Climate Dialogue

Are regional models ready for prime time?

Marcel Crok — Tue, 14 May 2013 09:30:24 +0000

The third Climate Dialogue is about the value of models on the regional scale. Do model simulations at this level have skill? Can regional models add value to the global models?

We have three excellent participants joining this discussion: Bart van den Hurk of KNMI in The Netherlands who is actively involved in the KNMI scenario’s, Jason Evans from the University of Newcastle, Australia, who is coordinator of Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) and Roger Pielke Sr. who through his research articles and his weblog Climate Science is well known for his outspoken views on climate modelling.

Climate Dialogue editorial staff
Rob van Dorland, KNMI
Marcel Crok, science writer
Bart Verheggen

Long-term persistence and trend significance

Marcel Crok — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:11:38 +0000

In this second Climate Dialogue we focus on long-term persistence (LTP) and the consequences it has for trend significance.

We slightly changed the procedure compared to the first Climate Dialogue (which was about Arctic sea ice). This time we asked the invited experts to write a first reaction on the guest blogs of the others, describing their agreement and disagreement with it. We publish the guest blogs and these first reactions at the same time.

We apologise again for the long delay. As we explained in our first evaluation it turned out to be extremely difficult to find the right people (representing a range of views) for the dialogues we had in mind.

Climate Dialogue editorial staff
Rob van Dorland, KNMI
Marcel Crok, science writer
Bart Verheggen

First evaluation of Climate Dialogue

Marcel Crok — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:30:37 +0000

Given the recent record low in Arctic sea ice, the melting of the Arctic was the logical choice as the first topic on the new Climate Dialogue platform. We approached around ten climate scientists to participate in the discussion. Some of them declined the invitation, mostly due to time restrictions. We were very glad that Walt Meier, Ron Lindsay and Judith Curry took up the challenge to engage with each other.

We would also like to thank the many climate scientists and other interested readers who joined the discussion via the public comments. We had over 20,000 hits in the first three weeks, which exceeded our expectations for the first round of discussion. Most of the traffic came from the blogs Watts Up With That? and Real Climate. Both blogs (here and here) kindly published our guest blog explaining the goal of ClimateDialogue.org.

With the publication of a short and an extended summary the first discussion (between the experts) is now officially closed, although discussion in the public comments can continue. It is a good moment to evaluate the first discussion and also the platform in general, because many readers are rightly worried about the lack of activity on the site.

Selection of discussants
Our choice of participants generated a lot of criticism from both sides of the blogosphere. Below we will describe how we selected the three (initially four) participants.

Our aim is to present the full or at least a wide range of views. This of course is a major challenge because for practical reasons the number of participants is limited. One of our criteria to select scientists is that (by preference) they published in the peer reviewed literature about the topic under discussion.

With these criteria in mind we went looking for the “right” discussants. On the more skeptical side of the spectrum we invited Judith Curry. This was criticized from the skeptical side on Watts Up With That?. She was not a real “skeptic”, some complained. The problem is that no one presented an alternative that met our criteria. People suggested Richard Lindzen or Christopher Monckton, both well-known skeptics, but with no publication record on Arctic sea ice. On RealClimate people criticized Curry for not having the right expertise. However, Curry was very active in Arctic research in the nineties and has recently picked up the topic again.

On the other side of the spectrum Peter Wadhams was a logical choice. He recently stated that the Arctic could be ice free within four years. Wadhams accepted the invitation right away but unfortunately he was too busy in the end to deliver his guest blog.

In between these positions there was more choice for suitable discussants. Most of the scientists in this specific field could be viewed as “mainstream”. We specifically sought for a participant from NSIDC because this institute is a very prominent and visible player in the field. Walt Meier was a logical choice, because in the past he has shown at Watts Up With That? that he is willing to discuss the science with people having alternative views.

The fourth scientist we invited was James Morison of the University of Washington in Seattle. He couldn’t make it when the deadline came nearer and his colleague Ron Lindsay was very kind to step in only days before we started.

Constructive
From the perspective of having a rational, polite, constructive dialogue, this first discussion was a success. Too often discussions or debates about global warming quickly become aggressive in tone. Not this time. The three discussants treated each other respectfully. We moderated the public comments and also kept a close eye on the exchange between the discussants. We soon decided not to censor off-topic comments but to show these separately. This helped to keep the discussions focused.

In hindsight what made this discussion relatively ‘easy’ is that the facts are pretty undisputed: the Arctic has shown a steady decrease in sea ice in the last thirty years (both in extent and volume), which is well documented by satellite measurements. What also took the pressure of the discussion was that right in the beginning all three discussants stated that greenhouse gases must have contributed substantially to the recent decline in sea ice.

Did we get everything out of the discussion? Certainly not and in this sense we still have a lot to improve. We feel the discussion might have been too broad from the start . Also some of the wording in our introductory article was too vague (the use of the term “global warming” for example) which could have hindered the discussion. Also in a sense the discussants were maybe a bit too “friendly” towards each other. They focused on answering questions from the public and the moderators and avoided criticizing each other’s viewpoints. We are open to suggestions how to further improve the format.

Delay
There has been a considerable delay in publishing the summaries, for which we apologize. Obviously writing the summaries was pretty challenging and it took time to agree about the text, first within our own team and then in interaction with the discussants. The summaries contain likelihood statements that have been approved by the discussants. This makes the differences in their views more explicit.

But the main reason for the delay is that we gave priority to finding participants for the next discussions. It proved very difficult to find a representative range of discussants. Or in some cases, like the hot spot in the tropics, we have found very good candidates, but due to their full agenda’s this discussion can’t start until June.

There are several reasons why invited scientists declined the invitation to participate. Most scientists cite lack of time as the reason not to participate. Some IPCC lead authors see a conflict of interest with the upcoming AR5 report. Some scientists don’t agree with our format of giving prominent airing to viewpoints which are not widely supported. Some don’t answer to our invitations even after several reminders. In general scientists on the skeptical side of the spectrum are more willing to participate than those on the mainstream side.

Near future
What to expect in the near future? A discussion about regional modeling is planned in May. Committed participants are Roger Pielke Sr. and Bart van den Hurk of KNMI. We are still looking for a third participant, but the discussion will take place anyhow.

Then in June we will discuss the hot spot (or lack thereof) in the tropics with Carl Mears, Steven Sherwood and John Christy. So these are exciting prospects.

Other topics in the pipeline are Long Term Persistence (with Demetris Koutsoyiannis as confirmed participant, we are still looking for other candidates) and Diurnal Temperature Range (Richard McNider confirmed; we are still looking for other candidates, preferentially someone from either HadCrut or NOAA). We also have a few participants confirmed for a discussion about sea level rise, but it is difficult to fit them in a well-focused topic.

We will notify anyone who registered when a new discussion starts. Meanwhile feel free to continue discussing the summaries of the Arctic sea ice discussion and/or make suggestions about our format or about future discussions (in the comment section of this post, comments will then show up in the public comments section of the side bar).

Climate Dialogue in Science Magazine

admin — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:58:39 +0000

Science Magazine paid attention to the launch of climatedialogue.org:

A Place for All at The Climate Science Table

The Dutch government has created an online forum where “climate experts representing the full range of views” can discuss the hottest topics in climate change. The public can provide running commentary.

The site, launched this week at ClimateDialogue.org, began by tackling Arctic sea ice. Three respected American climate scientists will debate the causes of sea-ice decline—global warming and natural variability lead the list—and when the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free. The scientists’ estimates “range from 2016 to the end of the 21stcentury, or even later,” a Climate Dialogue statement said.

The spread of opinion is deliberately broad. ClimateDialogue.org is one of several government projects the Dutch parliament has requested to “involve climate skeptics in future studies on climate change,” another statement explained. An advisory board of six scientists and a retired business executive will advise an editorial staff and “guard the neutrality of the platform,” the site says.

Science Magazine, 16 November 2012

Climate Dialogue guest blog

admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:56:27 +0000

Launch of ClimateDialogue.org
Exploring different views on climate change

Goal of ClimateDialogue.org
ClimateDialogue.org offers a platform for discussions between invited climate scientists on important climate topics that have been subject to quite intense scientific and public debate. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views currently held by scientists by inviting experts with different views on the topic of discussion. We encourage the invited scientists to formulate their own personal scientific views, so they are not asked to act as representatives for any group in the climate debate.

Obviously, there are many excellent blogs that facilitate discussions between climate experts, but since the climate debate is highly polarized and politicized, blog discussions between experts with opposing views are rare.

Background
The discovery, early 2010, of a number of errors in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report on climate impacts (Working Group II), led to a review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Council (IAC). The IAC-report triggered a debate in the Dutch Parliament about the reliability of climate science in general. Based on the IAC-recommendation that ‘the full range of views’ should be covered in the IPCC-reports, Parliament asked the Dutch government ‘to also involve climate skeptics in future studies on climate change’.

In response, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment announced a number of projects that are aimed to increase this involvement. Climate Dialogue is one of these projects.

Topics
We are starting Climate Dialogue with a discussion on the causes of the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice, the timing of the first year that the Arctic will be ice-free and the question to what extent this decline can be explained by anthropogenic global warming. In its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, IPCC anticipated that the Arctic will be ice free in summer by the end of this century. Since then several studies indicated that (near) ice-free conditions could be reached for the first time in 2030-2050, or even earlier.

We invited three experts to take part in the discussion: Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Walt Meier, research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at Boulder, Colorado, and Ron Lindsay, Senior Principal Physicist at the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle.

Future topics that will be discussed will include: climate sensitivity, sea level rise, urban heat island-effects, the value of comprehensive climate models, ocean heat storage, and the warming trend in the past few decades.

Our format
Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by reacting to each other’s arguments. It is not the goal of Climate Dialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion and to make clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why.
To round off the discussion on a particular topic, the Climate Dialogue editor will write a summary, describing the areas of agreement and disagreement between the discussants. The participants will be asked to approve this final article, the discussion between the experts on that topic will be closed and the editorial board will open a new discussion on a different topic.

The public (including other climate scientists) is also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.

The project organization consists of an editorial staff of three people and an advisory board of seven people, all of whom are based in the Netherlands. The editorial staff is concerned with the day-to-day operation of researching topics, finding participants for the discussion and moderating the discussions between the experts. The main task of the advisory board is to guard the neutrality of the platform and to advise the editorial staff about its activities

Editorial Staff
Project leader is Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Van Dorland is a senior scientist and climate advisor in the Climate Services section and is often operating at the interface between science and society.

The second member is Bart Strengers. He is a climate policy analyst and modeler in the IMAGE-project at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and has for many years been involved in the discussion with climate skeptics.

The third member is Marcel Crok, an investigative science writer, who published a critical book (in Dutch) about the climate debate.

Questions
We welcome comments on this blog and are happy to answer any questions regarding this project. You can send an email to info [at] climatedialogue [dot] org.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 14 November 2012

Climate dialogue news release

admin — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:54:36 +0000

Climate Discussion platform ClimateDialogue.org launched

The Dutch Royal Meteorological Institute (KNMI), the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and science journalist Marcel Crok launched their joint website ClimateDialogue.org – an international blog where invited scientists discuss controversial topics in climate science. There are several blogs that facilitate discussions between climate experts but since the climate debate is highly polarized and politicized, blog discussions between experts with opposing views are rare.

ClimateDialogue.org is the result of a request by the Dutch parliament to facilitate the scientific discussions between climate experts representing the full range of views on the subject. It is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.

The aim of ClimateDialogue.org is to establish what the discussants agree on, where disagreements remain and what the possible or likely reasons behind these disagreements are. The project by no means aims to solve controversies nor give an objective, scientific final judgment on the topics under discussion.

ClimateDialogue.org will kick off with a discussion on the causes of the rapid decline of the Arctic sea ice as well as the question when the Arctic sea could be ice-free during the summer months. The experts invited to this discussion hold widely different views on the latter; their estimates range from 2016 to the end of the 21^st century, or even later.

In the coming months, ClimateDialogue.org will host discussions on such topics as climate sensitivity to CO2, sea level rise, the reliability of temperature measurements, the reliability and usefulness of climate models, and the extent to which oceans can store heat.

Amsterdam, 13 November 2012

Melting of the Arctic sea ice

Marcel Crok — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:40:49 +0000

Update 25 February 2013: Climate Dialogue summary now online
The summary of the first Climate Dialogue discussion on the melting of the Arctic sea ice is now online (see below). We have made two versions: a short and an extended version. The discussion between the experts is now officially closed. The public comments remain open. We apologize for the delay in publishing the summary.

Both versions can also be downloaded as pdf documents:
Summary of the Climate Dialogue on Arctic sea ice
Extended summary of the Climate Dialogue on Arctic sea ice

Introduction
The Arctic sea ice extent has been decreasing steadily for the past three decades. Scientists discuss the potential causes of this decrease. For practical reasons expert comments (comments by the invited scientists) are also separated from public comments. Anyone can comment. You need to subscribe once or use your own WordPress account. Public comments should be polite and on-topic and are moderated in advance.

Climate Dialogue editorial staff
Rob van Dorland, KNMI
Bart Strengers, PBL
Marcel Crok, science writer