2011-09-22 10:32:40Calling John Cook!
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Pen and post an epiogue to "Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp" ASAP!

2011-09-22 13:05:00To what purpose?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

The Pielke bashing is getting a bit tired now. SkS is most effective when we're providing authoritative, dispassionate destruction of climate myths - I say we refocus on those.

2011-09-22 13:09:24
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Was the chase worth the time and effort that everyone put into it?

2011-09-22 13:12:55
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I don't now John-- I lost 5-days of work and pisse doff my wife, and I'm sure others did too, so I do hope it was worth it. 

Time will tell, we'll see how the dust settles.

 

2011-09-22 13:23:58Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Misery loves company. I also lost a couple of days of not taking care of other business. How did I do as Moderator? It was my maiden voyage so to speak. I did have to bite my tongue multiple times.

2011-09-22 13:46:07
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I think it was worth it just go get that golden Pielke quote on reducing CO2 emissions.  We can use that forever.  We also showed that SkS can 'debate' on par with climate scientists.  I think Pielke comes off looking bad, turning tail and running the way he did.  I doubt many will buy into his victim complex.  And Alby, frankly you kicked his butt in the comments.  Hopefully that's worth a temporarily peeved wife :-)

Next step we'll publish the final dialogue post in a day or two, and give him the opportunity to address the two cherrypicking questions it poses to him.  If he ignores them, which I suspect he will, we can launch a relatively civil Pielke's Cherries series.

John H - I think you did a good job, though a bit heavy-handed at times :-)  Sometimes it's good to let a relevant discussion play its course.  I think moderators are kind of like umpires/referees - most of the time you shouldn't notice they're there, but sometimes they need to step in and call a penalty.

2011-09-22 14:06:38
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

You did great-- it is much more difficult that one might think.  Thanks for taking that on.

2011-09-22 14:10:04
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana,

Thanks for the kind words.  It is nce to know that my efforts were not for naught.  I still can get that inane comment of his out of my head "models are hypotheses"-- maybe I'll save that for my students one day.

I do not know if he will ignore your post-- the man has the egot he size of a blue whale.  I suspect he will have some kind of snarky and /or juvenile counter post on his blog, perhaps even at WUWT.  But we have no control over that.

In your upcoming post I might make a note of how he bailed-- I'm tired now, but obvioulsy state din a much more eloquent and polite way.  You know, "we regret that...and yada yada yada."

2011-09-22 14:23:42
adelady

amgnificent@gmail...
124.171.82.190

John, you did just fine as moderator.      Just letting people know you were there all the time and keeping an eye on (in)appropriate behaviour probably kept a few immoderate comments out. 

2011-09-22 14:53:51
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yeah Alby, I modified the intro a bit.  Basically says we regret he left, made a note that he gave as good as he got with the comments too (I'm not going to let that victim complex go by without a comment ;-)

I'd say the only way Pielke can avoid rebuttals is if he admits his error, which his ego will not permit.  If he ignores the questions - rebuttals.  If he comes up with some lame excuse or snarky blog post - rebuttals.  I'm just giving him the opportunity to admit his cherrypicks (without using the 'c' word).  Fat chance, but you never know.  And if he admits the mistake, that's a win for us too.

2011-09-22 16:26:21
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Adelady:

"Just letting people know you were there all the time and keeping an eye on (in)appropriate behaviour probably kept a few immoderate comments out"

Given the attitudes here by some, John and others kept our own team in check as well, which frankly was more important than inappropriate comments. I agree with Johns comment above. Now lets get back to what SkS is about.

2011-09-22 18:48:54
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

I am a little disappointed we didn't cover more territory: I think we got sandbagged and bogged down in the first issues on this semi-academic statement. And we didn't have a mechanism to move on. Perhaps if we had more of a panel approach, with a managing modulator, as in a debate setting ...

However, as Dana said, we got some very useful quotes from Pielke concerning the importance of limiting CO2: I guess that my impression is that he's not against the idea of CO2-based AGW, but he wants people to pay more attention to "his" part of AGW (the OHC) and to "his" part of climate change (land use). ex: "Yes, I know the train is about to hit us; but the main thing is that what is important is not the weight, but the mass!"

Dana, maybe you're already doing this, but I'll suggest it anyway: There are one or two real gems of admissions that Pielke made, about things he agreed on. If you could set these jewels in their full context, so that no one could claim that they were taken out of context, formatted as a stand-alone posting, and get Pielke's approval on it, that would be the perfect way to use these.

You can also quote this material in other postings; but Pielke is unfortunately not likely to approve even the statement of disagreed issues: we didn't get far enough for that. To have incontrovertible evidence that "he said this" we'll need the man's statement of approval: otherwise, some people (BH, WUWT) will claim we somehow faked it. But if we post a statement with the black&white claim that "This was approved by RPs", and he stands by it, we're bullet-proof.

2011-09-22 19:20:32
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

Update: Ok, having caught up with the threads, I don't think Dana is going to be able to get RPs' approval on ANYTHING.

But I still recommend producing one separate page with the stuff you can 100% document RPs said, in full context: So that if he's asked if that specific webpage states accurately what he said, he's forced to say "Yes."

If you leave it in the same posting as all the other issues, he wiil find a way to distract from the fact that he said it, and that it is in context. Don't leave him that option.

2011-09-22 22:27:05
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.178.2

nealjking, I think Pielke Sr is opposed to the idea of CO2 based AGW as a significant driver of climate change, despite apparent statements to the contrary.  Specifically, Pielke Sr insisted in framing the issue in terms of regional climate changes for a reason.  He believes that regional effects are all important.  Based on that he has developed an index that he believes is a significant predictor of regional climate change, the Net Gradiant of Radiative Forcing (NGoRF), essentially a measure of change in radiative forcing with distance.  He has calculated the NGoRF of Greenhouse Gases as being 0.003, which is in his words, "neglibible"compared to that of Aerosol Direct Radiative Forcing (0.18) and Aerosol Indirect Radiative Forcing (0.14).

 

So, while he thinks CO2 is a significant (though not dominant, see his post 94) player in raising mean global temperature, he thinks the raising of mean global temperature is itself largely irrelevant to actual climate change, for which he thinks GHG are for practical purposes insignificant.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=149&&n=1010#63374

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-312.pdf

2011-09-22 22:38:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

Tom,

But he said what he said, regarding CO2.

That's the point: "One of your chief skeptic scientists said the following: ..."

2011-09-22 22:44:08Comment & Question
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

During the course of yesterday's chatter, i considered posting something along the following lines.

Dr. Pielke: Can you name one climate scientist who would disagree with the following statment - "The meteric, average annual mean surface atmospheric temperature masks a myriad of spatial and temporal temperture anomolies which occur during the course of the year." 

My impression is tht Pielke sees himself as the only prominent climate scientist who acknowledges this fact.

I agree with Peilke that way too much attention is given to this metric (due in large part to all of the debate about how it is determined), but that does mean it is not a key metric -- especially over a long time span of 30 years or more. 

PS -- Why isn't the WMO's computation of this metric the "gold standard" for all climate scientists?  

2011-09-22 23:17:34
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.178.2

While he may have said what he said, if we ignore how he understood it within the context of his overall views, we are misrepresenting him.  We should not, and do not need to stoop to that; and no how satisfying it may feel to be able to say "gotcha", the adverse repercussions of doing so are just not worth it.

 

While Pielke Sr does agree that CO2 emissions shoud be reduced, IMO he also believes they should only be reduced by win-win strategies, and that concerted efforts to reduce GHG emissions such as would be supported by everyone here should be avoided because they would not be cost effective.  Rather than that, he believes the focus should be on local solutions across a range of regional impacts.  Any such focus will enevitably concentrate primarilly on aerosols, and land use/land cover changes as being most cost effective.

 

From a recent (June, 2010) presentation, by Pielke:

 

POLICYMAKERS SHOULD LOOK FOR WIN-WIN POLICIES IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT WE LIVE IN

The costs and benefits of the regulation of the emissions of CO2into the atmosphere need to be evaluated together with all other possible environmental regulations.  The goal should be to seek politically and technologically practical ways to reduce the vulnerability of the environment and society to the entire spectrum of human-caused and natural risks.

And

The focus on reducing threats from climate, and other environmental, variability and change should be resource-based, and with a local and regional vulnerability perspective to start with (i.e., a "bottom-up assessment). Policy actions which optimize the entire spectrum of benefits for society and the environment should be the goal.

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

 

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ppt-118.pdf

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ppt-1171.pdf

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Pielke.pdf

2011-09-22 23:25:39attn: Dana
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

Tom,

I agree that we cannot misrepresent Pielke or take his words out of context, and that it would be ideal (and maybe even mandatory) to have any such statement approved by Pielke before being ballyhooed as his statement.

However, it is not our responsibility to keep RPs self-consistent: That is HIS job. If we can post:

"On such-and-such date, in discussion on CO2 emissions, RP Sr. said THIS,"

and RPs doesn't contradict us, then we are on safe ground. Even if it contradicts everything RPs has written everywhere else: That would be his problem, not ours.

2011-09-22 23:26:59Pielke's statements
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Tom,

The two Pielke statements that you highlight are pure "God, motherhood, and apple pie" rhetoric. 

For example, "Policy actions which optimize the entire spectrum of benefits for society and the environment should be the goal" is a great sound-bite, but meaningless in the real world. For any given spectrum of beneifits, only one benefit can be optimized.

2011-09-22 23:46:15
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

Further to this point:

What RPs has written there, I read (as does JH) as a rather general statement, which is not NECESSARILY in disagreement with anything about CO2.

Here's an analogy:

A group of budding mathematicians in algebra class are working on the solutions to:

x^2 + x - 6 = 0

97% of the class has come to the conclusion that the set of solutions is {2, -3}.

However, one student, Roger Pielke Jr. jr., stands up and declares:

"The only legitimate way to resolve this problem is to "Use the Quadratic Formula" (UtQF). As long as we fail to UtQF, we will never be sure of the right answer, and we may proceed a long way down the road before we have discovered our error and find that we have wasted our time. I am dismayed that so many of my colleagues don't realize this basic point of mathematical and intellectual strategy, and are prepared to let laziness dictate the path of least effort, rather than applying their efforts at fulfllling the most basic level of scientific analysis and procedure that we have been learning from kindergarten. I am very disappointed that so many of you refuse to see the obvious advantages of my approach, and that I was therefore unjustly denied this month's prize as Top Math Student (TMS). However, I am sure that as we discuss the philosophical and practical implications of effecting the correct approach vs not so doing, that you will all see the light. Please refer to my 15 research papers explaining the value of this vital strategy; you will note that one of them was my address as recipient of the TMS prize two months ago, which was endorsed by 6 of the TMSs of the last year."

At this point, one boy has fallen asleep and fallen out of his chair. When he's struggled up, he takes advantage of the attention to ask, "Oh, by the way, RPJj: What do you think are the right values of x ?" RPJj answers: "{2, -3}."

I think things are kind of like that.

2011-09-23 00:47:43
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.178.2

John Hartz, it may look like a motherhood statement, but the focus on regional policies is substantive and would result in very different outcomes to those based on pursuing a global reduction in CO2 emissions.  Further, the emphasis that reductions in CO2 emissions should be win/win precludes putting a price on carbon as a policy option, and probably precludes EPA regulation of CO2 emissions.

2011-09-23 01:08:35
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.178.2

Neal King, I agree with your post of 11:25 pm.  In fact, having read Dana's summary, it does not take Pielke out of context (which is why I have not raised these issues on that thread).  I do, however, get the impression that several commentators assume that Pielke's saying that we should restrict CO2 emissions implies that he is committed to significant efforts in that regard.  He is not, and has not said anything that commits him to that.  The reason for that is that first, he underestimates the role of GHG in raising global temperatures, but secondly (and more importantly IMO), because he thinks regional effects are more important to climate change, and hence CO2 emissions become (for him) almost an after thought in terms of tackling climate change.  

To see how inconsequential he considers CO2 to climate change, consider this quote taken from a slide for the presentatio previously quoted:

In Matsui and Pielke Sr. (2006), it was found from observations of the spatial distribution of aerosols in the atmosphere in the lower latitudes, that the aerosol effect on atmospheric circulations, as a result of their alteration in the heating of regions of the atmosphere, is 60 times greater than due to the heating effect of the human addition of well-mixed greenhouse gases.

(Emphasis from original.)

Clearly his understatement of the forcing effect of GHG by about half is a minor factor in his denialism compared to the regional focus which justifies this absurd claim.  Even the emphasis on ocean heat content plays second fiddle to it.  So, while I greatly enjoyed your maths analogy, it is wrong in this point, that Pielke does not come up with even close to the same answer.

2011-09-23 01:25:21
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.164

Tom,

Perhaps not, but my main point is that, if he cannot say that we quoted him out of context, it is HIS problem to explain the inconsistency, not ours.

His problem and WUWT's problem.

As for us: "We report, you decide."

2011-09-23 02:12:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Tom,

Thanks for your input on this. I hear what you are saying about Pielke, and it sounds like you have an excellent handle on where he is coming from. But let us recognize he is not being reasonable nor honest in this debate, there I said it.   He also seems to forget that AGW will bring about regional changes, so it is difficult to disentangle the two (bottom up versus top down, the NRC report concedes that).  We also need to remember that CO2 is a well-mixed GHG, so focusing on regional forcing with the framework a global problem is just an excuse in my opinion.  Dealing with AGW requires both mitigation and adaptation startegies.  He seems to be arguing that they are mutually exclusive.  And there is a reason for that-- to confuse the heck out of policy makers.  Why?  To further delay taking prompt and meanignful action.  His objective is quite transparent IMO. 

He outs himself from time to time.  For example, he says "Regardless of whether we reduce the alkalinity of the oceans...", when earlier he said "At the very least, ecosystem function will change resulting in biodiversity changes as different species react differently to higher CO2. Please read my post here on the Pielke thread.  That is quite the inconsistency in his staements is it not?  Why did he communicate the latter (incoherent) statement to policy makers and not the first (coherent statement)?  Note to the conspiracyt theory in point 4 in his testimony to the politicians. But we all here know that when people contradict themselves they are not talking in good faith or with good intentions.

I think that Dr. Pielke himself does not really know what he wants, and his perspective on this issue is very much skewed and clouded by his life's exerience as a mesoscale meteorologist and doing land-surface work-- well I'm sorry, but this is about a hell of a lot more than just land use, it is chemistry, oceanography, cloud microphysics, physics, modelling, engineering, botany, ecology, zoology, agriculture, disease, land/forest management, urban planning, etc etc etc..  Dr. Gray has the same problem as Pielke-- he too is late in his career, and for him whether or not AGW is an issue becomes soly a question about tropical storms and hurricanes. But here is the thing, I too am a mesoscale meteorologist, and so are countless other people who do not support their views and hypotheses, and more importantly neither does the science.

I am also finding hard to deterime how Pielke can argue that land use change over ~<10% of the terrestiral surface can significantly affect the 0-700 m OHC over about 70%~ of the planet, and OHC is the metric for him.  We know that ENSO teleconnects globally, but there are huge amounts of heat involved becasue of the large area and fact that twe are dealing with the oceans.  The PDO is similar, but it does not teleconnect as far as ENSO, affecting mostly N. America. So we have plenty of evidenc eof the oceans affecting the land, not so much the other way round.

He does not help his case by being an incredibly poor communicator-- he cannot make an internally consistent and coherent position statement.  In fact I think you did a better job than he could ever hope to do. 

I agree, we report what he said and people can try and reconcile the disparities and contradictions.  We need to be very careful of not being accused of quote mining though.  So maybe the best solutions to show both of his positions.

2011-09-23 02:20:40Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Bravo!

In terms of what makes Dr. Pielke tick...

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 02:49:48
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think if we basically separate out the 'Agreements' section of the post, which directly quotes Pielke, but make sure to note that he also emphasizes regional effects over global (which I think is also already stated in the Agreements section), then we should be fine.

In short, Pielke agrees on reducing CO2.  He doesn't think it's nearly sufficient to solve the problem, and we agree that other steps (including addressing land use change) are necessary.  Then in the disagreements we can get into regional vs. global.

2011-09-23 07:39:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Whoops, wrong thread.