The authors of Real Climate, unfortunately, are permitting this erroneous information (and personal insults) to be posted without their comments and correction. Apparently, the balance provided by Gavin Schmidt that I reported on in my weblog Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science Issues  was just a fluke.

In this weblog, I will correct two of the major errors made in number of the comments on the Real Climate website.

One of the commentators on Real Climate list three papers that purportedly refute the finding of no recent upper ocean warming and that the sea level rise has flattened since 2006 . These papers are

Levitus S. et al. (2009) Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608

Cazenave A. et al. (2009) Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo Glob. Planet. Change 65, 83-88

Leuliette E.W. and Miller L. (2009) Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE Geophys Res. Lett. 36, art # L0406

I have already weblogged on two of these papers:

Sea Level Budget over 2003–2008: A Reevaluation from GRACE Space Gravimetry, Satellite Altimetry and Argo by Cazenave et al. 2008

This paper includes the text

“From the results presented in this study, we see that confronting independent estimates of ocean and land contributions to sea level with altimetry results leads to a rather coherent picture for recent years variations. This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/-0.4 mm/yr) somewhat reduced compared to the 1993-2003 decade (3.1+/-0.4 mm/yr). “

“The steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003-2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).”

This paper supports both conclusions in my recent weblogs (see and see) that the sea level rise has flattened and that the upper ocean heat content changes have been essentially flat since 2004.

On the Levitus et al paper, I weblogged on this in

Comments On A New Paper “Global Ocean Heat Content 1955–2008 In Light Of Recently Revealed Instrumentation Problems” By Levitus Et Al. 2009

Even a causal view of the Levitus et al figure, which is reproduced in my weblog, shows that upper ocean heat content has been flat in their data for the last 4 years. The large rise just before than is suspicious (as I am told by colleagues working of this subject), and, moreover, is not consistent with the sea surface temperature trends for this time period (see the GISS data on the ocean surface temperature trends at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif).  Thus even the group that Gavin Schmidt works for (GISS)  presents data with no sharp spike that is at all consistent with the Levitus et al analysis and, moreover, the GISS analysis shows that the global average sea surface temperature has been essentially flat since 2002! 

 All of these analyses are consistent with no significant heating in the upper ocean and a flattening of sea level rise, and even more clearly, that these climate metrics are not “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”.

Real Climate has it backwards; these climate metrics are changing less than was expected a few years ago!

The Leuliette et al paper states

“An analysis of the steric and ocean mass components of sea level shows that the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 can be closed…….we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/a over the period.”

This finding is not flat, but it is not still does not support the claim by Real Climate that this climate metric “is progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”. In fact, this rate of sea level rise is even less than reported in Cazenave et al 2009!

Here is what I propose to Real Climate in an attempt to move to a constructive dialog. I request that they answer these questions:

1. Using the upper ocean heat data from 2004 to the present, what is the Real Climate best estimate of the accumulation of heat in Joules? 

2. Using that value of heat accumulation, what is the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance over the time period? How does this compare with Jim Hansen’s value of an imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 for the end of the 1990s?

These are well defined scientific questions. If Real Climate provides clear answers to them, we have moved forward to a more constructive scientific debate. I will keep you posted.

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.”

Watts, A. 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? 28 pages, March 2009 The Heartland Institute [hard copies available from The Heartland Institute 19 South LaSalle Street #903 Chicago Illinois 60603]

which I weblogged on at  “Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” By Anthony Watts.

The NCDC “Talking Points” released on June 9, 2009  are available at

Talking Points related to: Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?

Unfortunately, the author of the NCDC Talking Points cavalierly and poorly responded to Anthony Watts report. They did not even have the courtesy to cite the report! {UPDATE 7/3/09: They have now cited Anthony’s report, but retained the original date of the Talking Points of June 9 2009).

Below, I comment on their response.

NCDC Talking Point #1

Q. Do many U.S. stations have poor siting by being placed inappropriately close to trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?

A. Yes. The National Weather Service has station siting criteria, but they were not always followed. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network, with excellent siting and redundant sensors. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/uscrn/. Additionally, an effort is underway to modernize the Historical Climatology Network, though funds are currently available only to modernize and maintain stations in the Southwest. Managers of both of these networks work diligently to put their stations in locations not only with excellent current siting, but also where the site characteristics are unlikely to change very much over the coming decades.

Climate Science Response

Their answer confirms what Anthony Watts and colleagues have carefully documented.  An obvious question is why did not NCDC elevate this as a priority sooner? Moreover, if the current sites can be “adjusted” to be regionally representative, why does NOAA even need the new Climate Reference Network? The answer to that is that they have recognized for years that there is a problem with the siting of the surface stations, but deliberately attempted to bury this issue until Anthony Watts and colleagues confronted NCDC with the issue.

 NCDC Talking Point #2

Q. How has the poor siting biased local temperatures trends?

A. At the present time (June 2009), to the best of our knowledge, there has only been one published peer-reviewed study that specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station siting: Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080. Written by a NOAA National Climatic Data Center scientist, it examined only a small subset of stations – all that had their siting checked at that time – and found no bias in long-term trends. The linear trend in adjusted temperature series over the period examined was nearly identical between the stations with good siting and the stations with poor siting, with the stations having poor siting showing slightly less warming. The following questions address implications from that paper.

Climate Science Response

This is blatantly untrue and the author of these talking points know that. Tom Peterson, for example, was even a reviewer of the Pielke 2007a and 2007b papers, and was aware of the Pielke et al 2002 paper.

Pielke Sr., R.A., T. Stohlgren, L. Schell, W. Parton, N. Doesken, K. Redmond, J. Moeny, T. McKee, and T.G.F. Kittel, 2002: Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: An example from eastern Colorado, USA. Int. J. Climatol., 22, 421-434.

Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S.  Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007a: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928.

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007b: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

In the second paper, we wrote

“Peterson’s approach and conclusions, therefore, provide a false sense of confidence with these data for temperature change studies by seeming to indicate that the errors can be corrected.”

The decision of the NCDC Talking Points to ignore these papers illustrates the state that NCDC is in with respect to Climate Science. NCDC, as led by Tom Karl, is not interested in an inclusive assessment of climate science issues (in this case the multi-decadal surface temperature trends), but are only interested in promoting their particular agenda and in protecting their particular data set.

NCDC Talking Point #3

Q. Does a station with poor siting read warmer than a station with good siting?

Not necessarily. A station too close to a parking lot would be expected to read warmer than a station situated over grass far from any human influence other natural obstructions. But a station too close to a large tree to the west, so that the station was shaded in the afternoon, would be expected to make the afternoon maximum temperature read a bit cooler than a station in full sunlight. Many local factors influence the observed temperature: whether a station is in a valley with cold air drainage, whether the station is a liquid-in-glass thermometer in a standard wooden shelter or an electronic thermometer in the new smaller and more open plastic shelters, whether the station reads and resets its maximum and minimum thermometers in the coolest time of the day in early morning or in the warmest time of the day in the afternoon, etc. But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature – whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station over grass – but how that temperature changes over time.

Climate Science Response

The answer correctly reports on the variety of issues that affect surface temperatures. However, where we disagree is that the multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies also depend on the details of the observing sites and how these details change over time.

This can be illustrated from our 2007 BAMS paper, where the set of relatively closely spaced stations shown in Figure 10 (reproduced belw) have significantly different long term trends, as summarized in Table 5 (reproduced below) from that paper. Despite being relatively close together, the variations in both the local enviroment and the station exposure result in distinctly different trends [Using the categories in the Watts, 2009 report, the stations had the following Trinidad (3); Cheyenne Wells (1); Las Animas (5); Eads (4) and Lamar (4)]. 

Even sites that are locally in a category 1 class, such as Cheyenne Wells, however, also have issues with the landscape in their local surroundings, as we documented for locations in northeastern Colorado in Figures 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of

Hanamean, J.R. Jr., R.A. Pielke Sr., C.L. Castro, D.S. Ojima, B.C. Reed, and Z. Gao, 2003: Vegetation impacts on maximum and minimum temperatures in northeast Colorado. Meteorological Applications, 10, 203-215.

Depending on wind direction, the air that reaches the observing site can have a different temperature. Changes in the wind directions over time can result in temperature trends that are due to this effect alone.

This local landscape variation as a function of azimith can be seen in the photographs for the Cheyenne Wells site in

Davey, C.A., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2005: Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations - implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol. 86, No. 4, 497–504,

where depending on the wind direction and time of year, the air that the temperature sensor monitors may transit a dirt road, crops, or other land surface varations, each with a different surface heat budget., before reaching the temperature observing site.

The NCDC Talking Points ignore informing us why all of these local landscape effects on multi-decadal surface temperature trends would be random and average out.

NCDC Talking Point #4

Q. So a station moving from a location with good siting to a location with poor siting could cause a bias in the temperature record. Can that bias be adjusted out of the record?

A. A great dealof work has gone into efforts to account for a wide variety of biases in the climate record, both in NOAA and at sister agencies around the world. Since the 1980s, scientists at NOAA’s NationalClimatic Data Center are at the forefront of this effort developing techniques to detect and quantify biases in station time series. When a bias associated with any change is detected, it is removed so that the time series is homogeneous with respect to its current instrumentation and siting. The latest peer-reviewed paper which provides an overview the sources of bias and their removal (Menne et al., 2009 in press), including urbanization and nonstandard siting. At the time that paper was written, station site evaluations were too incomplete to conduct a thorough investigation (that analysis is forthcoming). However, they could evaluate urban bias and found that once the data were fully adjusted the 30% most urban stations had about the same trend as the remaining more rural stations.

Climate Science Response

The failure of NCDC to correct for all of the recognized biases has been documented in

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229;

a paper NCDC has chosen to ignore [another surface temperature analysis group has been open to scientific debate, however; see]. 

NCDC has also ignored

Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652,

where we document a bias in the use of a single level surface temperature (the minimum temperature, in particular) to monitor multi-decadal surface temperature trends.  

The NCDC talking points also mention the Menne et al (2009) paper, which, unfortunately, perpetuates the NCDC failure to adequately consider all of the biases and uncertainties in the surface temperature record. The Menne et al paper was weblogged in

Comments On The New Paper “The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2 By Menne Et Al 2009

Finally, we have several other papers in the review process, and look forward to communicating them to you when accepted for publication.

NCDC Talking Point #5

Q. What can we say about poor siting’s impact on national temperature trends?

A. We are limited in what we can say due to limited information about station siting. Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown.

However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis.

Two national time series were made using the same gridding and area averaging technique. One analysis was for the full data set. The other used only the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yetthe two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication for this analysis that poor current siting is imparting a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.

Climate Science Response

This is a cavalier response.  In order to show that there is little effect on surface temperature anomalies due to station siting, they need to assess the anomalies over time in the same region for each category of station siting. A national average which includes includes large regional variations (e.g. see Figure 20a in Pielke et al 2007a ) tells us little about the quality of the data.

Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?

A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier
in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.

Menne, Matthew J., Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press.

Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080. It is available from http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/87/8/pdf/i1520-0477-87-8-1073.pdf.

Climate Science Response

Their claim that temperatures have been “rising rapidly” over the past 50 years is based on the surface temperature record in which there are reported warm biases; e.g. see

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

NCDC also is misinformed with respect to the other climate metrics. For example, they write

“Plants are blooming earlier in the spring.”  

However, a new paper in press (see)

White, M.A., K.M. de Beurs, K. Didan, D.W. Inouye, A.D. Richardson, O.P. Jensen, J. O’Keefe, G. Zhang, R.R. Nemani, W.J.D. van Leeuwen, J.F. Brown, A. de Wit, M. Schaepman, X. Lin, M. Dettinger, A. Bailey, J. Kimball, M.D. Schwartz, D.D. Baldocchi, J.T. Lee, W.K. Lauenroth. Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982 to 2006. Global Change Biology (in press),

writes

“Trend estimates from the SOS [Start of Spring] methods as well as measured and modeled plant phenologystrongly suggest either no or very geographically limited trends towards earlier spring arrival, although we caution that, for an event such as SOS with high interannual variability, a 25-year SOS record is short for detecting robust trends.”

IN CONCLUSION

NCDC would be a much more valuable resource in the climate community if they worked to be inclusive in presenting all peer reviewed perspectives in climate science. Currently, they are only reporting on information that supports their agenda and not communicating real world observational data that conflicts with that agenda. The fault for this failure in leadership is with Tom Karl who is Director of NCDC.

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.

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“

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 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.

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.

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.

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.”