display that Pielke agrees on the importance of CO2 emissions reductions.  I also noted that "skeptics" should listen to him.  See neal's link.

2011-09-21 14:50:08
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

In your write up remember that there is nothing magic about 700 m, that is there is nothing phycically important about it.  It is just an artifact of the depth limitations of the XBTs.

Also, Rob Painting is doing some good posts.  Pielke's blog post on the Meehl pape ris , err, interesting:

" If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of. In the models, this heat clearly must be transferred  (upwards and downwards) through this layer. The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been see."

What is with all the underlining?!  But nope.  He needs to read the literature and listen to the ocean experts more carefully, I mean actually listen.  He is basically saying, "I do not buy" it without presenting any evidence whatsoever other than "we should be able to see it in the ARGO data".

 

Even more important is the failure of the authors to recognize that they have devalued the use of the global average surface temperature as the icon to use to communicate the magnitude of global warming

Upset that they have not embraced his hobby horse? 

 

"A final comment on this paper, if heat really is deposited deep into the ocean (i.e. Joules of heat) it will dispersed through the ocean at these depths and unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all. The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community."

I would like someone to address this argument, and it would be nice if we could take him down in our reply.  I can't not my strength.  But despite the findings of deep ocean heat sequestration, climate scientists and oceanographers are still concerned about AGW, so I'd like to know why, b/c on the surface Pielke's argument (at leats to someone outside of the field) as been reasonable.  That said, I recall that Katsman and Oldenborgh (2011) suggested at least one mechanism by which heat can be transferred downwards:

"The analysis reveals that an
8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional.
It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely
as a result of El Ni˜no variability on decadal timescales, and
by increased ocean warming at larger depths (35%), partly
due to a decrease in the strength of the Atlantic meridional
overturning circulation. Recently-observed changes in these
two large-scale modes of climate variability point to an up-
coming resumption of the upward trend in upper ocean heat
content."

Pielke thinks that this means that the energy is gone for a very long time and safely away from us.  But my take is that it may only "disappear" on a decadal time scale and will come back on in future decades to bite us in the you know what.

2011-09-21 15:31:57
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.203

The heat going to deep ocean has been seen by recent studies.

2011-09-21 20:56:19MODERATOR: Change of topic requested
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

JH:

- I have tried to bring to an end what seems to me to be the interminable finger-nail polishing going on for Q1 & Q2. I've tried to bring it down to earth with my #39, but nobody's paying any attention to me, I'm afraid. Maybe the discussion is over my head; or maybe it's just mental masturbation.

- Barring that, I've suggested that the Moderator formally change topic to Q3, on "preferred diagnostics". Could you encourge people to "move along"? I think this orange has been wrung very dry by now. Of course, you shouldn't cut off Pielke (and maybe you could encourage him to respond to #39, "if it please the court"); but I don't think he's got anything further to say either, really.

Just a suggestion.

2011-09-21 21:04:06
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.60.197

Alby @ 21 Sep 2011, 2:50 PM - don't worry buddy that's covered in one of Pielkes Cherrypicks.   

2011-09-21 22:56:49nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I'm relusctant to jump in at this time because everyone is being very polite and civil. By addressing all five of Pielke's questions in a single post, we have created a smorgasbord of issues that everyone can pick and choose from. To compound matters, we then included five questions from us to Pi;lke. Eventaully, this comment thread will peter out just as all comment threads do.

What we need to focus on right now is next steps. Pielke has provided us with mucho fodder for follow-up articles that focus on specific bones of contention.

2011-09-21 23:07:36nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Pielke's post #68 gave me an opening and I took it. 

Belay that. By accident, I wound-up posting my comment on Curtis #50. 

I'll repeat it on the most recent post by Curtis.

2011-09-21 23:09:07
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

JH:

My concern is that all the discussion has been only about points 1 & 2, and (to my eyes) involves very fine shades of word-smithing to draw distinctions between "nothing" and "nothing else". Maybe it's just me, but I feel like it's a conversation at the Mad Hatter's tea party, only with less connection to reality.

Can't you just ask people to cover a little more ground by moving to the next topic?

2011-09-21 23:16:44
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

Yes, #50 would have been a good place.

What about proposing to change topic in 5 postings, so that people get a chance to wrap up their positions?

2011-09-22 00:07:42nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Let's let the tread percolate for awhile before imposing any new house rules.

2011-09-22 01:04:24dana
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

In #73, I've suggested defining a list of agreed and not-agreed issues, mostly as a way of getting off the topics that don't seem to be making any progress.

This might be a way for you to generate a document something pre-agreed by Pielke. I have stated that I think you are preparing some notes; so you could take the early items from your current draft and post it as a draft set of notes.

This would encourage people to put aside issues that don't go anywhere, and get Pielke's buy-in at the same time.

??

2011-09-22 01:23:38Can I ask what the purpose of the response to Pielke is?
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.155.171

If the purpose is only to map out areas of agreement and disagreement for later discussion in dedicated threads, then it is  certainly appropriate to move on from questions 1 and 2.  If, on the other hand, the purpose is to discuss his views and rebut his errors, then the key issue in question 1 is the global/regional issue canvassed by KR and by me; and to which Pielke has made only one brief (and specious) response.  In that case there is significant discussion left in the issue.

2011-09-22 01:36:05
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

Tom,

- IF we're going to do anything further with Pielke, we need to have a record of what's been covered & agreed, and what is still wide open.

- If we're going to have a meaningful discussion on any topic, we have to be able to turn off discussion on topics already settled, so that the focus can be on the open topic. Documenting the settled stuff takes it off the (crowded) table.

- And if we go on without focus, I believe the whole discussion will run out of steam. This would be too bad; as Dana already has noted in his document, Pielke has fully admitted to some pretty mainstream positions on GW, which never get any play in Denier Land. I would not want to lose our opportunity of getting that out.

- Finally, maybe I have succumbed to internet attention-deficit disorder, but I find the phrasing used by Pielke for hypotheses 1 and 2 and 2b etc. to be highly soporific.  That's why I've tried to boil it down to simpler and more practical terms. Maybe you think I'm missing the point. But I think he is trying to bore our audience to death, and I think he's succeeding.

2011-09-22 01:48:36The big unkown
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Will Pielke post additonal comments on the thread? If not, it's pretty-much petered out.

2011-09-22 01:52:24
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

Well, why don't we change the topic and see?

2011-09-22 01:59:13Tom Curtis
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

My working assumption is that the average SkS reader does not read the comment threads. Thus, I am not concerned that this comment thread cover every single issue in meticulous detail. 

At the end of the day, we will continue to have many major bone of contention with Pieke and each should be addressed in turn in subsequent articles.

In that context, I recommend that you draft a follow-up article on the framing issue. It does,embody Pielke's core beliefs about the climate system and how mankind is impacting it. It desrves to be thoroughly dissected.

2011-09-22 02:07:26
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'll post a comment summarizing the agreements/disagreements and see if Pielke concurs.

2011-09-22 04:04:58Passing the baton
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The moderator baton is now in Dikran's capable hand.

2011-09-22 04:07:31Why not?
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Has anyone alerted the cadre of Aussie climate scientists who guest posted on SkS about this comment thread? It would be exrtremely interesting to see what they have to say in response to Pielke's pontificating.

2011-09-22 04:18:06
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.103.184

Comment counts from latest blog posts:

SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions - 92 comments
Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell - 15 comments
Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp - 106 comments

It seems that Pielke has managed to steer the focus away from Spencer & Braswell. Mission accomplished?

2011-09-22 04:24:44Ari
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The number of comments on a article tells us nothing about how many people have read an article.

2011-09-22 04:25:03
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Maybe for now Ari, but this will pass.  Perhaps someone on one of the other threads could as Pielke to post his thoughts on the thread on Spencer and Braswell.  Just so you now, that thread was moving very slowy from the get go-- I think people may be suffering from mole-whacking fatigue ;)  What is there to say, "oh hum, the 'skeptics' messed up again", and 'skeptics" know they are on veyr thin ice tring to defend bad science, so a no win for them.

Dana's reply to Roger's reply (good grief) links to that thread too.

2011-09-22 05:26:16
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.19

Ari,

You're also comparing the middle paper to two direct-conflict situations, which have a bit more human interest. What if you compare it with a more typical article?

2011-09-22 05:46:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Conflicts always get more comments and pageviews.  People love a good argument.  But the number of pageviews on the Trenberth post is pretty average, even though it didn't get many comments.

Also, Pielke only accomplishes that 'mission' if we let him.  We're still hammering away on Spencer and Christy in our responses to Pielke, including the latest version.

2011-09-22 09:24:32
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Pielke is one thin-skinned, arrogant SOB! 

2011-09-22 09:58:33
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Pielke has just left the building! See #120.

Recall that he did that a couple of times on the comment thread to Dana's initial article.  

Will he ever return?

Who knows.

2011-09-22 10:27:03nope
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

He won't.  See my new thread "Pielke bows out like a weenie".  Thin-skinned is an understatement.

2011-09-22 18:14:30
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

"You're also comparing the middle paper to two direct-conflict situations,..."

And Pielke has created (with SkS own assistance) these direct-conflict situations (and hence steered the focus out of S&B) which is exactly my point.

2011-09-22 19:16:14
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

Ari,

My point is that the S&B article might never have made significantly more impact anyway. One can't tell from the numbers you've posted.

Over all, the fight with RPs has opened up a few new angles; we'll see how it plays out.

2011-09-22 22:31:07Keep in mind...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

SkS got a lot of exposure on Pielke's site.

Our profile has been rasied and we will get new visitors as a result.

"There's no such thing as bad publicity."