More on RC Misinformation from Pielke Sr.

Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Part II

Filed under: Climate Change Forcings & Feedbacks, Climate Science Misconceptions — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 8:42 am

There are comments on the Real Climate weblog More bubkes regarding why I did not comment further on Arctic sea ice trends. This is because I weblogged on it in June in my post

A Comment On A 1999 Paper “Global Warming And Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent By Vinnikov Et Al

I concluded that weblog with the text

“Until later in 2007, the sea ice areal extent continued to decrease in a manner which, at least visually, is consistent with the Vinnikov et al 1999 predictions (although the actual values of areal coverage differ substantially between the observations and the predictions, perhaps as a result of their formulation to compute areal coverage).

However, since 2006, the reduction has stopped and even reversed. Perhaps this is a short term event and the reduction of sea ice extent will resume. Nonetheless, the reason for the turn around, even if short term, needs an explanation.  Moreover, this data provides a valuable climate metric to assess whether the multi-decadal global models do have predictive skill as concluded in the Vinnikov et al 2009 paper.”

It should be recognized that the Vinnikov et al plots are not at the time of the September minumum. I agree completely that the minumum in sea ice coverage in the last few years has been at record low levels, and, currently, the sea ice is melting at a rate that is greater than average (see).

I also want to repeat what I wrote in my July 2 2009 weblog Response By Roger A. Pielke Sr. To The Real Climate Weblog “More Bubkes”

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

House Testimony of Roger A. Pielke Sr. “A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits Effective Climate Policy”

42 thoughts on “More on RC Misinformation from Pielke Sr.

  1. I am of the opinion, shared by others, that it is best to simply NOT give that URL ANY traffic – the best way to contribute to their demise !

  2. Gavin Scmidt’s comments and views are also being widely disseminated in the article, 5 Climate Studies That Don’t Live Up to the Hype Friday, July 03, 2009 at Popular Mechanics and FoxNews.

  3. Gavin spins this nicely…Sound like a skeptic but leave the core position alone.
    It is becoming (but for the trillions of dollars wasted) kinda fun to watch the alarmists deal with the fact their basic model is flawed in more ways than they can imagine. Donning the skeptic’s cloak and flying the “anti-Hype” flag is clever, if futile, as the science goes against the Team.

  4. It should be recognized that the Vinnikov et al plots are not at the time of the September minumum. I agree completely that the minumum in sea ice coverage in the last few years has been at record low levels, and, currently, the sea ice is melting at a rate that is greater than average.
    Do records extend past half my lifetime? What is the definition of forever? Was was the extent of Arctic Sea Ice during the Mideval Warm period?
    When you say record low, define the period that you are describing.

  5. I have a different take. Gavin might be building an escape hatch, if things shift the other way. 8^)
    I hereby submit an idea for the measurement of the undermining of the AGW theory. The method I propose is the use of Google Ads as proxies for the measurement of the two world views. We all have experienced that no matter which blog we visit, the “Ads by Google” always seem heavily weighted as to how we can “save the polar bears” and such. I predict and submit that trend might be shifting, ever so slightly from where it has been.
    A ray of sunlight has parted the overcast skies. I can now report that I am beginning to see some pixels of hope. Are you all taking note of the ad here for Ian Wishart’s “AIR CON” book? Think about it. “Yeah, that’s good” you might say, even, as it is at WUWT. HOWEVER, imagine this ad being displayed on the blogs on the “other side” of the argument. Yeahhh, baby. Now THAT is progress, hee. Go, Google, go! 8^)

  6. I cannot understand why the folks at RC would attack a scientist of such repute as Dr. Pielke – and within their own field of expertise. The only explanation I can come up with is that they feel threatened by the confidence this acclaimed climate expert displays in picking apart their arguments, many of which are no longer supported by recent data. Roger Pielke seems to be far more interested in uncovering the truth than supporting any particular agenda. Isn’t discovery what it is supposed to be all about? When did politics enter into scientific equations?

  7. They’re on the attack (lulo (01:15:46) : ) because he’s putting up measured, sensation-free counters to their alarming positions.
    “When did politics enter into scientific equations?”
    When politicians see ways to make money out of it and to be seen upon the world’s stage to be “Doing Something” (Gets them to go to nice places like Rio too)
    Whilst the likes of our esteemed Messers Watts, Id, McIntyre & Joe the Diatribeguy are merely “amateurs” and so their views are worthless in the eyes of the “professional” climatologists (But I’d say that a weatherman is actually a “Practical Climatologist”), the likes of the Pielkes & Roy Spencer are from their side of the fence and thus are traitors and turncoats, paid by “Big Oil/Coal/Gas/Nuclear, who’s opinions need stamping out before their misinformation diverts innocents from the path of righteousness.

  8. Why aren’t those guys *HAPPY* that there is significant evidence that human produced CO2 is not a problem? Why do they want man to be evil?

  9. Cap’n Aubrey Pielke. I haven’t called him Pielke Pere in vain.
    =====================================

  10. The Admirable Pielke Pere batters the Fortress Real Climate, stronghold of the alarmist warmistas. Return fire is weak and disorganized and only gives the wily ol’ scientist another target.
    =========================================

  11. Andy Revkin’s having a deja vu. He heard this all last year on Dot Earth from me and many others. He could look it up.
    ========================================

  12. The AGW extremists attack Dr. Pielke exactly because he is reputable and accomplished.
    One of the most pernicious but effective lies told by the Schmidt and his ilk is that skeptics are led by Rush Limbaugh. If they actually admit that Dr. Pielke and Lindzen and Christy, etc. etc. etc. are peers, they lose a useful tool to control the public debate.

  13. Interesting to note that the AMSRE Sea Ice extent Record High” was set this spring as the 2009 levels exceeded ALL previously recorded extents!
    And this only two years after the 2007 season set record low sea ice extents in September.
    Then again, I though the “classic” AGW cry of “The icecaps will melt and we’re all gonna die” theory held that low ice coverage increases heat reception which then causes more ice melts and an ever-increasing artic temperature …. Maybe Gore’s AGW theory was wrong?

  14. BTW;-)
    I said in a post a while back to our Colonial cousins, watch out what they try to sneak through the net. Today is of course 7/7, the anniversary of the London bombings & a memorial sculpture has been unveiled in London, & yet another son of Britain has fallen in Helmand Province, that’s 5 in as many days. So all the eyes are focussed elsewhere. Watch out for 9/11 guys, did they try to slip something under the radar on 4th July? Watch out for what they try & slip under the radar whilst the MSM lap up a heart rending story or two during your anniversay rememberances. Trust me, these green eco-fascists have no scruples when it comes to getting their own way. I believe you chaps have a wonderful expression for this kind of thing – being “hogtied”!

  15. Science has been tossed out the window and these pseudo scientists ignore the science and continue with their politics.
    So corrupt and a reflection of the people that voted for this.
    People that so easily fall for the AGW deception are also to foolish to realize that they are destroying the rich lifestyle they so enjoy.

  16. Sea ice extent is a silly metric to use anyway.
    I find a bit of irony in all the post about real climate. Lots of pot meet kettle going on here!
    Cheers,
    Ben

  17. Shawn and most others at WUWT:
    I find it amusing that you refer to real researchers as “pseudo scientist”, while this supposedly scientific blog contains close to nothing scientific. Self deception seems to be widespread around here:)

  18. Whenever I read the word ‘weblogged’, I imagine my grandfather trying to get on the interwebs with his typewriter.

  19. Personally I don’t believe human induced warming has had any affect on sea ice as yet and what we’re seeing is a result of short term weather pattern changes. I’m not saying some warming hasn’t happened, it’s just really small and my own guess is that it’s far smaller than HadCrut shows.
    Global sea ice is actually up and came near a 30 year record high early this year. We’ll find out in time how bad warming really is and I for one am comfortable with waiting it out rather than plunging into socialism as the cure for a healthy economy.

  20. Sea ice extent is a silly metric to use anyway.
    It’s important because the extent (as opposed to volume) directly affects albedo.
    I find a bit of irony in all the post about real climate. Lots of pot meet kettle going on here!
    Not really. If the message of your post were reversed, it would never see the light of day on RC.

  21. Pamela-what happened to Summer? in NE Oregon? got up to fall like winds and cool temps.So nice to know Global Warming is real.I guess the Warmists are not interested in empirical results until the Ice sheet is in downtown Chicago…
    Yet we still convert food to fuel..

  22. A blog post in The Guardian stroking Gavin:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/06/gavin-schmidt-climate-change
    Particularly amusing within:
    “And here’s Schimdt on the “noise” created by the climate change debate, a subject he’s touched on before on the Guardian:
    “In unmoderated forums about climate change, it just devolves immediately into, “you’re a Nazi, no you’re a fascist,” blah, blah, blah. Any semblance of an idea that you could actually talk about what aerosols do to the hydrological cycle without it devolving into name calling seems to be fantasy. It is very tiresome.””
    Funny, if it wasn’t for the word “unmoderated” one would think he was talking about his own website. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the number of ad hominems that occur on Real Climate versus the number of ad hominems that occur on Watts Up With That during any given day, week or month. Based on my rare visits to Real Climate it seems to me that Gavin condones and sometimes participates in name calling and personal attacks, which, based on the Gavin’s statement above, makes him a hypocrite. And no Gavin, this is not a personal attack, it is just a statement of fact.

  23. “I find it amusing that you refer to real researchers as “pseudo scientist”, while this supposedly scientific blog contains close to nothing scientific. Self deception seems to be widespread around here:)”
    I see you haven’t read very much on here….

  24. Roger Pielke seems to be far more interested in uncovering the truth than supporting any particular agenda.
    Yes, he questions that which supports his basic positions as carefully as that which disputes them.

  25. Pamela-what happened to Summer? in NE Oregon? got up to fall like winds and cool temps.
    But remember, it’s one of the top ten warmest Falls we’ve ever had during Summer.
    I have my “computer metric”. During summer, the AC power drain on the building I live in causes all sorts of problems booting my machine. This Summer I’ve had fewer problems in this regard than in recent years.

  26. One of the more interesting facts that seems to get lost RC is the total of polar sea ice (Arctic & Antarctic) seems relatively constant. Arctic extent goes down, Antarctic go up. When discussed at RC about why the Antarctic (with much greater volume) is close to record highs, the answer, at RC, is the continental ice sheet is getting smaller, hence the oceans are rising. So if the surrounding ocean is generating ice, (it takes a lot of “cold” to make ice), why would the continent, in the center, be losing ice?
    Must be all those scientists breathing down there.

  27. evanmjones (08:01:30) :
    ‘But remember, it’s one of the top ten warmest Falls we’ve ever had during Summer.’
    Too funny!

  28. A blog post in The Guardian stroking Gavin:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jul/06/gavin-schmidt-climate-change
    Particularly amusing within:
    “And here’s Schimdt on the “noise” created by the climate change debate, a subject he’s touched on before on the Guardian:
    “In unmoderated forums about climate change, it just devolves immediately into, “you’re a Nazi, no you’re a fascist,” blah, blah, blah. Any semblance of an idea that you could actually talk about what aerosols do to the hydrological cycle without it devolving into name calling seems to be fantasy. It is very tiresome.””

    OK. Now THAT”S what I call perfect timing!!!!!! (see the new WUWT post “Gore / Nazi”)

  29. Anthony alluded to a good point when asked recently why he even bothers responding to RC? He answered because they get a lot of press. There is another important reason for doing it. WUWT has a very substantial readership which continues to grow and those readers talk to their friends around the water cooler and it is sites like these that provide ballanced rebuttals, in many cases in laymen terms, for them to inject in to their discussions.
    Another point that has been discussed here is the decline in readership at RC. I’m speculating but I think there are RC readers of this site who are not as comfortable as they were when first reading articles at RC after seeing the counter arguments here.
    It is also worth considering that as WUWT becomes more and more successful and far reaching that RC can no longer ignore the impact it is having which may reach a critical point with the release of the surfacestation.org paper. That is going to be a very interesting time and could be a real paradigm shifter. Thanks again to all who made it possible.

  30. evanmjones (07:37:13) : When you (or climate scientists, if you aren’t one) consider the albedo of polar ice, do you mean the measured albedo of ice in the lab or do you take into account the shallow grazing angle of sunlight on polar ice? Seems like a lot more sunlight would bounce off polar ice no matter what condition the ice is in.

  31. evanmjones (07:37:13) : Also, the watts/meter3 is a lot less, so it makes less difference anyway.

  32. http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/populartechnologynet-on-realclimateorg.html
    July 7, 2009
    PopularTechnology.net on RealClimate.org
    “Essentially the site [RealClimate.org] exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post “rebuttals” to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn’t matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys “ammunition” to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley’s job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia.” “The truth about RealClimate.org”

  33. No, I am not a climate scientist.
    Seems like a lot more sunlight would bounce off polar ice no matter what condition the ice is in.
    Reduction of area would nonetheless reduce albedo. It’s part of the dreaded positive feedback equation. (And, no, I’m not worried about it.)
    My point was merely that area “matters” more than volume.

  34. evanmjones (14:42:55) :
    I do see your point.
    The polar ice is absorbing so little heat even at full extent, I doubt it is significant compared to heat absorbed elsewhere on our quickly withering planet.

  35. Sonicfrog (10:29:16) :
    “OK. Now THAT”S what I call perfect timing!!!!!! (see the new WUWT post “Gore / Nazi”)”
    I concur that the timing is quite interesting, but it’s The Times that titled their article, “Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis” and Gore who apparently invoked some reference to Nazis, such that Times led their article with it. Add to this the Warmingists use of the obviously loaded term “denier” to describe anyone who is skeptical of their flimsy global warming narrative and it raises the question, what’s going on within the Warmingist’s meme such that Nazi references have become a commonly used communication tool/persuasive device?

  36. Ron de Haan (13:05:45) :
    “The truth about RealClimate.org”
    From what little of this blog I have read, I tend to agree. But it goes deeper still I suspect. We here, engage in a similar approach. It is more like a propaganda war. Set in cyber space. Ian Plimer’s book appears to set the stage well:
    Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, skeptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance.
    It is disappointing to think that this is what humanity has to look forward to. A future populated by the most ancient and narrowed consciousness. As if to say, “Look forward, children. The Dark Ages lie ahead, still.” It makes one wonder; where is the wisdom? Where is the light?

Comments are closed.