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.
So gavin and paulK agree that the IPCC projections are being quickly proven wrong. If they’re wrong after just a few years, they’re claiming that it doesn’ t matter whether they’re too low or too high. Claiming that an unexpected rise indicates a crisis implies projecting the rise into the future, and that the projected rise shows that the IPCC projections are critically wrong. If the IPCC projections are critically wrong, then you can’ t use them.
Sorry Roger, I can’t agree. The problem is that you are inappropriately using unadjusted data, when the real climate boys prefer to use data they have adjusted to match their hypothesis. Get it together man, you just don’t understand how climate science is done!
One difference between us of the sceptical side and those that read and accept RealClimate’s analysis is that we actually look at what the data is showing.
The pro-RC folks just accept the spoon-fed manipulated charts and distorted Science journal studies without double-checking.
Every time I have double-checked the data, I have found it does not support the RC chart or the Science pro-AGW study. There is always a little room for interpretation which is why there is this debate in the first place, but data is data and facts is facts.
OT weather-isn’t-climate news
Big chill in Churchill
Winter grips 90 per cent of north, migratory birds can’t breed
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/big-chill-in-churchill-47992231.html
I have read posts from years ago over at Real Climate, as well as more recent ones.
What stands out is the difference in tone between several years ago (say 2005) and more recent posts. Most everything posted of late, and especially the replies to comments following posts, is pretty shrill compared to years past (though in fairness to Gavin I should point out that he usually seems more calm than the others). This change in tone is probably a result of the increasingly obvious discrepancies between the dire climate predictions of the past decade and the not-so-dire reality of current climate data. I find it both sad and bit comical that the group at RC consistently pointed out how large the earth’s energy imbalance was in the decade before 2003 (eg. Hansen, et al, 2005) based mainly on a rapid increase in ocean heat content, but now dismiss 6 years of little or no increase, or even a slight decrease (depending on which analysis you believe), as “sort term variation” that remains “consistent with” the IPCC’s projected warming.
RC would do well to step back a bit and be more consistent with analysis of all kinds of climate data, including data that appear to conflict with catastrophic projections of global warming. My observation over many years is that scientists who spend much of their time trying to discredit data which conflict with their theories usually end up looking quite silly. Scientists ought not fall into the movie stars’ trap of believing their own press releases.
AnonyMoose: So gavin and paulK agree that the IPCC projections are being quickly proven wrong. If they’re wrong after just a few years, they’re claiming that it doesn’ t matter whether they’re too low or too high.
Lets fill in the argument you are advancing with the actual factual observations. RC was summarizing the Copenhagen Climate Congress report, much of which is based on peer reviewed research published since the last IPCC report, and on the IPCC projections, which from the report, some seem to date back to 1990. So saying IPCC projections are being proven wrong after just a few years, do you mean 18 years? And are debating the integrity of the Copenhagen report? Did you bother to look at the graphs of IPCC projections versus the actual observed data in the report, which are shown in the RC post? Why is it that after thousands of posts and comments on WUWT, that these critical forecasts versus observed data, seems so surprising?
Secondly, you say it doesn’t matter if they were too low or too high, but I think there is a world of difference… the fact is that some of the most important IPCC projections, which have been used by some people to call climate scientists “alarmists”, are proving to have been conservatively low. The actual data in sea level rise and Arctic ice melt is outstripping the IPCC projections. This could lead credence to the climate scientists concerned about tipping points.
The data are clearly showing global warming is proceeding faster and stronger than the conservative IPCC reports.
I am an engineer, and I want to engineer solutions, not argue about semantics. I think we need to begin engineering solutions now, especially since much of the engineering work will need to be done at some point under any climate scenario, because we will eventually run our fossil fuel resources down. The longer we have to do the engineering work, and the more engineering resources we have to work with, the better the solutions we can design.
The technology I am working on now, suffered from a collapse of funding in the early years of the Bush presidency, and so we lost over six years. I want to work on this, and I want to start now. I have lost patience with people who are delaying this effort, (mostly Republican congressmen). We engineers need to get on with our work!
I, like others here, have also been denied posts at RC and similar blogs. What I find interesting about this is, although WUWT will occasionally see a troll pop in and out, and other than Flanagan, there are very few alarmists that blog or debate here. WUWT doesn’t censor like RC does. If alarmists, and especially those at RC, if they REALLY were that strongly convinced of their beliefs, why do they not debate on this blog? Although I have seen it, it seems to be rather rare and especially rare during the past several months. Could it be perhaps that they have no leg to stand on? Perhaps, deep down, they have some doubts about their beliefs? Or simply they have NO credible empirical data and FACTS to backup their assertions? Me thinks it is a combination of all of the above.
[REPLY – Perhaps, perhaps not. But I wish to emphasize that ALL points of view are welcome here. ~ Evan]
…then you can’t use them.
Yes you can, in the same way we use actuarial tables to “predict” future insurance losses. We accept that predictions in noisy systems are not always perfict. But we do continue to adjust them as we collect more information, just as the scientists are doing with climate models.
Pete
There are so many people who have been stifled over at RC(including myself, under a net name). I wonder if the idea of creating a section on this site( like the “tips and notes section”) for dissenting voices that are shouted down, censored or banned at RC. A place for rebuttal without fear of deletion on AWG BS(bad science).
Not a place for personal attacks and personal grudges, just real science for the public community. Some of us(me :P)take days to work on links and putting our duck in order before posting.
It’s really frustrating to be bottled up for no reason and very divisive of RC to control contrary opinion in their comments. You might as well not even have a comment section.
Bill Illis (18:07:01) : Datum is datum, data are data, and a fact is a fact but facts are facts.
Pedant out…
PaulK (18:23:10) :
Where exactly is that “tipping point”? Other than in the fevered imaginings of climate alarmists? Show me that mysterious tipping point, please, I’ve never seen one. [Of course, I’ve never seen Bigfoot, either.]
And pointing to only the Arctic is pure cherry-picking. What about the Antarctic?
Finally, what sea level rise? The world’s most knowledgeable sea level expert, Dr. Morner, does not agree.
Three comments, three errors. For an engineer, it looks like your train has derailed.
You people are gluttons for abuse.
It is quite clear that these individuals at RC are just plain dishonest.
That said, their modus operandi becomes quite clear. They are just an unprincipled lot who must win at all costs. They, like their movement are totally political. Science never enters the picture.
Steve in SC,
AGW is a social movement that uses a veneer of science to accomplish its goals.
AGW is to climate science what eugenics was to Evolution.
Paul K, The Copenhagen document is scientific or accurate only by accident.
You are working from a flawed premise.
That is a bad place for an engineer to work from.
Squidly (18:28:13): “…other than Flanagan, there are very few alarmists that blog or debate here.”
Then the very next comment by Pete w…
There’s also Joel (Shore?), Bill and others.
They are debated here, but not insulted with “English must be your 2nd language” and such.
Paul K,
Try googling ‘faster than expected’ and check the timeline on the millions of hits.
AGW promoters have been pitching ‘it is much worse than expected’ closer for decades. They have obviously been wrong. Why should that change now?
Here is a great spokeswoman for AGW I just ran across:
http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos&wr_id=897&sca=sos_3&url=
Yeah, the simpler days of the late 50’s and early 60’s…. Ed Roth’s automotive monstrosities, Rube Goldberg’s ingeniously intricate inventions to automate simple tasks, and Jimmy Hatlo’s fiendishly clever eternal “rewards” for everday miscreants. I wonder if there is a chamber in Hatlo’s Inferno for AGW trolls? Something like being frozen into a glacier that is calving off icebergs into a steaming ocean and being forced to meet a quota of calls, letters and blogs decrying global warming…..
“Paul K (18:23:10) :
The data are clearly showing global warming is proceeding faster and stronger than the conservative IPCC reports.”
Really? Is that according to the IPCC and Al Gore? If so, then you are sadly very wrong.
hunter (19:11:06) :
Here is a great spokeswoman for AGW I just ran across:
http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos&wr_id=897&sca=sos_3&url=
LMAO!
PaulK “The technology I am working on now, suffered from a collapse of funding in the early years of the Bush presidency, and so we lost over six years. I want to work on this, and I want to start now. I have lost patience with people who are delaying this effort, (mostly Republican congressmen). We engineers need to get on with our work!”
Hey if its so dire get off your butt and get private funding. Must you always rely on government for everything? I guees that makes it easier to lay blame.. Look in the mirror for who to blame and the one you should have lost patience with.
timetochooseagain…
The word `data’, in English, is a singular mass noun. It is thus a deliberate archaism and a grammatical and stylistic error to use it as a plural.
The Latin word data is the neuter plural past participle of the first conjugation verb dare, `to give’.
The Latin word ‘data’ appears to have made its way into English in the mid 17th century making its first appearance in the 1646 sentence `From all this heap of data it would not follow that it was necessary.’
Note that this very first appearance of the word in English refers to a quantity of data, a `heap’, rather than a number.
The English word `data’ is therefore a noun referring variously to measurements, observations, images, and the other raw materials of scientific enquiry.
`Data’ now refers to a mass of raw information, which is measure rather than counted, and this is as true now as it was when the word made its 1646 debut.
‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
The universal perception of data as measured rather than counted puts the word firmly and unambiguously in the same grammatical category as `coal’, `wheat’ and `ore’, which is that of the mass, or aggregate, noun.
As such, it is always and unavoidably grammatically singular. No one would ask `how many wheat do you have?’ or say that `the ore are in the train’ if one wished to be thought a competent speaker of English; in the same way, and to the same extent, we may not ask `how many data do you have?’ or say `the data are in the file’ without committing a grammatical error.
As a footnote; isn’t it lucky English is now genderless, making `data’ neuter, else we’d have to memorise masculine dati (dati dati datos datorum datis datis) and feminine datae, too?
It’s much simpler just to speak and write English.
Note deprecated tags 🙂
Guys, we cannot ignore the AGW alarmists. They are slowly strangling themselves with their silly reactions to their failing predictions, and to those who challenge their beliefs. However, well before that happens, the politicians who are listening to them will have legislated us all into a taxation nightmare. It would be nice to ignore them, but unless real scientists, (I am not one), who can prove the AGW hypothesis wrong, stand up & make as much noise as possible, we will all be sold down the gurgler. It is the politicians who must be made aware that they have been misled by well intentioned people who jumped the gun. The politicians are the key to it.
How’s this response from Gavin! Sounds like Clinton’s trying to describe the meaning of what “is” is. Come on, these guys are making such silly rebuttals that its embarassing. The blog states:
The phrase ‘rising sea levels progressing faster’ is clearly a statement that sea level rise is accelerating.
[Response: Possibly English is not your first language, but ‘faster’ is a relative term. To understand the sentence you need to know what something was ‘faster’ than. The sentence was actually clear – ‘faster than projections from a few years’ ago. Arguing that it magically meant something else is completely pointless. Misrepresentating a statement and then giving examples of how that misrepresented statement is wrong might be fun, but it isn’t constructive contribution and simply adds noise. – gavin]
Sorry, but I find RC nothing but a bunch of “noise”. It’s a shame that the AGW folks won’t admit that these kinds of statements that Peilke Sr. is rebutting are false exclamation marks.
Paul K (18:23:10) :
Paul, if you are carefully reading the recent posts on this site, or other posts at the Blackboard or Climate Audit with an open mind, then you certainly have to question the “faster than expected” conclusions in the Copenhagen document. Of course, if “as expected” is defined post facto, rather arbitraty conclusions can be reached. If the more recent IPCC AR4 expectations aren’t met, just change your expectations to the AR3 era for a more favorable comparison. If you can’t see the implicit spin, I think you are being a trifle naive.
As a now-retired engineer and project manager myself, I understand your desire to be involved in an important energy project. But this country had a world leading position in an energy field that could have totally changed the current energy landscape. As I’ve been insisting to all my friends and relatives for over thirty years, If nuclear energy hadn’t been stifled on political, non-scientific grounds, we’d probably now be producing a substantial proportion of our electricity from nuclear, have a reasonably economic source for producing hydrogen for fuel, and who knows, possibly be much closer to using fusion energy. Political influences stifled that opportunity, and I doubt that we can even considered among the leading nations in the nuclear energy field (and it wasn’t Bush that did it; all recent administrations, and a technically naive citizenry can share the blame).
I hope the energy field you are pursuing isn’t wind, which was found not to be competitive when the clipper ships were scuttled, or solar, which doesn’t work when it’s dark. Both have non-baseload applications, but are naive as economic energy solutions. But don’t count on the government to pick the correct solution. Just hope that the government doesn’t prevent the correct solution from arising and being adopted.
PaulK,
for an engineer your post was remarkably data free.