Despite the relentless media assault declaring debate is over, catastrophic climate change is just around the corner, and immediate and drastic curtailment of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are our only chance of survival, there remains significant debate in the scientific community. Rather than attempt to refrain what has become countless takes on this point (see links below), this post is to highlight the ongoing dialogue and findings on www.climatesci.org, operated by research scientist Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Our interest in Pielke’s work is based on two key factors: (1) His international reputation for integrity remains intact even among the alarmist community, and (2) his nuanced position on climate change which places a greater emphasis on the impact of land use changes than on anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as well as a greater emphasis on identifying and mitigating regional climate changes. Pielke’s Climate Science blog is written for scientists and researchers, but is sufficiently intelligible to a lay person to merit close attention. Typically Pielke will identify a peer reviewed study by a credible climate scientist that has been ignored by the IPCC, the “consensus” scientific community, the media, and policymakers. He will then summarize the findings and explain the significance of the study. If you follow Pielke’s blog, your perception of climate change alarm - and the attendant policies it is being used to justify - may radically shift.

Here are some recent excerpts:

Further Documentation Of The Diversity Of Human Climate Forcings Beyond CO2

“We’re accumulating reactive nitrogen in the environment, and this is as much of a legacy as putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,”‘ Galloway says. “The public doesn’t know about nitrogen, but in many ways it’s as big an issue as carbon, and due to the interactions of nitrogen and carbon, makes the challenge of providing food and energy to the world’s peoples without harming the global environment a tremendous challenge.”

The conclusion by Professor Galloway that “in many ways it’s as big an issue as carbon” is one of the reasons that the human climate forcing “The influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., soot; nitrogen) on climate” was included in my House testimony [Pielke].

We need to move beyond the narrow focus of the IPCC on CO2 to the diversity of other human climate forcings. The mitigation and adaptation of society in response to these human climate forcings is going to require a much broader and integrated approach than is possible with just an emphasis on the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System?

“A simple model and satellite observations are used to demonstrate that previous diagnoses of climate feedbacks from the satellite record have a strong bias in the direction of high climate sensitivity (positive feedback). The source of the bias is chaotic radiative forcing generated within the climate system, most likely due to low clouds.

Through analysis of frequency histograms of local regression slopes computed throughout the low-pass filtered time series of temperature and total (reflected shortwave SW and emitted longwave LW) radiative fluxes, the radiative forcing signal is shown to have a unique signature separate from the feedback signature. The global oceanic averages of satellite CERES data during 2000 through 2005 reveal a net (SW+LW) feedback parameter of around 8 W m-2 K-1. This strong negative feedback signal exists independent of the low-pass filter time scale, from 10 day to 2 years.

In stark contrast, IPCC AR4 models analyzed with the same method all exhibit positive feedbacks of various strengths. It is suggested that the unrealistically high sensitivity of the climate models is the result of a misinterpretation of the co-variability of clouds and temperature when specifying cloud parameterizations.

Since only radiative feedback has been assumed in feedback analysis of natural variability (clouds being forced by temperature), the presence of chaotic radiative forcing of temperature by clouds causes the false appearance of positive feedback. In short, cause and effect have been confused. Finally, if such a strong negative feedback has indeed been operating on multi-decadal time scales, this means that the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is not nearly strong enough to explain the 1°C warming in the last century.”

Can We Reconcile Differences In Estimates Of Carbon Fluxes From Land-Use Change And Forestry For The 1990s?

This is an important study as it highlights uncertainties associated with the global carbon budget. However, what the authors did not do was assess how the land use changes and forestry practices altered the regional and global radiative climate forcing! Without such a simulataneous assessment, the research is serously incomplete, as has been discussed, for example, in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2001: Carbon sequestration — The need for an integrated climate system approach. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 82, 2021, where it is written:

“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.”

There is a research opportunity for the climate science community to expand the Ito et al 2008 study to include the effect of land-use change and forestry practices in the 1990s on regional and global radiative forcing. (post continues below image)
 

Tenodera sinensis

More excellent recent posts from Pielke’s Climate Science blog:

Role of Regional Climate Forcings On Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice

Where Pielke explains the variations between Antarctic ice (expanding trend) and Arctic ice (diminishing trend) is more the result of regional factors such as ocean currents than the result of anthropogenic CO2.

Publication of Hypotheses: An Example of The Misuse of Science

Where Pielke provides yet another example of a grossly flawed “study” finding its way into reputable publications because the conclusion fit the bias of the editors.

My Position on Climate Change By Hendrik Tennekes

Where Pielke provides (yet) another example of a reputable scientist coming forward and challenging the alleged consensus regarding the primacy of anthropogenic CO2 in causing allegedly catastrophic climate change.

Any serious investor should take a close and ongoing look at Pielke’s blog, as should anyone concerned about the opportunistic legislation and ordinances being urgently advocated in the name of mitigating CO2, from the global to the local level.

Additional EcoWorld features on Global Warming:

Media Hysteria, D. James Guzy
The Debate Goes On, Marc Morano
A Case Against Climate Alarmism, Dr. Richard Lindzen
35 Inconvenient Truths, Lord Christopher Monckton
Interview with Roger Pielke, Sr., EcoWorld Exclusive
Glacial Acceleration, Paul Brown
Global Warming Priorities, Dr. Edward Wheeler
Rebuttal to Inconvenient Truth, Marlo Lewis
Inconvenient Skeptics, D. James Guzy
Global Warming Facts, Dr. Richard Lindzen
Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?, Dr. Richard Lindzen
Global Warming Alarm, Dr. Edward Wheeler
Also reference over 80 Editor’s posts on the topic of global warming:
Global Warming Posts, EcoWorld Editor’s Blog