Like Waxman-Markey, where 300+ pages get added at 3:09AM that nobody has time to read or fully evaluate, Real Climate gets on the “hurry up bandwagon” in regards to climate change perception. Dr. Pielke takes them to task again. I ask “What’s the rush?” – Anthony
Response By Roger A. Pielke Sr. To The Real Climate Weblog “More Bubkes”
Real Climate has posted a response titled “More bubkes” to my weblog of July 30 2009 titled Real Climate’s Misinformation. First, it is clear they are (deliberately?) misinterpreting what I wrote on the weblog. Embedded in the personal attack comments that Real Climate permits be posted, there are several that recognize that the error in the original Real Climate post was their statement
”Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”.
As I documented in my weblog of June 30 2009, their statement is clearly and documentably false (and is not a “wild allegation”).
They present a set of observational evidence regarding the longer term trends, and I have no disagreement with them on this. Indeed, in the past I posted a weblog that supported the retrospective skill of the GISS model in simulating upper ocean heat content increases at least until the last few years;
Comparison of Model and Observations Of Upper Ocean Heat Content.
I wrote in that weblog
“The conclusion that the GISS model is consistent with the observations for the time period in the second figure is clear from this comparison. The absence of a positive radiative imbalance in the last 4 years, however, that is anywhere neat the 0.85 Watts per meter squared value in Hansen et al. 2005, needs to be reconciled.”
More recently, I questioned further their skill for the last several years; see
Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.
Real Climate is correct that the time period to make conclusions on longer term trends is too short. However, they weaken the confidence in the scientific objectivity when they report that “Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” . Why do they feel they need to do this when this is obviously not true?
By overstating what is actually occurring within the climate system (which they clearly did in their original weblog and perpetuated in their second weblog), they provide fodder for those who conclude that the human intervention in the climate system is minimal. To emphasize my view, it is summarized in my weblogs
Summary Of Roger A. Pielke Sr’s View Of Climate Science
Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change
Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On Adaptation and Mitigation
Real Climate could be an important venue to permit the presentation and debate on the diversity of peer reviewed perspectives on climate. However, they need to permit all such viewpoints to be presented, as well as not attack (or permit their commenters to) colleagues with whom they disagree.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For a heads up, Real Climate filters out critical blog posts. Here is what I attempted to post there during there criticism of Dr. Pielke ;
Real scientists test a hypothesis and doesn’t just
disregard it (by saying not enough time or authored
by 12 leading scientists and “based on the 16 plenary
talks given at the Congress as well as input of over 80
chairs and co-chairs of the 58 parallel sessions held at
the Congress) A propagandist disregards the argument.
Just because all other studies support the science
doesn’t make it true. A true scientist tests all counter
arguments with a scientific method to either affirm
the model or disprove it with an open mind to the data.
A propagandist is married to his preconceived conclusions
and will disregard data that doesn’t fit in his paradigm.
It seems to me that all the data you are using has to short
of time in the studies to come to a firm conclusion. We
have only good ice data from 1979; this is only a drop
in the bucket of time needed to make any kind of proper
assessment of the ice. The same goes for our temperature
measurements and solar studies. To say that the earth is
warming due to our actions based on this limited data is
arrogant to say the lest! I suggest that if you want to be
regarded as a true scientist and not a propagandist that
you look at all the data, concede that we really don’t have
all the answers and are all in school learning how it all
works. To say the debate is over is just plain stupidity.
Their corner is well-painted now. They have to allow dissenting comments because the data supports dissent. However, they cannot allow dissent because they already concluded that the “science is settled.” For them to allow dissent now is admitting that the science wasn’t settled, which means the position taken by so many was actually unsupportable at the time, and hence, the politics that are in motion are based on something that is/was meaningless.
It’s unfortunate for all of us actually that they did this to themselves, but Pielke is attacking with the correct mantra… “The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
Gavin shows what a wimpy political hack he is in the comment section of the RC “More Bubkes” post
Comment:
# Ayrdale Says:
2 July 2009 at 2:59 AM
Hello, a lurker, or troll here if you like, very interested in your response to Pielke Snr.
Isn’t it true that we, the general public needs to know the truth about climate change and its impact on us all ?
Isn’t it true too, that Al Gore and others who preach climate catastrophe have overstated their case ?
I have not burrowed into your archives, but tend to a sceptical opinion of politicians who warn of disaster, and think that it may be possible that they have political reasons for doing so.
You perhaps may feel this way too, and may have written and posted about Al Gore’s overstatements, (lies may be a bit harsh), but Sir if you have, I would be most interested to be told.
In the meantime I remain a sceptic / denier if you like, and would appreciate your comments.
[Response: Yes. Not really. All politicians have political reasons for what they do. see here. – gavin]
He wimpily supports Al gore by saying: Not really.
He then references his bubbly post in support of the Algore movie back in 2006
Jeremy (14:13:50) :
“The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
So why are we just not ignoring them?
RC are complete demagogues. [snip]
Paul revere (14:00:09) :
I think we have all been filtered out at RC if we talk good science that did not follow the physics in their part of the 7th dimension. But to fully test your hypothesis regarding their filtering ethics, you should post something that follow their AGW physics and or some other insults directed to Dr. Pielke or Lord Monckton. I bet good money that those will go through.
Hmmm, that gives an idea… Loto RC, maybe?!
Even some of the warmer’s at realclimate are tiring of the Personal attacks Gavin et al are resorting to in their desperation:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/#comment-87661
Here’s a statistical observation from those debates: the side employing a relatively higher personal focus in their attacks on the other side’s ideas is eventually proven wrong a higher percentage of the time.
I didn’t see anything personal in Spencer’s article, nor do I find it on Pielke’s site in general. But I do here, too often. You’re scientists, wage a war of facts and ideas, your readers will figure out for themselves who’s credible and why.
If I misunderstand the purpose of this site, if it’s just for the faithful to gather and reinforce themselves and have their jollies, please hang a big sign to that effect on your homepage.
I have incidentally debunked the central plank of Raymond ‘raypierre’ Pierrehumbert’s diatribe against Roy Spencer in this ‘article’.
Raypierre claims the correct depth for the ocean mixed layer is 50m and accuses Spencer of wrongly using “a kilometer!”.
By calculating the depth which must be warmed to account for thermal expansion and the measured sea level rise, I have determined Roy Spencer is correct.
climate progress also ripped Dr. Pielke today. I would have posted there but I have been “banned.” Romm and his ilk are reprehensible in all respects.
Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
So why are we just not ignoring them?
? I think you mean, “Why aren’t we?”
To which I would respond, because you don’t burn bridges. It is particularly bad to do so in the very field in which you aim to make headway. While they may make some claims that are unsupportable by data, they also make claims that are. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater if you can avoid it. Besides which, regardless of what they are saying, those people aren’t dumb, they’re just misguided. They’ve let their conclusions drive them more than they should, that’s all.
I assume the ‘stefan’ writing some of the inline replies on RC is ‘Stefan Rahmstorf’… he of the opportunistic endpoint smoothing controversy. Irony so rich it should be mined.
Those sites (RC, Tamino etc..) are the skeptics best friends, leave them alone. I have ignored them for a long time. I certainly visit them when these type of controversies arise, and this reassures me that in the end these sites will be invaluable fodder for skeptics/deniers when “AGW” becomes a joke in mainstream science, and media, and the lawyers start salivating LOL.end…
So why are we just not ignoring them?
? I think you mean, “Why aren’t we?”
aren’t =are not
So why [are not] we just not ignoring them? Too many nots.
I wonder if they’ll continue chucking around their ad hominems when the tide turns? Some of the comments I’ve read on RC and CP are downright nasty. I tend not to like people telling me that I have no right to life/liberty etc for being a climate heretic. I don’t think I want to pal up with people like that, not even in the name of entente.
I applaud Roger Pielke’s evenhanded response – giving credit to when credit is due. For example, supporting “the retrospective skill of the GISS model in simulating upper ocean heat content increases at least until the last few years.”
However, the key words are “until the last few years.” If the “last few years” is seven years or less, then Real Climate’s assertion that “Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” simply cannot be supported.
Surface temperature rise rate is less, and possibly negative “in the last few years.”
Sea level rise rate is less “in the last few years.”
Ocean heat content rise rate is essential zero “in the last few years.”
I assume the folks at Real Climate expected all of these metrics to me increasing, hence the words “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago.”
I think people are getting fatigued with ever accelerating predictions of doom. Real Climate is only hurting their own credibility.
Best Regards,
ClimateSanity
VG is right, someone needs to start archiving RC , Romm’s and Tammy’s sites before the more embarrassing posts start to ‘disappear’
Off-topic but Anthony, did you pick up Team Svensmark’s latest paper? It’s currently in press.
Abstract:
“Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth’s surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases (FDs), and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum around 7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.”
REPLY: Yes I’m reading it now – Anthony
Tom in Texas (14:47:39) :
aren’t =are not
So why [are not] we just not ignoring them? Too many nots.
(Uh, yeah. Me fail engrish compehenson.)
—> I interpreted Leif’s post to say, “Why aren’t we ignoring them?”
tallbloke (14:54:23) :
VG is right, someone needs to start archiving RC , Romm’s and Tammy’s sites before the more embarrassing posts start to ‘disappear’
I already did. A linux box and wget is your friend.
AGW is falling apart and its true beleivers think it is becuase they have not been harsh enough.
Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
Jeremy (14:13:50) :
“The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
So why are we just not ignoring them?
Exactly! Why not indeed?
RealKlimate was never about debate. It was and is the HuffPo of the AGW crowd, with a hint of science to give it credibility with the uninformed.
Dr. Pielke,
Jeremy (14:33:32) :
Leif and VG are right. We should be just ignoring them – over there and here is why –
In a situation of danger, i.e., in a threat of oncoming tension, the ego anticipates the latter in the form of anxiety, and this anticipation then becomes the immediate signal which induces the organism to adjust itself so as to avoid the danger—for example, flight, or any other protective measure (including lying) thereby fulfilling a biological function. That being, in this case, the preservation of the organism’s physiologically perceived level of security, social-approval and self-approval. All very natural at the most basic of human levels. However, as I also pointed out previously, most of us here do not comment/blog simply to fulfill or enhance some basic emotional need. Some, including myself, do not have the background(?) to contribute ah, technically on most subjects but are naturally inquisitive and seek information from those of you that do. Most (not all), by my observation, blog on RC to elicit response for self-fulfilling needs, NOT to further the understanding of the subject at hand OR become – more enlightened. This is not to marginalize RC or for that matter any of the commentators. They have their needs – – and we have ours.
However, it has been my experience over a LONG period of time that any attempt to either solicit a germane response from or engage in reasonable dialogue with those that are primarily focused inwardly (on the “self”) is a waste of time. Unless, of course, you’re a psychologist….. Then it can be quite interesting, even funny. But as I see, and correct me if I’m wrong Doc Watts, that is NOT our or this blogs “job”.
Dr. Pielke, your points – information – is very valuable to most here and we can use it to counter the miss-information that reverberates around this whole subject. But a bad case of agendaitis is not curable with a few facts.
BTW, the above is called – “Over-Determination of the ego”. I’m sure there are many reading this that know exactly what I’m referring too….. Flanagan? Are you there?
I have only followed the climate change debate closely for about 2 years now–that being the time when I became aware there even was a debate. I am definitely a skeptic, but with the caveat that I may be wrong. Perhaps it is AGW. But the constant “well it’s worse than we thought folks” drumming going on is really shocking. I sense desperation…these guys know the PDO is in its cool phase, as is the Atlantic counterpart (forgot it’s name). The strange goings on with the sun to boot. Romm is, well, I don’t even bother reading anything with his name attached to it. But RC I held in higher regard until this latest show.
According to Bib Tisdale the preliminary SST readings for June are among the warmest for a monthly reading in the entire SST record, though this is preliminary and the full analysis has yet to be completed, he also said an apparent correction is called part of the official data, plus in the last week or so SST’s have been on their way down again according to the NOAA maps.
Right you are! I hear it from co-workers all the time. They have been bombarded by so much doom, gloom, accelerating, only 5 years, faster than ever before, accelerating faster than we thought, etc… They, including myself, simply laugh anymore. We have heard so much of this rhetoric over the past couple of years, that even if a fraction of it where really true, we should already be half way to the temperature of Venus. The wealth of ignorance is astounding [Ren and Stimpy].
Sorry that’s ‘Bob Tisdale’, stupid typo