In my series of interviews with eminent atmospheric scientists in the Atmospheric Sciences Section of AGU Newsletter a new one has now been published - with Roger A Pielke Sr. He voices rather critical views, and likely not everybody will like his assertions. But being a Fellow of both the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2004, a former Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Review and Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences he is undoubtedly a legitimate participant in the discussion among scientific experts.The full series of now 6 AGU-interviews can be downloaded here.
Posts
8 comments:
Roger Pielke Sr. may have rather "critical views" but he is one of the few "honest brokers" (R. Pielke Jr.) that spoke openly about the problems of politicization of climate science and also about the CRU mails.
They spoke out what thousands of scientists and laymen out there thought.
Like Hans Von Storch and Eduardo Zorita they have been nice, patient and forgiving to climate scientists as well as to laymen.
I still remember confusing a GISS station "Paris" with the station "Paris/Le Bourget". And another day I informed Mr. Pielke about a paper that he coauthored, a fact that I only noticed afterwards.
Honest brokers are the cure for politicization of climate science.
In deep respect
Yeph
I agree with Yeph. I have the deepest respect for Roger Pielke Sr as an honest and sincere scientist. I have followed his blog for a couple of years and tried to understand as much as possible about the climate system. And I understand his concern with the state of climate science in the light of politization and IPCC:s enormous influence.
I missed some questions though: "What is your opinion about the size of CO2 on global temperature? Do you agree with IPCC:s best estimate of 3 degrees centigrade in a hundred years? Would you say that all other human-caused factors that you mention will add to that number? If so, how much?" (He would probably refuse to answer some of them, stating that it is impossible to tell.)
Ingemar
Yeph and Ingemar
Thank you for your kind comments!
With respect to the questions
"What is your opinion about the size of CO2 on global temperature? Do you agree with IPCC's best estimate of 3 degrees centigrade in a hundred years?",
I have concluded the land portion of the surface temperature record, in particular, is an almost useless metric to describe global warming, much less climate change.
As I discuss in the papers
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-247.pdf
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-334.pdf
the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes is the accumulation of ocean heat content in Joules. What we need is of the IPCC modeling community to predict the expected heating in Joules over the coming years. With the now excellent observational system of this heating (from Argo and satellite altimetry measurements, this metric should replace that of the surface temperature trends.
We have several papers in process, that I will report on when ready, that raise in more issues with the multi-decadal land surface temperature data.
[Comnent updated with several typos corrected]
Yeph and Ingemar
Thank you for your kind comments!
With respect to the questions
"What is your opinion about the size of CO2 on global temperature? Do you agree with IPCC's best estimate of 3 degrees centigrade in a hundred years?",
I have concluded the land portion of the surface temperature record, in particular, is an almost useless metric to describe global warming, much less climate change.
As I discuss in the papers
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-247.pdf
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-334.pdf
the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes is the accumulation of ocean heat content in Joules. What we need is of the IPCC modeling community to predict the expected heating in Joules over the coming years. With the now excellent observational system of this heating (from Argo and satellite altimetry measurements, this metric should replace that of the surface temperature trends.
We have several papers in process, that I will report on when ready, that raise in more issues with the multi-decadal land surface temperature data. the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes is the accumulation of ocean heat content in Joules. What we need is for the IPCC modeling community to predict the expected heating in Joules over the coming years. With the now excellent observational system to monitor this heating (from Argo and satellite altimetry measurements), this metric should replace that of the surface temperature trends."
I really enjoyed reading this interview. This bottom-up approach as sketched by Mr. Pielke, brings anthropogenic climate change down to earth, where it indeed belongs to. In my understanding, this approach sounds much more 'green' or 'environmental' than many of those who argue in the name of the future of the planet - this (IPCC) planet always remains a somehow abstract entity, while humans indeed live in specific places and specific environments, each with their own vulnerabilities.
Even though science should be free from cultural values, I see indeed exactly those cultural values in the different approaches. While in both approaches (Mr. Pielke's and the IPCC's) the methods remain objective and neutral, the definition of the object of interest - planet earth and its future - differs profoundly. This is indeed a deeply cultural or philosophical question: Where exactly do we live?
Or did I read too much into this short interview?
Werner - Your comment is very insightful! We discussed this different perspective as summarized also in Table E.7
Pielke, R.A. Sr., and L. Bravo de Guenni, 2004: Conclusions. Chapter E.7 In: Vegetation, Water, Humans and the Climate: A New Perspective on an Interactive System. Global Change - The IGBP Series, P. Kabat et al., Eds., Springer, 537-538. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cb-42.pdf
The IPCC, so far, has mostly ignored this bottom-up, resource-based framework.
@Dr Pielke Sr
two parts politics and science:
politics: not important, I am just curious.
What is a round table speaker for a lobbying think tank (http://www.marshall.org/speakers.php, you are on this list)? Hope you are not upset by the question, I do not want to insinuate anything. Really.
Anyway, politics and stupid think tanks are boring...
part science:
you say, ocean heat content must be taken as the only(?) indicator and that there is a current stop in heat accumulation (in the last 4-5 years). However: two questions:
* first, while I think it interesting to know why the heat content has been slowly declining or halting (maybe, not sure about the uncertainties, the Lyman et al paper shows a bit different results than NOAA, but heat accumulation slowed at least) for the last years, in the time from 2000-2004 we can observe a really huge jump in the heat content. Anyway, what would you say, if one would have used this timespan for showing the warming is strongly accelerating? Maybe someone did... Is the current stop in accumulation a reaction on the jump or are there other theories? Well, I should read your papers, I assume. I believe the time spans are too short for both claims.
* second, you sound like it (taking ocean heat as indicator) has been never done before. But, it is. For example, Gavin Schmidt presented some results in realclimate blog comparing the observations with the GISS model. Are there more works? The IPCC had also some sections about it. So, it was never ever ruled out as one important indicator. The question is: what exactly can be improved? I have to read your paper... I assume. Maybe you can answer it.
I was first directed to Roger Pielke Sr.'s blog by being told that he was one of the most evil and insidious of climate 'deniers', and a dangerous man. I could not and still cannot understand why some feel this way, he is insightful, direct and always polite.
His bottom up, resource based model for responding to environmental risk has had a profound effect on my views about climate change, and is, IMO, a practical way forward from the current impasse. Thank you Hans and Roger!
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)