Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News

I was pleased to see an interview of Gavin Schmidt in Popular Mechanics on July 3 2009 with the headline “5 Climate Studies That Don’t Live Up to the Hype”[and thanks to Joe D'Aleo for alerting us to it!].

This news article is refreshing, after the Real Climate’s recent overstatement on climate (see and see), as it provides a balanced presentation of the subject by Dr. Schmidt.  Hopefully, this will translate to more balance, and less personal criticisms on Real Climate than we have seen repeatedly in the past and as recent as this week [e.g. More bubkes].

The article is introduced with the text

“A leading climate scientist argues that overbroad claims by some researchers—coupled with overblown reporting in the media—can undermine the public’s understanding of climate issues. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate modeler, author and PM editorial advisor, concurs with the consensus view that the planet’s temperature is rising due largely to human activity. But, he says, many news stories prematurely attribute local or regional phenomena to climate change. This can lead to the dissemination of vague, out-of-context or flat-wrong information to the public.”

UPDATE July 4 2009: Hans Henrik Hansen has provided us with the link to the Copenhagen Report which was referred to in the original Real Climate webog; he also noted that the ocean heat content data in Figure 4 of the Report was only up to 2003, which, of course, is before the cessation of the warming since then; which, of course, is another clear example of cherrypicking!.

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“

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.

There was an article on the Guardian on May 26 2009 titled

“White roofs and ‘cool’ cars - Obama’s US energy secretary gives Prince Charles tips on tackling climate change.”

This article has already been effectively commented on elsewhere (see Examiner.com and Roy Spencer’s weblog), and I want to add to the discussion of this news article here.

The article by John Vidal reads in part

“Reflecting sunlight on buildings and cars among dozens of ideas considered by Steven Chu and the US energy department”

People should paint their roofs white and drive ‘cool’ cars on pale-coloured roads to avoid devastating climate change, US energy secretary and Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu has advised Prince Charles and a group of 19 other laureates meeting in London today.

The measures, which would reflect sunlight and enable buildings and automobiles to stay cooler and use less energy in summer, are some of dozens that Chu and the US energy department are considering for the “revolution” which he said was needed in the US, Europe and around the world to address global warming.

‘Yes, make people paint their roofs white. I think white is pretty. If all vehicles used cool colours then they could cut down the air conditioning and we would have a great reduction in energy,’ he said at the start of a three-day climate change symposium hosted by Prince Charles and attended by peace, literature, chemistry and physics laureates as well as 40 other senior scientists…..”

First, I am pleased that Dr. Chu accepts that land cover/land use, at least on very small spatial scales, can affect climate. Land use/land cover change is an issue that readers of our weblog know I have emphasized frequently (e.g. see).

However, Dr. Chu does not consider unintended consequences with respect his suggestions. “Pale-coloured roads”, for example, might be a good idea in hot climates, but in mid-latitude regions of the world with cold and snow during the winter, when the sun shines after a storm, the absorption of sunlight by asphalt is an effective way to clear the roads.  We need, therefore, to consider each of these proposals in terms of all of their possible effects (intended and unintended).

Nevertheless, I am an advocate of passive solar heating which is an idea that Dr. Chu seems to similarly embrace. This is the type of “win-win” environmental policy that I have weblogged on before (e.g see A Win-Win Solution to Environmental Problems). 

I next urge Dr. Chu to embrace the issue that, since white roofs and pale-coloured roads can reduce energy consumption and thus a reduction in resultant CO2 emissions, that land uses of all types (irrigation, deforestation, afforestation, dryland agriculture, etc) be elevated in the policy planning with respect to mitigation and adaptation to natural and human caused climate variability and change.

 A example of the need for integrated environmental policy planning is discussed in my paper (with respect to carbon sequestration)

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2001: Carbon sequestration — The need for an integrated climate system approach. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 82, 2021.

In that paper I wrote

“There has, unfortunately, been no attempt to evaluate the benefit of carbon sequestration as a means of reducing the concentrations of the radiatively active gas CO2 in the atmosphere, while at the same time, assessing the influence of this sequestration on the radiatively active gas H2O, and on the surface heat energy budget. Until these effects are factored in as part of an integrated climate assessment, a policy based on carbon sequestration as a means to reduce the radiative warming effect of increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 could actually enhance this warming.”

This concept of considering all aspects of an environmental action should be part of Dr. Chu’s policy planning.

The Global warming debates: Part 2 of Examiner.com’s exclusive interview with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. was published today by Tom Fuller. Part 1 was published on June 2 2009.  I appreciate the opportunity provided by Mr. Fuller to present the public and others with the diversity of viewpoints on climate science, and look forward to future interviews by others in this field.  This is news reporting of the highest quality and what we need more of.

Thomas Fuller  has posted a response from me on his website which started on Climate Science on May 25 2009 (see). The post is Examiner.com’s exclusive global warming debates: Roger Pielke Sr., part 1.

In Mr. Fuller’s post, he writes

“Part 2 has yet to be conducted with Dr. Pielke—so here’s a challenge to those who made it this far. Do you have questions you would like posed to Dr. Pielke? Leave them in the comments and I’ll cherry pick the ones I like and include them for Round 2 of our interview.”

I thank Tom for doing this and encourage Climate Science readers to submit comments to him.

Yesterday, I posted a weblog with respect to an interview of Steve Schneider of Stanford University by Tom Fuller of Examiner.com (see). Mr Fuller replied last evening and his reply is posted below.

Update: Roger Pielke Sr., principal contributor to Climate Science, has commented both here and on his website regarding my classification of his weblog as a ’skeptic’ weblog. I plead guilty to over-facile classification. Although Climate Science does regularly challenge the accepted wisdom of climate change activists, he is first and foremost a scientist who publishes regularly in peer-reviewed journals. As I have noted before here, one of the major themes pursued on Climate Science is that humans do influence the climate through deforestation, land-use policy and interruptions of the hydrologic cycle, and Pielke Sr. thinks that this may actually outweigh the effects of human emissions of CO2.

Mr. Pielke feels that being characterised as a skeptic is pejorative–and it is certainly used that way in many discussions. I guess I’ve developed a tough skin after being called much worse–to me it’s the use of the term denier that sets me off. But it’s essentially lazy writing, and I apologise. I actually have the highest respect for what I’ve seen of his work on his website and elsewhere.

I’ll be pursuing this further–sadly, Mr. Pielke didn’t provide an email address and the comments section of his blog are usually turned off. I will try and contact him but in the meantime, I apologise for any confusion.

Mr. Fuller also added in an e-mail to me (presented here with his permission),

“Dear Professor Pielke,

After reading your post (for the 4th time) on Climate Science, I wanted to talk briefly about my approach to the series of interviews I am conducting.

As a commentator (not a reporter), I am trying very hard to keep my opinion out of the discussions I have with my respondents. I do have strong views on the issue, but am trying to get a view of what people feel is the state of play at this point in time. If you do have the chance to look at some of my opinion pieces, you’ll see that I do try and balance the differing sides. For example, http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d15-Global-warming-in-perspective-todays-Google-news-results

My hope is that when the series is complete, people will be able to go through the list and find their own balance by comparing the differing views. I will also be providing my perspective later.

You may also publish this email if you think it adds anything to the discussion.

Sincerely,

Tom Fuller”

I appreciate the clarification by Mr. Fuller of his plan to present a forum for the diverse perspective of views on climate science. This is long overdue from the media, and his contribution on this subject could be quite valuable and influential.

I have not heard back yet from Steve Schneider but will post his response if he sends and permits its posting.

There is part one of an interview with Professor Stephen Schneider regarding global warming and climate change issues published on Examiner.com on May 24 2009. It is titled “The global warming debates: Stephen Schneider” and is written by Thomas Fuller who is the San Francisco Policy Environmental Policy Examiner reporter. This interview is an excellent example of the failure to present a balanced presentation of the climate science issues.

The reporter asked the following question

“More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm.”

First, the reporter erroneously presented my perspective as a “skeptic” website. 

Steve Schneider, unfortunately, chose not only to fail to correct this error, but demeaned the scientific value of these websites.

His reply is

“They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them–a petroleum geologist’s opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are “winning” why don’t they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings–not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute–but with those with real knowledge–because they’d be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol’ me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.”

On the first issue, the characterization of my website as a “skeptic website” is completely inaccurate. In 2006, Andy Revkin of the New York Times also erroneously described me as a “climate skeptic”, and after confronting him on this mistake (see), the New York Time published a correction (see). My views on climate science, hardly those of a climate skeptic (which I consider a perjorative characterization of my perspective), are summarized, for example, 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

and in my House subcommittee testimony in 2008; see

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.

More importantly, I am disappointed that Steve Schneider personally attacked the websites that are listed. I have quite a bit of respect for Dr. Schneider’s past work [e.g. his book Genesis Strategy is an excellent example of why we need a resource-based, bottom-up assessment of vulnerability, as has been discussed in our peer reviewed papers (e.g. see) and books (e.g. see)]. 

However, his casual denigration of each of the websites, Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science  (each of whose contributions to the discussion of climate science are informative and very valuable) represents a failure to engage in constructive scientific debate.

This cavalier dismissal of these websites illustrates that instead of evaluating the soundness of their scientific evidence, the authors of these websites, who provide a much needed broader viewpoint on climate science, are insulted. This is not the proper way to discuss scientific issues. 

I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider (or any of the other individuals who are listed). 

I also challenge them to refute in the professional literature (and in a debate) the numerous peer reviewed articles and national (e.g. see) and international climate assessments (e.g. see) that present scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrow perspective on climate science that Steve Schneider is representing.  

For those interested in my scientific credentials in climate science, please see

Pielke Research Group

and my vita

Roger A. Pielke Sr.

I am alerting Dr. Schneider and Mr. Fuller to the appearance of my weblog on this subject, and will publish their replies with their permission, if they provide them.  

This past Thursday, May 14, 2009, I gave a presentation at the Army and Navy Club in Washington DC sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute.

The talk is titled  ”Considering the Human Influence on Climate” and the powerpoint slides are available (see). I appreciate the opportunity that the Marshall Institute provided to present my perspective on the climate issue, and to urge that independent assessments of climate science are very much needed.