James Annan has written a new post entitled “A bizarre rewriting of history”.
In response, my son and I have e-mailed to James and have reproduced the communications below. If he responds, I will post as an update.
E-Mail from Pielke Jr.
With respect to your last post, perhaps these points of clarification can be of some use:
1. Klotzbach et al. has nothing to do with the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases on climate. Zero. It just is not relevant to the argument. The underlying warming trend that is present could be due to alien space rays as far as our argument is concerned. As I have written, it is however consistent with a warming trend due to the radiative forcing effects of GHGs.
2. Klotzbach et al. discusses the role of GHGs on measured surface temperature trends through mechanisms different than TOA radiative forcing. The rise in GHGs is one of several important factors in perturbing the boundary layer.
3. Mahmood et al. (in press) that you write about discusses the role of LULC on climate and future research priorities. If Klotzbach et al. is correct then it suggests a different interpretation of the land surface record than conventionally ascribed, and surely this would have effects on research priorities as related to the land surface and climate. Your overheated remarks seem to have forgotten the “and future research priorities”. In any case LULC is one of the factors discussed in Klotzbach et al. as related to pertubations of the boundary layer.
4. As I understand it 1 and 2 above hold for PM05 as well (Pielke Sr can confirm, he is copied).
All of this seems quite obvious. Anyway, what is the deal with all of your snark and playing to the chorus? Why so angry?
Best regards from Boulder,
E-mail from Pielke Sr.
I agree with Roger Jr. He has expressed the papers accurately.
I also agree; why are you so contemptuous in your tone? You may be reaffirming others on your viewpoint, but you are turning off
As to your statement
“For the record, I agree that land use cover change may impact on the climate. But unless Roger Pielke can find some way of arguing that this has changed the net average surface flux by the order of 1Wm-2 at night, his whole theory is still a bust”.
Do you really mean this? Changing just the value of z0 [the aerodynamic roughness] at the surface has this effect and more. Clouds and higher water vapor (and CO2) also alter the surface flux by values larger than 1 Watt per meter squared. I agree that added CO2 is less important in this regard as a direct radiative effect than clouds and water vapor, as we reported in the Eastman et al paper, but as we also showed in that paper, the effect of the biogeochemical effect of added CO2 on plant transpiration during daylight on subsequent nighttime water vapor concentrations (and thus its effect on the radiative flux) is significant.
The P&M paper just looked at the issue as to whether if there was less loss of heat at night out of the top of the boundary layer, even if the loss was the same, would the vertical distribution of the heat loss be uniform between strong and windy nights? It is not, and this effect is seen in the minimum surface air temperatures. In the real world, it is even more different as the loss of heat from the boundary layer is not the same on windy and light wind nights.