Recent Comments

Prev  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  Next

Comments 54401 to 54450:

54401. philipm at 22:53 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       @JasonB thanks for the graphs (#100): could you post sources? On journalists (#106), scientists are often accused of being poor communicators but journalists are meant to be professional BS detectors. I commented on this at length at my own blog. I'm now at a university in South Africa with a big journalism school so I can work on the problem at source. The problem is not just laziness about making sense of science. Superficially, fake balance accepting the logic that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge implies that journalists need to learn more science. But really, it's simpler than that. The mode of argument and the chief sponsors are exactly the same as for a range of other faux debates from tobacco to ozone hole. Failing to spot this is a major fail.
54402. Bob Lacatena at 22:32 PM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       31, Dale,

       What climate impact will a summer ice-free Arctic bring to the World?

       You've gotten several answers to this, and SkS really should do a post focused on it, but (from me): First, recognize that this problem does not extend only to the sea ice. The surrounding land is also losing snow cover earlier and gaining it later. So, first and foremost, the albedo of that part of the planet -- which is in 24/7 sunlight for much of the year -- is changing. That means it is absorbing more sunlight and getting hotter. That's a positive feedback that makes it (and Earth) even warmer. Second, both the permafrost (on land) and sea (in the seabed) contain vast stores of methane, a powerful GHG that stays in the atmosphere as CH4 before "degrading" itself to CO2 (and then staying in the atmosphere in that form). That's a second positive feedback. Third, the dynamics of heat and water vapor transfer are completely changing. Once, wind and waves had no effect because the Arctic Ocean was for the most part a sheet of thick ice year round. Now low pressure areas can create cyclones that can whip the water around. That water can evaporate to form clouds. The system is changing. It is hard to predict what this will mean. It's complex. More clouds in winter that hold in the warmth? More clouds in spring or summer that help keep the albedo high? Is it even harder to form ice, because the melted ice gets mixed more thoroughly by the now active wind and waves? Do ocean currents change? Scientists have already figured out that the course of outflow of Siberian rivers has changed, dumping more freshwater into the Beaufort Sea where it used to go elsewhere. And how will these changes in weather patterns affect more civilized areas? There are strong theories that blocking patterns will become more common. This will mean that heat waves and cold snaps and droughts and the like, when they do hit, will last longer and perhaps be more severe. One of the problems with a drought, for example, is that normally, the ground cools through evaporation. But in a serious drought, all of the water has evaporated. This becomes a powerful positive feedback -- with no water to evaporate and cool the ground, the ground gets hotter, making it harder to accumulate moisture with which to cool the surface. So if blocking patterns make heat waves last longer, the chance of drought grows markedly. And who knows how ocean currents may change as a result of all of this? The earth hasn't seen a truly ice free Arctic in a very, very long time. So you can see there are very, very serious implications to the Arctic melt that we're seeing now (and what we're seeing now isn't by any means the worst -- this may be the "oh, sh*t" moment when we realize we're on course to go over a cliff, but that will be nothing compared to when we are actually on the precipice, or actually plummeting down). Bottom line: 1) Positive feedbacks that make temperatures worse, in the Arctic and globally 2) Side effects on weather patterns that have unpredictable consequences for every day life. Someone is going to go hungry, someone is going to have to move, and some things are going to have to change. I predict that within 50 years the USA may well have at least 1 if not 3 "ghost cities" -- major population centers that must be abandoned due to a combination of intractable water shortages, excessive weather dangers and difficulties generating enough food. Exactly where and when is the question.
54403. JasonB at 19:53 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       chuck101, I have always assumed that the false claims of expertise were a tool to sway others, who don't know any better, that they are just as qualified as the other scientists to hold an opinion and they disagree with those other scientists and thereby create an illusion of "debate", muddying the waters and leading onlookers to think the "science is not settled". The Oregon petition is another example of this. (One of the great ironies is how the same people decrying "appeals to authority" when it comes to the IPCC and climate scientists will fawn all over someone they perceive to be an authority who agrees with them or will artificially inflate their own authority to suit.) What I always find amazing is how transparently bad their attempts are. I mean, really basic mistakes that I would wish were obvious to anyone who completed high school. They become amusing when they attempt to dress them up with what they apparently believe is technical-sounding language that actually renders it gibberish, but the fact that so many seem to get sucked in by it is a sad indictment of education standards. The ones that really annoy me are journalists. Their role in a democracy is pivotal and as a consequence they have a duty to their readers to become informed. If they can't get their head around the science, hire someone who can — the basics are really not that complicated, and the errors made by the misinformers are so obvious there's no excuse for not picking them up on it.
54404. chuck101 at 19:46 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       I just have a further comment on Fake Expertise. This applies equally to real scientists like Carter and Plimer who claim expertise in a field unrelated to their own. Carter, for example, has 50 or so peer reviewed papers to his credit, in Geology (when he obviously didn't have an issue with the peer review process). That however doesn't qualify him to comment on climate science authoritatively. In fact, when he was co-author of a climate related paper in 2009; it failed the review process miserably: http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlighting-bob-carters-selective-science.html It really does seem this is a defining characteristic of climate change deniers
54405. Bert from Eltham at 19:18 PM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       RH, I forgot to say that sea ice forms at about -2C because of the salt content of the water. The majority of the salt actually gets excluded from the ice that does form. The thickness of ice formed is largely dependent on the differential temperature of air and water below. It is very disingenuous to say that the ice is making a recovery when it is thinner and less stable than before. By the way if it was not for this property of water to be densest at 4C all the lakes in cold climates would freeze to the bottom so killing all aquatic life in them. Bert.
54406. chuck101 at 18:56 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       One more characteristic of denial we could add to the list is the claiming of fake expertise. This happens quite a lot in the Denyosphere, eg, Anthony Watts, a Uni dropout and ex TV weather man who claims to be a meteorologist. Over on the sister blog that started all this off: http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065 We have several examples. Firstly, there is an anthropologist who doesn't seem to understand graphs, or at least can't recognise a blatant cherry pick when she sees one. Nor does she seem to be able to distinguish between local and global temperatures. Hard to believe for someone who has (supposedly) been through undergraduate school. Then there is an IT Teacher who claims to have read many research papers and to have found unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion. (I guess he feels repetition makes his argument stronger); thereby implicitly claiming Phd level expertise in climate science. When challenged to give just one example, he could not or would not, give either a reference to a paper or what he found wrong with it. How can you have a discussion, let alone an intelligent discussion with people like these? Then there is a 'climate scientist' who appeared not to know a great deal about climate science and turned out to be a Physics major working at the Antwerp patent office on patents for Plasma screens. (Interesting qualifications for climate science). When challenged on this, here is what he said, I kid you not: 'Depends on your definition of a scientist; I study and analyse data and hypotheses on climate matters, that makes me a climate scientist. Are you one too?' Well mate, my definition of a climate scientist is someone with a Phd in climate science (or some associated discipline), who is actively working in the area. Otherwise you are just a bullshit artist! It is interesting to ponder why people feel the need to claim this false expertise. Maybe it's because, deep down, they know they are talking rubbish, but can't admit it even to themselves. What is even more interesting is that they naively think they will get away with it.
54407. Kevin C at 18:49 PM on 10 September 2012
       New research from last week 36/2012
       And the graph harvest dates show... a [hic] hockey stick.
54408. Dikran Marsupial at 18:46 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Eric wrote "Dikran, my comment in #2 is no different from my first paragraph in #84." My comment obviously related to the second paragraph of your post, not the first, so this is just more evasion. "But I want more detail behind that number and unfortunately do not have time right now to look for" Perhaps you should spend less time posting and more time reading. If you make many posts asking many questions, repeatedly going off on tangents, and not paying much attention to the answers you will learn very little. In science understanding generally requires depth of study. Here is two questions for you to consider - what does it matter what the credible interval on S that would satisfy X% of climatologists, isn't it what the science says that matters? Secondly, why do you think the IPCC credible interval is not representative of nainstream opinion on the plausible range of S?
54409. Bert from Eltham at 18:34 PM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       Dale a very simple model is that open Arctic ocean will very quickly form ice on its surface due to the lack of Sunlight in your northern winter. This insulates the greater part of the oceans water from heat loss to the atmosphere or radiation into space. There will be a gradual accumulation of heat in the Arctic oceans that is due to the radiation imbalance caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere in the summer months. The simple proof is both the loss of volume and extent of arctic ice. Just like your drink cooler if there was not a slow accumulation of heat the ice would never melt! Water has this unique property where it has a maximum density at 4C. This means even ice formed in salt water will float on the water that produced it. RG the very large circumpolar current around Antarctica is warming. If this gets to the stage the water in the Arctic seas are at now we will be in a lot of trouble. Bert
54410. JasonB at 15:45 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       mikeh1,

       To that end, I am bemused by sites like The Conversation which has a large readership and this charter http://theconversation.edu.au/our_charter but also allows the climate science denier trolls free rein. They have some great articles from actual climate scientists which are impossible to have a sensible discussion about because of the organised and intensive trolling.

       I appreciated that commenting on the moderation policy of other sites is OT but I'd just like to say how strongly I agree with the above comment. The Conversation is a great idea, but without moderation to keep comments on topic and maintain some sort of standard the posts quickly get swamped by ignorant and generally incorrect claims, logical fallacies, and eventually personal abuse. Allowing the readership to contribute meaningfully can have benefits, but allowing mindless drivel by a small number of people to derail the "conversation" and use it as a platform for their oft-repeated and debunked opinions only detracts from the site. What makes The Conversation special is the fact that articles are written by experts, not the comments on those articles by the uninformed. There are plenty of venues for them already.
54411. Daniel Bailey at 15:07 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       A point of order here: If Sean Lamb makes any further comments complaining about the moderation he is forcing the moderators to perform on his comments, do not reply to them, as your comment will likely then be excised along with his. This pointless exercise in Lets-Violate-The-Comments-Policy-As-Long-As-Possible is now over. Please now return the discussion to the OP.
       Moderator Response: [DB] NOTE: Sean has chosen to pursue other venues rather than comply with this site's Comments Policy.
54412. JasonB at 14:41 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Sean Lamb,

       On the matter of La Nina and El Nino a simplistic understanding would be that these are just moving heat around the globe and might not necessarily impact on average global temperatures signatures.

       They are "just moving heat around the globe" — specifically, between the ocean portion of the globe and the atmosphere portion of the globe. This is precisely why they do impact on average surface temperature records, which are atmospheric measures. When you compare the relative sizes of their heat capacities, it becomes pretty obvious why, when the ocean sneezes, the atmosphere catches a cold. It's also clear why looking at a short portion of the atmospheric temperature record is a double cherry-pick — it's a too-short portion of a tiny portion of the Earth's total heat content.

       And I would also have thought a 10 year cooling trend against a background of increasing CO2 (assuming it had occurred) would be something Climate Science would hope to have been developed enough to try and comprehend rather than just use the hand-waving term "Natural Variability".

       Of course it has. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) is but one example of what happens to the underlying temperature signal when you remove known exogenous factors like solar activity, ENSO, and volcanic activity. These are considered "noise" or "natural variability" because they do not have a trend and cancel out over longer time frames, so they are completely irrelevant when it comes to discussions about climate. However, over short time periods, they have a significant impact on the trend you calculate from the raw data so if you want to determine the underlying trend over a ten year period you need to remove their effect: When you do, you find that there has been no "slowdown" in the rate of atmospheric temperature increase at all -- the apparent slowdown is caused entirely by the normal decline in solar insolation during that period coupled with the characteristics of ENSO during that period. Climate Science not only explains why you can get ten year periods of negative trends, models demonstrate "many 10 year periods with little warming" due entirely to "natural variability" while still having the inexorably increasing trend due to CO2. As noted by Santer et al, 17 years would be required before you could start calling into question the models: The Skeptical Science trend calculator is a good resource if you want to experiment with statistical significance of various temperature records at different timescales, and, of course, Skeptical Science itself is an excellent resource if you want to pre-empt the inevitable responses to your questions by learning more about the subject before posing them.
54413. Doug Bostrom at 14:35 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Sean: Well the evidence I put forward was the fact that there were signs of human habitation on the northern tip of Greenland, Peary Land, for punctuated intervals. And it logically follows that not just the coast of Antarctica but also Domes A,C and F of Antarctica have all been ice-free within our lifetimes.
54414. John Hartz at 14:27 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       @ Sean Lamb #103 "non-sequiur"??? PS - Pride goeth before the fall.
54415. curiousd at 14:09 PM on 10 September 2012
       Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
       Implications for effective debunking? Clearly the overwhelming evidence and - yes - "consensus" on the reality and threat of AGW is not matched by any such consensus on what to do about AGW. That is reflected in the varied points of view expressed in this thread. Then say one wishes to "undo" a previous talk given by a member of the denial machine by volunteering to give a free talk telling the truth. One is careful not to make too many counter arguments, one emphasizes proper visuals, one follows the general suggestions in "The Debunking Handbook". But at the end of the talk someone is likely to ask "What do you think should be done about AGW?" Clearly, "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer and will result in undoing all the good mind changing that may have happened in your first 50 minutes. I am soon to be retired, and believe I would like to travel around from place to place where first a misinformer has misinformed and present there a free rebuttal, rather like a "Johnny Debunkerseed" . But IMO, one would need a really good answer for "What do you think should be done about AGW?" to be effective in such a role. I would appreciate suggestions.
54416. Philippe Chantreau at 13:53 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Sean Lamb, you are wrong again on logical fallacies. In every day speech, a non sequitur is a statement totally disconnected from the prior exchange, such as the example you give. However, you claim yourself in no ambigous terms that your argument is on logical fallacies, not every day speech. In logical reasoning, non-sequitur is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It takes a variety of forms involving middle, precedent, antecedent, disjunct, conjunct. You should do basic research before making authoritative assertions on a subject like logical reasoning.
54417. YubeDude at 13:34 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       It is the question of communication and the potential for miscommunication be it by accident or with clear intent that is my focus and area of concern. This is the right thread to pose the following. Here is a question for the sake of discussion… Let’s begin by making a few assumptions as foundation. 1. Climate science has “knowns, unknowns, and unknown unknowns.” Rumsfeld’s Wager. Known data metrics are in place for a vast variety of components but there are also metrics that range from vague in there inference to overtly inexact in their inability to generate accurate historical comparisons or show the long range trend, there is an ever changing technology that creates new and more precise ways of measuring which in turn may alter or go so far as to invalidate previous findings, and there are data components that we have not been able to quantify or qualify though we assume that they are playing a role though it is currently undetermined as to how much if at all; these are the unsure/unknowns. Lastly there are the bits that we have not discovered so we can not know what if any input they may have. These are the Quarks of knowing that one day may cross our radar, but until they do… 2. Anthropogenic Climate Tipping (ACT) is real and ongoing, it involves not only atmospheric emissions but includes among others; deforestation and loss of wetlands as insult to the natural carbon sink, chemical pollution that is increasing near shore and fresh water acidification, and drought conditions being exacerbated by an over allocation of available resources. 3. The states of understanding and current technologies are incapable of redirecting let alone “stone-cold” stopping the trajectory of ACT. Other than ceasing particular activities we currently have no ability to repair the damage done or prevent further forcings that may feedback from the inputs to date. 4. Models are the only way of determining the trajectory of ACT and predicting the potential fallout from ACT. All models are only as good as their data inputs, the integrity of the statistical analysis and the structure of the model in relationship to the conclusion offered. So here is the question, if we accept these four points and we acknowledge that the status of climate science offers a preponderance of evidence to support in particular the idea of AGW, why is opinion to the contrary tolerated let alone entertained? Has the democratization of opinion been validated to the point that we tolerate a lay person shouting down an atmospheric chemist when discussing atmospheric chemistry? Why is there no reality “strike force” willing to beat down the cabal of denial and disinformation? In the movie The Social Network the Winklevoss brothers choose at first not to directly confront Zuckerberg because “that is not what Harvard men do.” Part of the problem in communicating the global condition is that the scientist who are developing the data sets and publishing papers whose conclusions indicate a growing problem are not getting in the face of those in the cabal because “that is not what scientist do.” Maybe the science of reality, which is support by overwhelming data and empirical observation, needs to hire a kennel of feral pit-bulls who don’t mind bloody knuckles and are willing to take the cabal’s lies and make a rope with which to slip around the neck of denial. Now it is different when dealing with scientist who either cherry-pick data metrics and purposefully apply inappropriate and unintended observations or who quibble over model predictions as thought an end result observation from a model disqualifies the input metrics completely. Often this is a very skilled sophistry that dances to a tune of plausibility so as to catch the lay-publics ear but uses the unseen footwork of fallacy that the unqualified fail to witness. “Gee, that scientist sure did make sense. He has to be right, he’s a scientist.” This is sadly the hardest battle to fight. Maybe a theoretical physicist will claim that GHG forcing can not exist as it violates TD law, or an engineer will raise an issue over the excessive reliance on models that have in the past posited conclusions that were later found faulting, or a medical doctor will simply states that there is nothing to this, it’s all natural. These three are all highly educated professionals who have a history of working with the scientific method; how is the lay-public to discern the difference between an expert and an Expert. It appears to me to be a question of either a proactive or reactive approach. We can either fiddle as Rome burns and try to react against an onslaught of sophistry and obfuscation whose reason for being is unknown or we can proactively leave the city walls and meet the barbarians on a field of our choosing, a field where we can use the high ground of empirical data and observable metrics to not just fend off but rather to pummel the misinformation and strip bare the face behind the mask. That is what Harvard lawyers do.
54418. Dale at 13:29 PM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       Thanks R Gates. I figured the water cycle would kick in at some point. Though don't low level clouds reflect more sunlight? Do you mean high level clouds? (In the dark period this is basically irrelevant I suppose). End of you day you're right, it's a lot more complicated than I probably made out (though didn't intend). The biggest concern I think is what's been trapped under the ice for so long, will now be able to sneak out.
54419. jyyh at 12:56 PM on 10 September 2012
       It's the sun
       A Granger analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality), an analysis method in economics, has been done on different climate predictors. Result starting from the 1960s, the solar radiation cannot be used as a primary predictor of global temperature: http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/sun-loses-grip-on-earths-temperature-changes/
54420. R. Gates at 12:51 PM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       Dale@52, More open water in the fall months means of course that more heat can leave the ocean, however, there is one more factor to consider in this. Some studies are showing an increase in lower clouds in the Arctic that naturally form when more water vapor is leaving all that ocean water. These lower clouds of course have the effect of increasing DWLWR (downwelling longwave radiation), and thus, it acts as to keep temperatures higher than they might have been with clear skies. Thus, it gets a bit more complicated than just thinking that all that heat is going right out into space as some might think. Overall, what we can probably expect to happen once we get our first ice-free summer in the Arctic, is that sea ice will continue to form during the ensuing winter, but it will of course all be thin first year ice that will quickly melt the next summer and it will melt earlier and earlier in the summer as well. Eventually, the maximum winter extent of even that first year ice will slowly recede until the time might come that some very small amount of first year ice forms (maybe less than 5 million sq. km.) and it will be confined to the Arctic basin and along the north shore of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago. Within most of our lifetimes, the Arctic will be quite open to navigation 12 months a year.
54421. Bob Lacatena at 12:51 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Sean, Your position is: 1) Humans inhabited northern Greenland at time X 2) Therefore temperatures were warmer at time X But #2 does not follow from #1. It is thus a non sequitur.
54422. KR at 12:49 PM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       RH - Faster warming in the Northern hemisphere is primarily due to the ratio of land to ocean differs. Oceans are much larger thermal masses than land and hence warm more slowly. Arctic amplification is higher than Antarctic due primarily to geography: The Arctic is a body of water surrounded by land, mostly covered with a few meters of ice, subject to warmer waters moving in from further south. It's also highly subject to albedo feedback - open water absorbs much more light during the Arctic summer, which provides a positive feedback leading to more open water. The Antarctic, on the other hand, is a land mass surrounded by water, coverd in ice averaging 1.6 km thick, with a roughly circular weather pattern around it that to some extent isolates the Antarctic from warmer northern air. While the Antarctic is warming, and contributing to sea level rise as a result (as per the GRACE data and surface observations), it's a huge thermal mass - and will take longer to warm than the Arctic. --- I'm of the opinion that the much faster than expected warming of the Arctic is (in part) due to poor modeling of sea transport of thinned ice - the thinner ice is far more prone to be simply washed out of the Arctic to warmer waters at lower latitudes. It's my understanding that few of the models accurately represent this change in behavior, and hence predictions from just a few years ago are startlingly incorrect about the current rate of mass loss.
54423. Bob Lacatena at 12:46 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       84, Eric, You are misrepresenting what that 97% number means -- I think willfully. And you and I both know that no one has conducted a study to see what the consensus is on climate sensitivity in particular. You are play games.
54424. R. Gates at 12:40 PM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       MarkUS, The sooner than expected melting of the Arctic (say,if we get an ice free summer before 2020, rather than 2070 as previous models would have it) would have the biggest impact on the rate of slow feed backs, or what Hansen calls "earth system feed backs". Rates of change are interesting and complicated things when it comes to the nonlinear behavior of dynamical systems. Specifically, many natural systems exhibit and entirely different responses and set of feedbacks based purely on rates of change. When systems get overwhelmed by rates of change too fast for one set of feedbacks to kick in, their final new equilibrium point can be affected. No reason to think this might not be the case with the rapid sea ice melt. Thus, I think your question related to this is an excellent one, and certainly given that no one is quite certain what it might mean if the ice is gone sooner than later, we also can't be certain that some other feedback processes might not kick in based on this more rapid melting that otherwise might not have existed if the melting was slower.
54425. michael sweet at 12:02 PM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Sean, I have two questions: 1) If there has been a cooling trend since 2001, why are the two hottest years in the record 2005 and then 2010? It has been shown that La Nina's have dominated most of the past 10 years. This completely explains the lesser heating (not cooling) for the past 10 years. See the Escalator. 2) If there has been cyclic melting in the Arctic for the past 2000 years, why did the 4000 year old ice shelfs that recently melted in Northern Canada not melt in the previous cycles? Please provide links to data that supports your claims.
54426. RH at 11:47 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       Hi, just a general question regarding the melting of the Arctic ice: I'm interested in why the rate of warming in the Northern Hemisphere is faster than the rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Is it due to the following factors: a. The greater proportion of land to water surface in the North. b. The fast-spinning ring of air over the Arctic which affects the jet stream that helps drive the movement of winter storms. c. The localised effect of positive feedbacks such as Arctic amplification. Are these factors correct? Are there any other factors influencing this phenomenon?
54427. Doug Bostrom at 11:47 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Sean, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of a "cyclical disappearance" of Arctic sea ice during the past 2,000 years. Rather than imagine it might have happened, it's probably better to deal with the reality of the present. I'm also puzzling over how and why one is supposed to argue against an imaginary scenario of the kind you mention w/regard to falling temperatures vs. rising C02. Why not stick with something real? Natural variability: La Nina versus El Nino. Not difficult to find examples.
54428. dhogaza at 11:15 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Rather than hair-split over which logical fallacy Sean has actually committed, can we use an informal description of his arguments? Such as ... "baloney".
54429. Doug Bostrom at 10:26 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Yeah vroomie, it's as though nothing happened at all. Waste heat, so to speak. But perhaps it's not a waste. On a hopeful note we can probably trust that some unknown count of readers will notice how these conversations always start at the consensus position, then meander around the consensus only to return neatly and seemingly inexorably back to where they started: the consensus. The people who came up with ~3°/doubling have their reasons. Incessant rotation through those reasons as led by Eric et al. is maybe not such a bad thing, assuming people have the patience to help crank the wheel.
54430. Eric (skeptic) at 10:24 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Dikran, my comment in #2 is no different from my first paragraph in #84. Regarding my 2nd paragraph, looking again at K&H 2008, I see there is a 2-4.5C range for "expert elicitation". That's at least part of the answer to my question to Sphaerica. But I want more detail behind that number and unfortunately do not have time right now to look for it. vrooomie, your request is valid. I don't have a lot of time, but I found a thesis http://orca.cf.ac.uk/24182/1/2012capsticksbphd.pdf which may provide some raw data. I'll look through it when I get some time.
54431. Dale at 10:03 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       DB: Thanks for that. *thumbs up* I have a further question (if that's ok) in regards to the disappearing ice cap. In the Arctic daylight period, more heat will be absorbed by the additional open water. Does this work conversely in the Arctic darkness period where more heat will dissipate from the additional open water? And if so, has anyone looked at the ratio of change and what that could mean? For instance, I mean something like: in the daylight period, +X heat, in the darkness period -Y heat, net result is +/-Z? vrooomie @45: I say this as honest reader feedback and mean no digs, or slights or anything as such. My intent is constructive. SkS's aim is to help Joe Citizen see through the myths of climate science. Correct? The target audience (I can only assume) is the average non-scientific citizen. Using scientific academic tactics on non-scientific citizens may cause more harm. A good chunk of this site is dedicated to the psychology of climate denial and how to deal with it in the average citizen. A good post dealt with ensuring you don't push them further into climate denial. IMO (as I recognised it in me) the attacking prose taken against some of my comments in the past, made me resent the message more. However now that I recognise that I can take a different approach (hence, not arguing, just asking to learn). But you can't rely on most Joe Citizen's to recognise it. Please take that into consideration.
54432. jsmith.chemteach at 10:02 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       I don't mean to be disconcerting, but I had to make a comment about those who think we should NOT rebut the Washington Times op-ed. Whilst, in our circles, I would agree with your stand, unfortunately, Joe Blow on the Street doesn't share our discussion. He gets his information from such an op-ed and he believes it to be factual. The result is he will pull his lever in November for the Romney and set climate science back 10 years because we will have to fight other ignorant people like him in order to get something done positively. We have to be careful about who we respond to, I agree, but we also have to be careful about what our silence says to the general public. They read and listen to this stuff and it influences their decisions. When crackpots get a newspaper to print their stuff, we should be ready to demand their sources, raw data, etc. and to counter with more reliable findings. I know we shouldn't have to, but the unfortunate truth is that if we don't, the public will try to ask Santa what he thinks of the loss of Arctic Ice. We can't let it come to that. Too much is at stake.
54433. Dikran Marsupial at 09:58 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Eric wrote My question for you is what is the quantitative consensus of climate scientists on sensitivity? IOW, what range of S would 90% or 95% or 97% agree on? I think you will find that most climate scientists would probably tell you "the range published in the IPCC report, of course". There is a good reason for this, which is that most competent scientists avoid cherry picking and will look at the spectrum of results obtained in different ways. They may have their own views on which vlue they think is most likely, but there would be more agreement on the spread as scientists tend to be open about uncertainty. Now I suspect that your question was just trolling to spin out the discussion, given that other than the IPCC report (which was written as a summary of the mainstream position) none of us are going to be able to give an informative answer as I doubt any of us have performed a survey of climatologists. If you really want the definitive answer to this, then I suggest you perform the survey yourself.
54434. william5331 at 09:58 AM on 10 September 2012
       Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
       We seen to keep getting surprised by events as they unfold. The sudden melts both of Greenland and of the sea ice in 2012 are such events and arguably are the first flicker of the first long awaited tipping point. I wonder if the Greenland ice melt could be the next surprise. With the Arctic ocean likely to be more open earlier and earlier and hence collect much more heat, storms more severe than the one of Aug6,2012, which reached 964mb are likely. Such storms will be throwing more and more energy into the upper atmosphere. As soon as the upper atmosphere over Greenland is warmer than the Greenland ice, we will have strong katabatic winds as the air is cooled. Of course the air is cooled by melting the ice. The dry lapse rate which is applicable to falling air regardless of its moisture content is 9.8 degrees per thousand meters or 29.4 degrees from the peak of Greenland down to sea level. If the air didn't cool any more on its way down slope, it would reach the sea at this temperature. Of course it will be cooled by melting more ice on the way down. Descending air is going away from its dew point so we will probably have open skies above Greenland during this process, allowing more radiation to be absorbed by the cryoconite on the ice.
54435. Lloyd Flack at 09:58 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Meanwhile over at DeSmogBlog on a thread on this topic there has been a visitation by a full blown beiever in most conspiacy theries, moonlanding hoax, 9/11 inside job, etc., etc.. For your amusement. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/05/research-links-climate-science-denial-conspiracy-theories-skeptics-smell-conspiracy
54436. vrooomie at 09:49 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Eric@84: " I believe a majority of skeptics would also answer yes. But there are lot who say no, especially when the word "significant" is used in the question." Fair enough: Could you provide a list, from some credible journal(s) supporting your opinion?
54437. vrooomie at 09:47 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Doug@85, I clicked your link and it's.... it's.... Groundhog Day!
54438. villabolo at 09:28 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       This long term resident of the Arctic should be able to answer our nagging questions about the Arctic. He looks like an expert to me.
54439. R. Gates at 09:21 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       It is interesting to see the models continue to attempt to do what they are not designed to do-- predict the status of a rapidly changing chaotic and dynamic system with multiple interrelated feedbacks. Given that everything we have learned over the past few years such as that PIOMAS is likely pretty correct and that the ice is much thinner than any model has taken into account, I must say that I side with both Wadhams and Maslowski, who are taking a wide approach in trying to incorporate both the feedbacks and accelerating decline. A summer ice free Arctic(or virtually so with sea ice less than 1 million sq. km) certainly before 2020. There may be bits of older MYI clinging to the north side of Greenland or the Canadian Archipelago, but the notion that we wouldn't see an ice free Arctic until 2030, 2040, or even 2070 is simply now quite unbelievable.
54440. Doug Bostrom at 08:57 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       And so the great wheel of futile discussion completes another revolution. Nicely played, Eric.
54441. Eric (skeptic) at 08:45 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Sphaerica, the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" elicits 97.5% "yes" response from climate scientists (See /global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) I believe a majority of skeptics would also answer yes. But there are lot who say no, especially when the word "significant" is used in the question. My question for you is what is the quantitative consensus of climate scientists on sensitivity? IOW, what range of S would 90% or 95% or 97% agree on?
54442. Eric (skeptic) at 08:31 AM on 10 September 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Michael, I had to work today and appreciate your patience. Here's an JGR article for which I only have an abstract: Estimating the global radiative impact of the sea ice–albedo feedback in the Arctic which puts the albedo affect of sea ice loss at approx. 0.1W/m2. From the bottom of this page http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ we can see that's the same forcing as about 3 years worth of manmade GHG. That's only ice, they don't have numbers for loss of permanent snow. The total realistic forcing from ice loss from the abstract above is 0.3W/m2. The total forcing from albedo from ice loss during the G to IG transition is 3.5 W/m2 or 10 times as much (see my link in #110 above). Put another way, as Milankovitch forcing (?? W/m2) triggered the 6C G to IG change, it was supplemented by 3W/m2 positive feedback from all CHG (same link) and 3.5W/m2 positive feedback from ice albedo. This time with MM doubling of CO2 we will get 4W/m2 of forcing with just 0.3W/m2 ice loss albedo. However there are other potential positive feedbacks like extra methane release which were a relatively minor part of the G to IG transition. Those will increase S. But S estimated from paleo data alone is quite low because the amplification by albedo (never mind dust) is a lot less now than during G to IG (leftmost red squares in KH08 fig 3b). IOW, there is no serious global amplifying affect from Arctic sea ice loss and a corresponding lower sensitivity to primary forcings unless one considers new sources of positive feedback.
54443. Daniel Bailey at 08:24 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       Further to Sphaerica's point, the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 achieved in the last 400,000+ years (prior to today's manmade rise) was 297.8 ppmv. We are very, very far into overshoot already. Were it even achievable, the instantaneous cessation of all GHG emissions by mankind, even if held to zero for the next century, might prove insufficient to keep the system from undergoing phase changes due to tipping points already committed to being passed.
54444. Bob Lacatena at 08:02 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       22, Mark-US. I disagree. I don't think any particular projection, or the accuracy of any projection is relevant, because no matter what happens, we don't even know at what temperature it's going to be painful. For all we know, if we were able to stop emissions dead today and just live with all of the heating in the pipeline, it may still be too much. In fact, we may find over time that even without more warming in the pipeline, what we have now is too much. So who really cares if AR17's Senario SXb83 projection is 3.76˚C by 2057,or whatever? What matters is how bad the damage is to our environment, and this past year's events demonstrate that we have already played this game for far, far too long. I would argue that looking for better accuracy in such projections (as has been Eric's bent on this recent thread) is just another red-herring, another denial method of avoiding what needs to be done.
54445. Bob Loblaw at 07:56 AM on 10 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Igeoffchambers@147: "After at first being told that John Cook was too busy to answer my questions" Now that is a distortion of what was said. Early in the comments, someone else had asked what the best way to contact John Cook would be, and a couple of people (neither named John Cook, and neither being people that could be interpreted as speaking directly on his behalf) had the following comments: "curiousd, John Cook like most of the contributors to SkS is very busy, and not paid for his contributions to SkS, nor for hosting it. I am sure that he attempts to read the comments on a regular basis, so that commenting here or on the SkS facebook page are probably among the most reliable ways to contact him. There is, however, no guarantee. For what it is worth, I have drawn attention to the fact that you are trying to contact him on another forum I know he frequents. There is no guarantee that he'll read that, either, and even if he does he may well be too busy in any event. " [my emphasis] "If you want to know how John Cook interacted with Stephan Lewandowsky on his survey, you best send a querry to John via email. He's a very busy person and no longer has time to read all of the comments posted on SkS. " By your own admission in comment #147,before you could send him an email he did in fact email you. To try to pretend that anyone implied that you would not get a response, as you seem to have done here, would not be discussing in good faith. If you worded that poorly, and did not mean to imply this, then an apology would be a good step to restore some faith. Alternatively, if there is another comment in this thread that you think can be interpreted in such a fashion, feel free to point to it. (Note that I have already looked for all occurrences of the word "Cook", and "busy", and checked to see if any of the moderators comments suggest that something has been snipped.)
54446. Paul D at 07:41 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       "What climate impact will a summer ice-free Arctic bring to the World?" In the UK, possibly very wet summers and higher food prices if this year is anything to go by.
54447. vrooomie at 07:02 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       "After my drubbing on ozone there's no point to arguing, just learning." Dale, as a working scientist, I have to respond two ways.. 1) Wah. Science is a *blood sport,* pal, and I *garontee* ya, it get way more brutal than ~anything~ you've had as any "drubbing" you've gotten here. Though true scientists don't often get too caught up in the ad homs, D-K, or confirmation biases traps, we most *assuredly* will rip at another's _work_ like piranhas on a cow crossing the stream...that's just how it works, and it works quite well. To be a scientist, you need a *really* thick skin, and the ability to not take it personally. You've made some--actually, a lot of--classical denier/fake skeptic arguments and if you've read along in this blog for any substantive time (or any credible, "real" science-based blog), you should expect to be called onto the data carpet for them. It's just how it's done, and that leads me to... 2) Having my interpretive head handed to me, on more occasions that I care to admit, *were* the pivotal "learning" moments for me. Keep learning, be willing to admit that maybe, just ~maybe~, the couple thousand climate scientists who live, eat, breathe, sleep, fart, sweat, and argue this for their livings, might just know a few more things about your many-times-debunked stands, and/or have already asked/been asked the same questions, posed the same deniers' arguments, and give them that they likely recognize when goal posts have been shifted. I ain't been around the world, Dale, but I've been around the block, and I'll go out on a limb and say, even the most aggressive here, who 'slice-n-dice' your, and other's, arguments against the known state of the science, most likely just want learning to occur, maybe even more so to those who really are fake skeptics, but might jsut reach a 'tipping point, if I may use the term, into being true skeptics. After all, that is what a true scientist is, and is why they can spot a fake one at a country mile. Ask questions, by all means but if, within that question you assert some D-K claptrap, or an oft-repeated, oft-debunked denier's stand, expect to be drubbed...then move on to the next step in learning. To paraphrase a funny saying: the drubbings will continue until morale improves..;)
       Moderator Response: [DB] To be fair, Dale's question was phrased innocuously and seems genuine; he should be accorded the benefit of the doubt when he does so. If that innocuousness ceases and other things emerge, we should deal with it at that point. We are here to help others learn; this includes all parties who should wish to do so.
54448. Doug Bostrom at 06:54 AM on 10 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       That's right, Geoff, you have wide latitude to create your own reputation, establish the worth readers will attach to your comments. You claim you understand social science but your ability to describe let alone support your misgivings about Lewandowsky's work belies your confidence. That's a problem you can repair but doing so will require a lot of effort, as you'll see if you follow my tip to obtain a research methods syllabus for a PhD social science program. The fellow who runs Science of Doom is exemplary in terms of showing the potential of autodidactic learning. I wonder if there's a site similar to SoD that's devoted to cognitive psychology as opposed to geophysics?
54449. Bob Lacatena at 06:30 AM on 10 September 2012
       A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
       Just for the record, Eric's initial premise in his opening comment on this thread was:

       Briefly, a large majority of skeptics agree with the 97% of climate scientists on AGW.

       This comment thread has all by itself proven that premise to be 100%, categorically false.
54450. Dale at 06:29 AM on 10 September 2012
       Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
       Thanks to those who answered my question. No thanks to 33 & 34. Can't a guy just ask a question to learn? After my drubbing on ozone there's no point to arguing, just learning.
       Moderator Response: [DB] A fair point; point taken. I have issued some guidance to all parties in the response to the comment after this one. This is a place of learning for all who should wish to do so. Everyone please comport yourselves accordingly. Thanks in advance.

Prev  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  Next