Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News

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

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”

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.

There is an informative article in the magazine “Ski Area Management” by Allen Best titled Slightly Skeptical Look at Global Warming. It is refreshing to see a news article which is reasonalby balanced and sought a diversity of viewpoints.

Excerpts from the article are reproduced below:

“Several years ago a college in Colorado issued a report that confidently predicted the precise levels of retreat of snowlines at ski areas in the Rocky Mountains during coming years as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere. By 2081, for example, the report predicted Taos will lose 89 percent of its April 1 snowpack…..”

“But too often, the story of climate change gets oversimplified or oversold. In some cases, predictions like the one above become branded with a certainty that just does not yet exist—and may never exist.”

“In fact, global warming theory is rife with gaps. Scientists believe they have the big picture right. Temperatures will rise—that is clearly understood. But whether the increases will be 2º F or 10º F in the next 100 years, no one can say for sure. Precipitation levels remain uncertain. Above all, while scientists say they understand the global energy balance well, local energy balances are more uncertain.”

“THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE

Kevin Trenberth, a native of New Zealand, heads the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He admits to squirming a bit when hearing some blanket statements from Al Gore and others. “We know enough to know there is a substantial problem, and the planet will become a very different planet in 50 years, based on our current knowledge. But the science is far from being done in terms of specifying any detail about that, especially locally and regionally,” says Trenberth, who was lead author of the scientific assessments issued in 1995, 2001 and 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“I don’t think people have accurately reflected those uncertainties in their statements about the future,” he says, referring especially to some environmental groups. While there are compelling reasons to change our combustion of fossil fuels, he went on to say, climate change, unlike the disappearing ozone hole, is not necessarily an unmitigated disaster. “If it occurs gradually enough, some of the changes are not necessarily bad, and I don’t think that is sometimes adequately appreciated.”

There will be, Trenberth says, both winners and losers. Houston and Miami will lose because of rising sea levels. The Rocky Mountains, being high and inland, might be OK in the shorter time frame, but lose in the longer term because of increased wildland fires, longer droughts, and far shorter and warmer winters. Ski areas, in time, could become big-time losers as they’re currently operated, unless the change is slowed.

This is not to suggest that there is unanimity about global warming theory. There is not. The dissent cannot be simplistically attributed to brainless “deniers.” Particularly those scientists trained as meteorologists have reservations. There are others, as well, including Freeman Dyson, a highly regarded theoretical physicist and mathematician, whose skepticism on aspects of global warming theory was documented in a New York Times Magazine profile published in March.

One long-standing critic is Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research associate in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Pielke does not dispute that the climate is changing. He does argue the relative responsibility of various causes. For decades he has maintained that mainstream climate change theory attributes too much causality to emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas emitted by human activity. He believes that changes in land use resulting from the activities of people and what he describes as the spatial variations in pollution particles bear at least equal responsibility.

“Tropical deforestation clearly has an effect on both regional and global climate that is at least as important as the radiative effect of adding carbon dioxide,” Pielke told one interviewer in 2007, and he made similar comments to a Congressional committee in 2008. The role of land resource processes was underreported in the body of the 2007 IPCC report, he claims, and essentially ignored in the companion IPCC Statement for Policymakers. Aerosols—tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere resulting from wildfires, combustion of fossil fuels, and dust storms—also have an underappreciated role, he insists.

If Pielke is correct, reduction of carbon dioxide should be just one of a host of menu options. “The current focus on using reductions in C02 emissions as the primary currency for achieving benefits to society and the environment clearly represents a very flawed approach,” he told EcoWorld.com.

Trenberth—and the majority of climate change scientists—reject many of Pielke’s assertions as overstated or downright wrong. But Trenberth readily concedes the failure of computer global climate models to reflect the enormous heterogeneity of land surfaces. “You need only look out the window to see all the different human influences, the roads and villages and towns, that are altering the landscape,” he says. “Those are not adequately dealt with in climate models, there’s no doubt about that.”

“And, finally, there is the role of natural variability in changes now being observed. Nobody disputes that the climate, independent of human activities, changes. The question is to what extent changes now underway can be attributed to natural variability. “So far, in the 21st century, global warming has stabilized and no one really knows why,” writes Dr. William Cotton, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. “None of the ‘known’ climate forcing mechanisms can explain the discrepancy.” We know too little about natural variability of the climate to confidently make predictions, he insists.”

In response to the article, I wrote the following to Mr. Best

“”Hi Allen

 Thank you for sending me the link. It is a valuable new (more balanced) news article than has been typical on this topic!

I do disagree with several of statements, including

“Scientists believe they have the big picture right. Temperatures will rise - that is clearly understood.”;

“Trenberth - and the majority of climate change scientists - reject many of Pielke’s assertions as overstated or downright wrong.”

The 2005 NRC report and the 2004 IGBP-BAHC reports illustrate that there is more diversity of viewpoints than captured in the above statements. Kevin may feel this way ( as well as others) but a significant group of climate scientists agree with my perspective. I recommend that you follow up as to what assertions of mine are “downright wrong”.

Here are the links to the two reports

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/

Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., J.H.C. Gash, L. Bravo de Guenni, M. Meybeck, R.A. Pielke Sr., C.J. Vorosmarty, R.W.A. Hutjes, and S. Lutkemeier, Editors, 2004: Vegetation, water, humans and the climate: A new perspective on an interactive system. Springer, Berlin, Global Change - The IGBP Series, 566 pp.
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/meteorology/book/978-3-540-42400-0“

Last year, I testified before a House Subcommittee on the

Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2008: A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Effective Climate Policy. Written Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing “Climate Change: Costs of Inaction” – Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman. June 26, 2008, Washington, DC., 52 pp. [View PDF of Oral Summary].

I am pleased that my testimony was referred to in the Republican comment on the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

More importantly, the comments provide further documentation in the public record as to major issues with regulating CO2 and several other well-mixed greenhouse gases as pollutants. Of particular relevance to my expertise, the EPA Findings are not scientifically robust; e.g. see

Brief Overview Of Several Climate Science Research Findings

Comments On The EPA “Proposed Endangerment And Cause Or Contribute Findings For Greenhouse Gases Under The Clean Air Act”.

As I wrote in the last weblog listed above

“In conclusion, the EPA Endangerment findings is the culmination of a several year effort for a small group of climate scientists and others to use their positions as lead authors on the IPCC, CCSP and NRC reports to promote a political agenda.”

I look forward to reading how EPA responds to the issues that are raised in the comments by the House Members.

Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”.  They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week.

Real Climate writes  

“So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years - because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.

More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the  statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ; 

1. “rising sea levels”

NOT TRUE;  e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.

Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.

2.  “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”

NOT TRUE; see

Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.

Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.

3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”

NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.

These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving. 

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.

There is a very informative summary of a number of the issues raised on my website in a post on weblog The Resilient Earth by  Doug L. Hoffman on june 16 2009.  The post is titled

Seven Climate Models, Seven Different Answers 

The post is worth reading and their website should be bookmarked. The conclusion of their weblog states

“Earth’s climate system is amazingly complex and modeling is fraught with pitfalls and danger for even the most experienced computer scientists. No climate model predicted the current downturn in global temperatures, though many are now scrambling to predict possible decades of unchanging or cooling climate “within the general warming trend.” Still, climate science remains enthralled by its computerized playthings. I have to echo Professor Pielke’s question, how many years of wrong results are necessary before we reject the IPCC reports and the models they are based on?”

The plan to regulate CO2 by the EPA, and the intent of Congress and the President to introduce a “cap and trade” program for carbon emissions, in order to regulate climate, should require that the basis for these policy decisions be scientifcially robust.  It is essential to include all human climate forcings on climate (including land use/land change effects) in assessing the ability of their plans to actually alter climate.  They clearly have ignored doing this, and we will have a costly yet ineffective climate policy as a result.

Their is an excellent weblog by Tom Fuller on the website Examiner.com titled “Next generation questions for global warming“. 

He identifies the need for testing the science in his text

“As with all scientific hypotheses, global warming will have to stand up under scrutiny over time. As there is no recognised clearinghouse that presents objections and answers in a structured fashion, this leads to scattergun efforts where multiple objections are raised and only partially addressed in the same forum.”

The negative comments that he has received on his post just illustrate the attempt to silence the scientific method (e.g. see). Readers of my weblog are encouraged to read his excellent set of posts on the climate science issues.

This paper documents that landscape change is a regional first oder climate forcing in the United States. For more recent studies on this subject from our research group (see).

Copeland, J.H., R.A. Pielke, and T.G.F. Kittel, 1996: Potential climatic impacts of vegetation change: A regional modeling study. J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7409-7418.

The abstract reads

“The human species has been modifying the landscape long before the development of modern agrarian techniques. Much of the land area of the conterminous United States is currently used for agricultural production. In certain regions this change in vegetative cover from its natural state may have led to local climatic change. A regional climate version of the Colorado State University Regional Atmospheric Modeling System was used to assess the impact of a natural versus current vegetation distribution on the weather and climate of July 1989. The results indicate that coherent regions of substantial changes, of both positive and negative sign, in screen height temperature, humidity, wind speed, and precipitation are a possible consequence of land use change throughout the United States. The simulated changes in the screen height quantities were closely related to changes in the vegetation parameters of albedo, roughness length, leaf area index, and fractional coverage.”

This paper provides observational examples of the interaction between the atmosphere and the landscape which was discussed in yesterday’s weblog. 

Stohlgren, T.J., T.N. Chase, R.A. Pielke, T.G.F. Kittel, and J. Baron, 1998: Evidence that local land use practices influence regional climate and vegetation patterns in adjacent natural areas. Global Change Biology, 4, 495-504.

The abstract reads

“We present evidence that land use practices in the plains of Colorado influence regional climate and vegetation in adjacent natural areas in the Rocky Mountains in predictable ways. Mesoscale climate model simulations using the Colorado State University Regional Atmospheric Modelling System (RAMS) projected that modifications to natural vegetation in the plains, primarily due to agriculture and urbanization, could produce lower summer temperatures in the mountains. We corroborate the RAMS simulations with three independent sets of data: (i) climate records from 16 weather stations, which showed significant trends of decreasing July temperatures in recent decades; (ii) the distribution of seedlings of five dominant conifer species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, which suggested that cooler, wetter conditions occurred over roughly the same time period; and (iii) increased stream flow, normalized for changes in precipitation, during the summer months in four river basins, which also indicates cooler summer temperatures and lower transpiration at landscape scales. Combined, the mesoscale atmospheric/land-surface model, short-term trends in regional temperatures, forest distribution changes, and hydrology data indicate that the effects of land use practices on regional climate may overshadow larger-scale temperature changes commonly associated with observed increases in CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.”

Today’s weblog reviews how the atmosphere and landscape are coupled together, and that the climate system is an interactive nonlinear system.

Pielke, R.A., R. Avissar, M. Raupach, H. Dolman, X. Zeng, and S. Denning, 1998: Interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems: Influence on weather and climate. Global Change Biology, 4, 461-475.

The abstract reads

“This paper overviews the short-term (biophysical) and long-term out to around 100 year timescales; biogeochemical and biogeographical) influences of the land surface on weather and climate. From our review of the literature, the evidence is convincing that terrestrial ecosystem dynamics on these timescales significantly influence atmospheric processes. In studies of past and possible future climate change, terrestrial ecosystem dynamics are as important as changes in atmospheric dynamics and composition, ocean circulation, ice sheet extent, and orbit perturbations.”

Yesterday’s paper discussed how  adjacent snow and snow free areas could generate mesoscale circulations. Today’s post (and yesterday’s as well) shows that not only does this affect air quality, but temperatures near the ground (such as used to monitor long term temperature trends) are very significantly affected. Even if the atmosphere above was not warming over time, a series of winters with less snow in a region would report  higher surface air temperatures.

Segal, M., J.R. Garratt, R.A. Pielke, P. Hildebrand, F.A. Rogers, and J. Cramer, 1991: On the impact of snow cover on daytime pollution dispersion. Atmos. Environ., 25B, 177-192.

The abstract reads

“A preliminary evaluation of the impact of snow cover on daytime pollutant dispersion conditions is made by using conceptual, scaling, and observational analyses. For uniform snow cover and synoptically unperturbed sunny conditions, observations indicate a considerable suppression of the surface sensible heat flux, the turbulence, and the development of the daytime atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) when compared to snow-free conditions. However, under conditions of non-uniform snow cover, as in urban areas, or associated with vegetated areas or bare ground patches, a milder effect on pollutant dispersion conditions would be expected. Observed concentrations of atmospheric particles within the ABL, and surface pollutant concentrations in urban areas, reflect the impact of snow cover on the modification of ABL characteristics.”