Sentences with phrase «pielke sr»

One of the nicest analyses I've seen that explains the latitudinal variations of CO2 forcing is given by Pielke Sr (see also this additional post), which provides total, troposphere, and surface forcing for tropical and subarctic summer, winter.

As an aside and slight conceptual digression with a tip of the cap to Roger Pielke Sr, perhaps this enjoyable and profitable Holocene climate is due, in part, to Anthropogenic Climate Moderation from 10K - years of agricultural and landuse alteration.

Bill DiPuccio says: «Roger Pielke Sr has been reiterating the need for using ocean heat as the measure of earth's climate energy budget for years.

JC comments Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr's statement, since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties.

I asked Roger Pielke sr about this, he said it's a good question but didn't know and said Geologists would better answer the question.

Frank, see the Pielke Sr references in my original post, the variation with altitude depends on background state of the atmosphere (primarily as it varies with latitude / season as per the calculations Pielke Sr. provides)

(here dealing with a commenter's accusations of fraud at a WattsUpWithThat guest post by Roger Pielke Sr):

Roger Pielke Sr has made a point about this for some years — average temperature is a fairly useless and arbitrary construct.

From all that I have read of Roy Spencer's, Roger Pielke Sr's, Courtillot's and others, it seems to me that the net feedback in the climate system is negative and tied to that magical substance, water.

Or could they not be local and regional effects resulting from various anthropogenic land - use issues, as Roger Pielke Sr argues.

McNider, R.T., G.J. Steeneveld, B. Holtslag, R. Pielke Sr, S. Mackaro, A. Pour Biazar, J.T. Walters, U.S. Nair, and J.R. Christy, 2012: Response and sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer over land to added longwave radiative forcing.

Zeke Hausfather and Steven Mosher, I have now read all of the comments (and some challenges to you were worth reading, esp those of Pielke Sr), and I thank you again for your many answers.

Democrats should call Pielke Sr as a witness.

Roger Pielke Sr's statement seems reasonable and accurate.

After watching the shameful, abusive, and unprofessional way that he treated Dr. Roger Pielke Sr when he posted there, I won't even give them the benefit of my visit to their horrid little blog.

Roger Pielke Sr is a dissenting voice on the panel that wrote the statement.

As chair of the AGU statement, the statement was a fait accompli and Pielke Sr's comments were never going to see the light of day.

Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr's statement, since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties.

So in fact, referring back to Roger Pielke Sr, this kind of model is a basic physics model.

The papers mentioned by Ron C from Pielke Sr are among those that you can not reasonably assume a uniform climatology across grid areas or even within a few kilometers as the Armagh study showed.

He was told so several times, but he (and his supporters, including one Roger Pielke Sr) kept on making an unsupported claim in favor of the actual data analysis.

Judith Curry and Roger Pielke sr are great example of good scientist.

Does Pielke Sr still think this?

Pielke Sr claims I have misrepresented the science.

Roger Pielke Sr is a well - credentialed man.

It's quite hilarious to see Pielke Sr complain about «professional discourtesy», when Anthony Watts has had plenty of chances to do the analysis himself, but instead decided to claim a warm bias without doing the number crunching.

Pielke sr has lots on this.

I'm only aware of the «PowerPoint» presentation and Pielke Sr's take on the issue.

Roger Pielke sr and Chris Landsea are a few example of what happens to scientist who did not agree with the dogmatic vision of the IPCC.

Note the change of wording in the attribution statement AR4: «greenhouse gases» AR5: «human influence» Roger Pielke Sr will approve of this I think.

I read this guest post by Andy Lacis - over at Pielke Sr's place, if Pielke Sr says something is worth reading then I generally do.

Roger Pielke Sr was a co-author.

Secondly, Roger Pielke Sr often goes on about LU changes and forcings.

At least PolitiFact talked to Roger Pielke Sr, and way down at the bottom of the article admitted this: «In Pielke's view, a more accurate version of Pruitt's statement would be: «I would not agree that CO2 is the only contributor to changes and long term variations in climate.»»

There's an interesting new paper discussed at Pielke Sr's: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/new-paper-climate-stability-and-sensitivity-in-some-simple-conceptual-models-by-j-bates/

This suggests three levels of skepticism even in Muller's mind: a) global warming which in the context means the land temperature record (not the ocean heat as Pielke Sr would prefer) b) its human causes (where Judith Curry also parts company with Muller) and c) what can and should be done about b).

a) skeptics that the land temperature record even matters very much eg Chirst Essex, Ross McKitrick, Roger Pielke Sr

What about Roger Pielke Sr's objection that ocean heat has flatlined since 2003?

Judith Curry says «Pielke Sr only has minor criticisms of the paper.

Given the substantial number of comments on Part I, I'm starting a new thread to discuss the post by Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick, and Pielke Sr's response.

Lol, I wouldn't describe Ross as «uncredentialed», however Judith does have a point about Trenberth on the public dime, and the lack of decorum Pielke Sr points out.

Pielke Sr's and others claims that Trenberth, Abraham and / or Gleick have committed any «personal attack» against Spencer, et al are simply frivolous and dishonest.

Any time now I expect Roger Pielke Sr to show up and admonish Anthony Watts for being uncivil.

Pielke Sr has accurately pointed out how little sense his actions make.

Elsewhere, following some detective work by Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke Sr have been doing some quality control on weather station data.

Pielke Sr has the melt seasons for the Arctic and Antarctic, using minimum and maximum ice dates, and these graphs are also remarkably flat.

I think that Prof Roger Pielke sr hypothesis 1, 2 (a) and 2 (b) are the best way to express where individual stands.

Dr Pielke Sr mentioned in a previous post that he'd be discussing some of these survey results in a future post; do you think they are worth your comment?

Pielke Sr, R.A., Editor in Chief., 2013: Climate Vulnerability, Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, 1st Edition.

in Pielke Sr, R.A., Editor in Chief., 2013: Climate Vulnerability, Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, 1st Edition.