There continues to be misunderstandings on my viewpoint on the role of humans within the climate system. This weblog is written to make sure it is clear, and can be used whenever someone asks the question as to where does Pielke Sr. stand on this issue.
As I have written in the Main Conclusions of Climate Science
“Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”
and that
“Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
These conclusions are different from those who claim that the global average radiative effect of carbon dioxide is by far the major human climate forcing, as well as from those who conclude that natural climate variations dominate climate change and that the human climate forcings are inconsequential.
My viewpoint is also well articulated in
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
and you are encouraged to read the Executive Summary of that report [a report which whas been ignored by the media despite its broad base of authorship and its extensive review before it was published].
The reason that that those who focus on the global average radiative forcing of carbon dioxide are missing the bulk of human climate forcings include the following:
1. Atmosphere and ocean circulations respond to regional forcings not a global average (e.g. see and see)
2. The other human climate forcings include
the diverse influence of human-caused aerosols on regional (and global) radiative heating (e.g. see).
the effect of aerosols on cloud and precipitation processes (e.g. see)
the influence of aerosol deposition on climate (e.g. see and see)
the effect of land cover/ land use on climate (e.g. see and see)
the biogeochemical effect of added atmosopheric CO2 has a greater effect on the climate system than the radiative effect of added CO2 (e.g. see).
Natural climate variations and change, have also been underestimated (and are only poorly understood) based on examination of the historical and paleo-climate record (e.g. see and see).
Human climate forcings have a more significant role in altering the weather than does a global average increase in the radiative effect of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This does not mean that we should not work to limit the increase of this gas in the atmosphere, but it is not the dominate climate forcing that affects society and the environment.
Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results (such as reported in the 2005 National Research Council report) that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system than was communicated in the 2007 IPCC report. To neglect these other climate forcings represents a failure by policymakers (and the media) to utilize this scientifically robust information.
The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominate human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Pielkes seem to want to walk the tightrope of comity between skeptics and supplicants; Sr. leaning right, Jr. leaning left.
While I scan Sr., Jr. has yet to make any sense when I give him a chance.
There just isn’t any common ground to win.
Sometimes Roger would email me. One or two times he said that I had a good sense of what the climate is all about, and that I was making a valid point. But he said he cannot include my post because of its harsh language and abusive nature. He’s such a gentleman. A fallen angel, or a risen ape, in a field gone mad with crazed and screaming monkeys.
I wrote back on these occasions. It was a bit of a groundhog day thing. I’d tell him something like: from his point of view, he was trying to maintain old-fashioned scientific standards. But from my point of view I wanted to have these people all publicly shamed and fired and never allowed to get taxpayer funding again.
One time, or perhaps twice, he wrote back and he said that he understood my frustration. But that he just couldn’t include the post and that perhaps I ought to rewrite it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger is not triangulating Gary. You want triangulation it is James Annan and others you are after.
Roger’s just going where the chips fall.
This planet is far more serendipitous, as to its climate, then all the other planets, since its main greenhouse (or at least climate-affecting) substance is predominantly in liquid form, and since its solid surface is so uneven.
Planet Earth stands out from the other planets and we ought not see climate science as just some air and light show, as we are prone to do when we look at Venus and other planets through our telescopes.
It took until the 1870’s in economics for marginal analysis to come in with Jevons, Walrus, and Menger. But we don’t have much in the way of marginal analysis in climate science and this is bizzare.
Its great that Roger Senior is taking a marginalist (ie localised) approach in his research. Its just magnificent because almost no-one else appears to be doing this. He’s a real hero. A sort of mummified scientist in a world lost to science-workers.
Who else is taking this marginalist approach? And its important that we DO take this localised approach. Its a bit like macro and micro economics in a way.
A localised approach will become incredibly important once the glaciers start coming down from the far north and from the high mountains to do the untold damage that they will do.
No doubt about that at all.
If an objective assessment of climate science is still possible, Roy Spencer’s forthcoming paper should put an end to big warming via positive feedback in climate models.
Scroll down to the bottom and here more:
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm
Paul
The Heartand audio reference is extremely good. Roy Spencers paper is very revealing in that it also shows that Bill Kininmonth has been right all along,as well as Lindzen.
Also as others have pointed out, the talk by David Henderson is illmuninating as to the way this whole charade was sent up so that it became a self predicting prophecy,apparantly even before any real science had been done and settled.
The politician that sign us up to this Framework Convention should be everlastingly castigated.
No it doesn’t it – shows that’s what happens in a few intra-seasonal oscillations. Try discussing with some cloud experts. It’s a very big extrapolation.
Pielke Snr’s blog has always been illuminating and this most recent post is no different. Again he reiterates the fallacy of the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing as being the PRIMARY driver of climate change. Indeed his insights are closely aligned to much in the IPCC reports where it is clearly and categorically stated that our knowledge of factors other than the influence of CO2 is LOW or VERY LOW.
Pielke Snr has looked beyond the populist science and demonstrated that our climate system is influenced by more than the just the radiative forcing attributed to CO2. Indeed many who comment on this blog have pointed towards these very same influences, only to be demonised as deniers.
We’ve understood for many years now that the policy positions being adopted by the anti-CO2 brigade are based on incomplete science and a perversion of the precautionary principle. It is good to see more research coming out that will add to our understanding of the other influences on climate. Hopefully we may see the IPCC reevaluate its scale of understanding of the science and where our knowledge of climate factors is currently labelled as low or very low will move to at least fair or good.
To be honest, I see Roger Sr as a very honest man. And I like the way he goes about his business, we need people questioning science and making sure our assumptions are valid.
Still being a nice guy and going about his business in a proper way doesn’t mean he’s correct. He seems to be implying that landuse changes aren’t considered by climate scientists, not sure if he’s correct there. There’s been work on the Western Australian wheatbelt wrt landuse changes and it’s affect on the rainfall patterns.
I am not saying he’s wrong, I do acknowledge that there are many other factors affecting climate other than CO2, and that human’s are responsible for a number of them. What I don’t acknowledge is that people wanting to reduce CO2 emissions DON’T also want to effect changes to these other factors (such as land-use, particulate pollution etc.
Mr T, “What I don’t acknowledge is that people wanting to reduce CO2 emissions DON’T also want to effect changes to these other factors (such as land-use, particulate pollution etc.”
You’d have to admit that CO2 reduction is where the bias is even though it’s the least likely to be possible to do.
Jan, that may be why there’s a bias there. Squeeky wheel gets the oil 🙂
It’s easier to promote good land use practice to farmers as it generally benefits them (assuming that farming is the main land use change that affects the local climate). Harder to promote a CO2 reduction, which is… Not exactly intuitive, nor does it reap immediate benefits. And you would say, none at all.
I think in the literature there is more emphasis on CO2 because it’s the most complicated effect caused by humans. Land use and other human effects are more easily studied and understood. The other climatic factors (sun etc.) are all studied heavily but we can’t actually do anything about them, so that may be another reason why there’s more focus on CO2.
Or it could be a Soclialist conspiracy because they lost the cold war…
Mr T, “assuming that farming is the main land use change”
Looking out as I do over the Parramatta river valley when I go for a walk I see a lot different land use change that while it doesn’t have the surface area that farming does I wouldn’t mind betting the impact is greater. The air is coloured light brown we can see that and you call the CO2 the “squeaky wheel”? This pollution is well understood and he sources well known.
Talk about topsy turvy priorities.
Jan, I haven’t been talking about the relative priorities, just why I think CO2 gets more priority. I think it would be difficult to assign a rigorous priority system to pollution.
I think it’s the effect of CO2 that is the squeeky wheel. Certainly the sources of CO2 are known.
You make a good point with air pollution though, as a lot of air pollution that creates haze or photochemical smog has the same source as some of our major CO2 emitters. So cleaning these sources could also reduce CO2.
Luke – the large positive water vapour feedback in climate models is busted.
“No it doesn’t it – shows that’s what happens in a few intra-seasonal oscillations. Try discussing with some cloud experts. It’s a very big extrapolation.”
You will grasp at any straw will you not? Why would I try talking to these guys? I’d want to shake them down for evidence.
We already know for a fact that the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. Thats not in dispute outside traitor lunatic climate irrationalist circles.
We already know the feedback is strongly negative. We are just interested in potential mechanisms for this negative feedback.
Do keep up Luke.
Or at least don’t insult us with your hysterical obssession to betray this country.
No you don’t – you know squat. It’s not a straw – it’s a baseball bat. You don’t even know which way is up. You might give us an update while you are here on what work has been done hitherto on water vapour feedback and why it’s wrong. Surely you know. You wouldn’t be a taxeating time waster who doesn’t know would you?
If you are a taxeater we should double your tax for being a time waster. What we need is massive tax increases – no dodges – no deductions. But only for timewasters who can only get 182.
Now for someone who can only muster 182 we don’t care what you think. It’s irrelevant. Anyone who only gets 182 is a time wasting electoral taxeater that should be fined at least $100,000 for wasting the nation’s time. Have you apologised yet? Now get yourself down to the AEC and pay up.
Well lets have that evidence then Luke.
The fact is you are a fraud and a traitor and you aren’t coming up with any evidence.
And you could never be a scientist if you lived a thousand years, died and were born again and lived another millenium.
GMB:
I did not imply triangulation or anything even disingenuous about Sr.’s motivation.
I simply don’t have the breeding of the Pielke’s and cannot regret the lack. The hour is not meet for the peacemaker.
GMB:
“We already know for a fact that the feedback is overwhelmingly negative.”
Where did you get this fact? Can you support it?