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 the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected…”
(Brendan H.)
You didn’t answer my question. Where in the Copenhagen Synthesis report do you find evidence that recent observations show sea level is rising faster than expected. It’s been rising faster than expected since 1990 according to the graph in the report. So what? Where is the recent evidence (since 2007)?
Brendan H (15:27:06) :
Brian Klappstein (quoting Copenhagen Synthesis Report): “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”
…So the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected.
The current transgression phase is quite small and it is progressing so slowly that it is hard to take it into consideration for a serious assessment on climate change from a paleobiological viewpoint. This transgression phase can shift at any moment and become into a regression phase. The increase of the concentration of “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere is due to many factors, including deserts’ sand degasification.
Brain Klappstein: “[Sea level has] been rising faster than expected since 1990 according to the graph in the report. So what? Where is the recent evidence (since 2007)?”
The caption to the graph begins: “Change in sea level from 1970 to 2008…”
Anthony
I suspect the rush might be part of something larger – though hasn’t this bill got to pass your Senate before it becomes law?
“…So the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected…”
(Brendan H)
So now the mystery has been bottomed out. Apparantly they aren’t talking about subsequent observations since AR4, but observations since 1990. This is really a pointless and missleading statement. Why pick 1990? Was that a time when estimates were extremely low? Why not pick 1970? It can all be summarised thus: In 1990 our estimates were low, by 2007 they were higher, but now latest data places it somewhere in between. Conclusion: our estimates go up and down faster than Bill Clintons pants.
Louis Hissink,
“…hasn’t this bill got to pass your Senate before it becomes law?” I always enjoy your comments, so I’ll try to answer your question:
Yes, the U.S. upper house – the Senate – must also pass or defeat the Cap & Trade bill. That is the next battle ground.
If the Senate passes anything, anything at all, it will be resolved with the House of Representatives [lower house] version by a Senate-House committee, which will offer a compromise resolution to be voted on by both houses.
If the Senate passes any version of the bill, that is very bad news, because votes will be bought outright [witness the Ohio Representative’s $3+ billion payoff for her vote; there are 435 Representatives, but only 100 Senators. So the payoff for the necessary Senate votes could easily be higher].
The only satisfactory outcome is for the Senate to reject the bill. But that doesn’t necessarily require 51 out of 100 Senators to vote against the bill. If the anti-AGW forces can get just 41 votes, the bill can be killed by a filibuster, where it is incessantly talked to death without a vote.
Since the Senate has just got a new senator [the former clown Al Franken, who was ‘elected’ by the state’s refusal to count thousands of votes, including many from overseas military], the Democrats now have 60 votes, which theoretically provides them with a filibuster-proof majority.
But there’s more to it than the numbers indicate. Many Democrat senators understand that the Cap & Trade bill will seriously harm their state economically, so even Democrat votes are not assured.
The other side of the coin is the sad fact that a handful of Republican senators can be bought; they are for sale. And this Administration is on record as openly buying votes. It should be illegal, it is highly unethical, but if Obama and Reid are willing to take $3 billion in taxpayer’s money and buy a single House vote with it, you can be sure they will do the same thing in the Senate. Getting thirty pieces of silver will give some senators temporary bragging rights. But the long term destruction of the wealth of their state’s citizens’ will be much more expensive than any kind of personal payoff for their C&T vote.
No matter what happens, the dynamics will be interesting. Whose interests will be represented by each state’s Senators — their state’s citizens? Or the Obama administration back in Washington, DC?
Money has corrupted politics more than usual in the C&T bill. There is blatant vote buying going on, at the expense of most of the U.S. states, which stand to lose a lot if C&T passes.
In the final analysis, most Senators will probably vote against C&T — if their citizens make enough noise by writing, emailing and calling their offices. The Senate tends to be more conservative than the House. But it will probably be a close vote. And if the citizens don’t rise up and make sufficient noise, then the current Democrat thugocracy will prevail.
So to summarize: if any kind of C&T bill passes the Senate, then some kind of C&T legislation will result. And it won’t be any less drastic than the current House version. These folks know how to play the system, and they will get pretty much everything they want. Our country will dodge a bullet only by defeating the proposed bill in the Senate. So it’s not too early for Americans to start contacting their state’s two senators: click. Tell them: “If you vote for Cap & Trade, I will not vote for you again.” To a politician, nothing is scarier than not getting re-elected.
Vincent: “Apparantly they aren’t talking about subsequent observations since AR4, but observations since 1990.”
Probably both. The most recent observations show a continuation of the upward trend, so in that sense are significant.
“It can all be summarised thus: In 1990 our estimates were low, by 2007 they were higher…”
I don’t think so. The projections are being compared with observations, not other projections.
Brendan H (00:34:21) :
“I don’t think so. The projections are being compared with observations, not other projections.”
===
Please note any measurements (since – say – 2005) that indicate ANY measure of this supposed global warming is actually “worse.”
What measure – use a real nuimber or value or datum point please – that indicates global warming is
(1) “worse” in any way, shape or form than any previous propaganda
(2) actually has a negative outcome,
(3) is actually present or has an increasing trend towrds warmth.
Robert A Cooke: “Please note any measurements (since – say – 2005) that indicate ANY measure of this supposed global warming is actually “worse.”
The wording of the Synthesis Report is: “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”
In the case of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, the report says:
“Observations of the area of the Greenland ice sheet that has been at the melting point temperature at least one day during the summer period shows a 50% increase during the period 1979 to 2008…The Greenland region experienced an extremely warm summer in 2007. The whole area of south Greenland reached the melting temperatures during that summer, and the melt season began 10-20 days earlier and lasted up to 60 days longer in south Greenland.”
And:
“The second figure shows that the Greenland ice sheet has been losing mass at a rate of 179 Gt/ yr since 2003.”
The figure in question shows a continuing – and in the case of 2007, a sharp – decrease in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet.