Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 Next
Comments 90501 to 90550:
-
dana1981 at 07:50 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
shawnhet #61, I'll simply refer you to dhogaza #60. I don't agree with statements like "real thermometers produce very different values than trees". That's an inaccurate generalization. We've previously discussed the 'divergence problem' elsewhere. -
Chris G at 07:45 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Mmm, a little more reading and a little less writing may be in order, some of my questions answered here under Decline in Arctic Sea Ice Thickness and Decline Causes. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:43 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
14, ClimateWatcher,...but there is no plausible prediction or causal link to identify why for any particular regime, the gyre would dominate, the drift would dominate, or the two would be in relative balance.
But none of that mattered when the ice was relatively solid and well packed throughout the Arctic, which had been the case for the past several thousand years. It's only been in the past decade that the sea ice concentrations have diminished to the point where circulation patterns can have an effect, and exacerbate the warming by shifting ice fragments towards warmer latitudes. It's not that the patterns have shifted. It's that the patterns never even mattered before. -
dana1981 at 07:42 AM on 30 March 2011The Day After McLean
Yeah Gareth, you beat me to the punch on this one! -
shawnhet at 07:41 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Couple of quick points here: First off, I agree that everyone should police themselves, but clearly a more popular piece of research should be better policed than less popular piece (OTW what is the benefit of a consensus?). You cannot argue that we should put more faith in a consensus viewpoint than a skeptical one if you don't feel a consensus viewpoint should also receive more critical attention. dana:"I presume you were trying to say that no reasonable person can think tree rings are a valid temperature proxy. To which I would respond that just because you feel that way, doesn't mean that every reasonable person should feel that way. There's an entire research field devoted to dedrochronology, and there's strong evidence that in most cases, tree rings are a good temperature proxy." Just a reality check here: if they were, in fact, a good proxy we would not be having these sorts of discussions at all. Dendrochronology is good science, it is dendroclimatology that is suspect. We can be pretty sure that they don't work now(real thermometers produce very different values than trees) and we can be pretty sure that they didn't work well a long time ago. If a temperature sensor can return the same value today as it did 150 years ago when it was ~1C cooler, how do we know what the temperature was 150 years ago? Not by using trees, that's for sure. Cheers, :) -
Gareth at 07:34 AM on 30 March 2011The Day After McLean
Perhaps I could claim a little "prior art"? ;-) -
Chris G at 07:29 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
I've no disagreement with most of the points in the post, except this one is giving me pause: "In plain terms, the 2011 melt season will soon continue more or less where the 2010 melt season left off." I have no question that the thickness of the ice has dropped a lot in the past decade, but it isn't clear to me that 2010 was terribly exceptional in that respect, and I don't see how the extent can be expected to go from where it is now to August 2010 levels within a few weeks. I have been under the impression that Greenland's NE coast is an outflow region; so, I expect ice there to be highly variable. I don't know that it makes the best case for representing the ice pack as a whole. Or, is the point that the region shown is already showing signs of break-up where in years past this has come much later in the season? CW, Thanks for the reasoned response. I think we are mainly in disagreement about cause versus effect, and with feedbacks in play, it can be difficult to distinguish the one from the other. While it is not clear to me that it is possible to predict gyre or drift domination, it should be clear that things are changing. There exist broad patterns of circulation, like Hadley Cells, that can be predicted to change. That wasn't always the case. Just because we may not now fully understand how or why thermodynamic changes that result from an increase in GHGs should result in arctic circulation pattern changes should not be taken to mean that there is no relationship. On the other hand, I don't know that the wind patterns are changing. It could be merely that the thinner ice is more susceptible to wind movement and that the wind itself hasn't changed. That would be an interesting research article: Have the arctic weather patterns changed with respect to their propensity to export ice, over say, the last 50 years? -
dhogaza at 07:13 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
dana1981:There's an entire research field devoted to dedrochronology, and there's strong evidence that in most cases, tree rings are a good temperature proxy.
Not quite. In *some* cases, tree ring are a good temperature proxy, much of the research goes into trying to figure out which stands are, and which stands are not, primarily limited in summer growth by temperature as opposed to other environmental factors. Shawnet: if trees near their latitudinal or altitudinal limits aren't good temperature proxies in many cases, you wouldn't find such broad correlation with the dendro series and other proxies and much of the instrumental record. And, if you're right, you'll have to throw out much of what's known about the physiology of plant growth, not just climate science. Ain't likely, dude. -
Albatross at 07:12 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Daniel @57, Thanks-- you are too kind. You asked "Where are the real skeptics in all this, I ask?"-- sitting at their desks day and night and weekends and holidays working on trying to satisfy their incredible (and passionate) endeavor to improve the understanding of the climate system and advancing the science. And note too--the real skeptics are not sitting in front of a computer in Toronto somewhere typing up innuendo, and engaging in dog-whistle politics and FUD on an internet blog, while simultaneously aiding the anti-science campaign of Inhofe and Morano. -
Albatross at 06:59 AM on 30 March 2011The Day After McLean
Nice sleuthing Wingding. It seems a con a blog post documenting the numerous bust forecasts made by "skeptics" is in order.... -
wingding at 06:56 AM on 30 March 2011The Day After McLean
Even better another later Archibald paper that appeared in E&E introduces with: "detailed work on the 20th century temperature record in relation to solar cycle length was undertaken by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991). This original paper was subsequently amended, and their observation of a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature remains valid" Subsequently amended? He must be referring to C&L 1999 right? If so this is the abstract, I don't see Archibald even mention the key point: "It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11- year solar cycle. Adding new temperature data for the 1990’s and expected values for the next sunspot extrema we test whether the solar cycle length model is still adequate. We find that the residuals are now inconsistent with the pure solar model. We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature." Archibald 2009 also makes another prediction: "The monthly neutron count is now higher than it has been at any time for the last fifty years. If the month of solar minimum proves to be July 2009, peak neutron count may not be until mid-2010. On this basis, and according to Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s hypothesis, peak cloudiness, and therefore peak rate of cooling, will be reached in mid-2010." None of this happened. -
ClimateWatcher at 06:51 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
#10. "Also, sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared." Emission spectra of black bodies is given by Planck's Law. Granted, neither is a perfect black body, but this is the first I have heard that they are categorically different in that respect. Are you confusing emission with reflectance? You are correct. That statement is in error. Ice and water are both efficient emitters: http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1.htm -
ClimateWatcher at 06:43 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
#10. Chris Circulation patterns are driven by patterns of energy imbalances. Without a change in the thermodynamics of the system, there would be no cause for the circulation patterns to change. There are to major circulations that govern Arctic sea ice - the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift:
Clearly when the Transpolar Drift dominates the gyre, sea ice is lost to lower latitudes and the multi-year ice declines, which makes the ice more prone to melt in summer.
When the gyre dominates, ice is not lost, but rather spins and accumulates in place, leading to the build up of multi-year ice.
It is certainly true that thermodynamics drive circulation, but there is no plausible prediction or causal link to identify why for any particular regime, the gyre would dominate, the drift would dominate, or the two would be in relative balance.
Different wave patterns arise in the atmosphere from one year to the next, even though the energy imbalances are quite similar. There are multiple wave states for the same initial condition.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed image width (too wide). -
wingding at 06:39 AM on 30 March 2011The Day After McLean
massive error! I meant to say: Perhaps McLean is using a similar "trick" as Archibald NOT Perhaps McLean is using a similar "trick" as Friss-Christensen -
wingding at 06:37 AM on 30 March 2011The Day After McLean
I found a good overview of the problems in Archibald 2006 (Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response) here: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html It turns out Archibald doesn't use global temperature records, but uses a handful of stations with no obvious reason why they were picked. Eg from the paper: "To provide a baseline for projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar cycle 25 in 2024, data from five, rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to 2003 was averaged and smoothed" Huh? how did this pass peer review of any kind? And it's not like he's actually trying to predict regional temperatures in the US because he goes on to compare those 5 stations in the continental US with the global satellite record: "The flat profile of the last 20 year period is corroborated by the satellite data over that period, which shows only a very weak rise in the temperature of the lower troposphere." This was published in Energy and Environment by the way. Next time some skeptic tries to sweet talk you into thinking E&E isn't just full of fluff, this paper is a great example otherwise. The paper also cites Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991, but makes absolutely no citation of Friis-Chistensen and Lassen 1999 which pretty much demolishes the earlier paper. Perhaps McLean is using a similar "trick" as Friss-Christensen and is not using a global temperature record when he states "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier". Is he referring to the US record perhaps? -
Alec Cowan at 06:35 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
A very informative article. I don't know if this has been said but the bottom of the graph taken from PIOMAS means a situation of no-ice in September. I'm saying this because many people posting comments -some of them in this website- had claimed about the Y-axis scale in that graph distorted in order to "dramatize" the situation. On the other hand and abusing of the profusion of data, I'd like to ask the author and the participants about data involving CO2 transportation to deep ocean waters as an important byproduct of sea ice. I mean, by new year ice formation in the Arctic amounts to some 2,000,000 m3 per second -that is about the double of all the rivers in the planet together-; that means at least 1GTon/sec of brine rich in CO2 going down and sweeping more sea water to finally reach the bottom of the ocean (that's why we have some 70% of sea water below 4°C in spite the temperature of the atmosphere and the Earth's crust is higher). I'm asking this because we have seen and see here a persistent reduction in the Arctic's ice pack, but the mass of ice formed and melted every year has remained almost unchanged -I think-. I'm interested in what is going to happen when we see a week ice-free Arctic, then a month, then a season, because the provision of chill waters will slow down and that is going to have vast consequences in the long run. Thank you in advance for any information on this subject. -
dana1981 at 06:32 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
shawnhet #56:"Again, any reasonable person should've known that trees were not good temperature proxies a long time ago."
Repeating a false statement does not make it any less untrue. A fact which "skeptics" never seem to learn! -
Daniel Bailey at 06:17 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
@ Albatross (51) "I find this statement incredibly ironic, hypocritical even, especially on a thread demonstrating very clearly yet another example (out of dozens) of a "skeptic" not being "policed" and spouting nonsense. And yet again his diatribe gets free pass by the "skeptics"." Well-said, sir. Like a sleeping bear being poked & prodded I finally have had enough of "skeptics" being given a free pass by other "skeptics" to post a rant-ish comment on the subject only to find that I'd been scooped by you. Well-done. Over the course of the past 3 years, I can recall just one instance of one of our semi-resident "skeptics" taking another "skeptic" to task for inaccuracy. The wounded "skeptic" then responded with hurt indignation at taking a broadside from a perceived member of the "same side". A "Skeptic Code" violation, if you will. Where are the real skeptics in all this, I ask? Sailing darkly through a silent sea to a far and distant shore, perhaps? /Rant The Yooper -
shawnhet at 06:16 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
CBDunkerson:"Given that they do go to great pains to point out flaws and limitations I'm sorry but that is just untrue. Climate science has extensive self-checking and policing. You'll note that even 'skeptics' like Lindzen and Spencer are taken seriously and studied even after they have been found to have shown clear biases and false statements... because they are at least doing actual research and presenting actual theories which can be checked and evaluated as part of the ongoing process. After those there are large numbers of actual skeptics (no 'square quotes') who continually challenge various parameters and findings of the science. Thus we get different views on, for instance, how much mass loss Greenland is experiencing and further study is performed to figure out who is right." Frankly, the behavior of the folks involved answers this question much more effectively than any claims either you or I can make. Again, any reasonable person should've known that trees were not good temperature proxies a long time ago. The fact that many high profile papers were published and made fairly central parts of the mainstream climate picture on such a shaky foundation and that no one except outsiders were making noises about this sort of thing is prima facie evidence of a culture that is poor at policing itself. Cheers, :) -
Albatross at 06:07 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
CBDunkerson, I think that you have the makings of a blog post :) I am actually quite serious. Your post at @53 raises too many valid issues to repeat here. The one that stuck in my mind is the incoherence and contradictory nature of the arguments put forth by the "skeptics"-- what a confusing mess. But that is perhaps what it is mean to be in order to practice FUD? Again, as you noted, their main cause seems to be an appeal to emotion rather than science. And ultimately their approach is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-intellectualism. What I find particularly tragic is when people who should know better, like Muller, embracing this ideology. -
dana1981 at 06:02 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
shawnhet #49:I don't think that a reasonable person can look at the use of trees as temperature proxies and conclude that they are very poor proxies that should not be used in reconstructions.
I presume you were trying to say that no reasonable person can think tree rings are a valid temperature proxy. To which I would respond that just because you feel that way, doesn't mean that every reasonable person should feel that way. There's an entire research field devoted to dedrochronology, and there's strong evidence that in most cases, tree rings are a good temperature proxy."consensus does not have a vigorous self-policing function."
I discussed a good example of "self-policing" when Lindzen and the FEU made the same errors. The "consensus" side jumped all over the FEU and made sure the errors were made known to the public and corrected. I still have yet to see a single "skeptic" correct Lindzen's errors. Instead they have been propagated by various "skeptic" blogs. I think it's quite clear which "side" lacks self-policing. -
CBDunkerson at 05:59 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Albatross raises a very good point... the quality of 'self policing' on the 'skeptic' side of the debate can be seen in the countless radically different, and often mutually exclusive, arguments put forward. Think about the 'intellectual integrity' of a group which simultaneously embraces those who claim 'it is not warming', 'the warming is a natural cycle', 'the warming is human caused but will be very mild', 'humans cannot cause warming', 'carbon dioxide cannot cause warming', and hundreds of other inconsistent arguments. By any rational basis the 'skeptics' should be broken into hundreds of warring camps as opposed to each others' ideas as they are to anthropogenic global warming. Yet that is not the case. They remain a unified group... because intellectual integrity plays no part whatsoever in this 'movement'. It is entirely an emotional opposition, and thus any pretense for disbelieving 'the enemy' is uncritically accepted. The consensus side agree on far more than they disagree. So while Wu and Jiang may have different estimates of Greenland ice loss both are pursuing actual science and further study is performed and we continue to get a more and more focused picture... instead of the more and more chaotic mish-mash of inconsistencies generated by the 'skeptics'. In a sense the 'skeptics' have developed a kind of 'anti-science'... the more effort devoted to studying the matter the less clear it becomes. -
muoncounter at 05:51 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
shawnhet#49: "even though said consensus does not have a vigorous self-policing function." It's far more likely that the deniersphere does not self-police; from blatant cherry-picks to flat out repetition of debunked arguments, you almost never see one 'skeptic' calling out another. We've seen that here a number of times; there are threads where one 'skeptic' makes an outrageous statement -- especially one that's often been said before -- and all the other 'skeptics' disappear from sight. -
Albatross at 05:46 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shawnhet @49, "Many supporters of the mainstream position want to have it both ways - essentially saying that one should accept the consensus position even though said consensus does not have a vigorous self-policing function." I find this statement incredibly ironic, hypocritical even, especially on a thread demonstrating very clearly yet another example (out of dozens) of a "skeptic" not being "policed" and spouting nonsense. And yet again his diatribe gets free pass by the "skeptics". "Skeptics" are very clearly cannot police themselves, never mind lecturing others on what they perceive to be right or wrong. It is this systematic poor behaviour, this systematic lack of quality control, this perpetual campaign of misinformation that results in those in denial of AGW (and those who claim to be "skeptics") having very serious credibility issues. It is also why they are largely ignored, except perhaps on some partisan internet blogs and by some naive and misguided journalists who do not have time nor the inclination to get their facts right. -
CBDunkerson at 05:38 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
shawnhet: "it speaks to the credibility of the climate science community." Precisely the sort of thing I was talking about. The supposed actions of two or three people speak to the credibility of thousands of researchers all over the planet? Calls into question science stretching back about two hundred years? That isn't logical. The only basis for such a claim is emotional... 'if we can paint one of them as wrong then the whole thing must be a fraud'. "The issue for the non-climate science community is why do we need to rely on outsiders to find this sort of stuff?" Because people who would lie and misrepresent Jone's e-mail in the way that Muller has are inherently going to be 'outsiders'? "An effective scientific community would go to great pains to make sure that EVERY time this work is discussed that the flaws with it are also pointed out. Clearly, this has been a major failure on the part of the mainstream climate community." Given that they do go to great pains to point out flaws and limitations I'm sorry but that is just untrue. Climate science has extensive self-checking and policing. You'll note that even 'skeptics' like Lindzen and Spencer are taken seriously and studied even after they have been found to have shown clear biases and false statements... because they are at least doing actual research and presenting actual theories which can be checked and evaluated as part of the ongoing process. After those there are large numbers of actual skeptics (no 'square quotes') who continually challenge various parameters and findings of the science. Thus we get different views on, for instance, how much mass loss Greenland is experiencing and further study is performed to figure out who is right. This claim that 'climate scientists are all in lockstep and do not check each other' is just another flat out deception that the 'skeptics' spread. There are constant disputes and re-evaluations going on in climate science... on the matters which haven't been settled by overwhelming evidence. The problem for the 'skeptics' is those areas of remaining doubt are vastly smaller than they would like to pretend. -
shawnhet at 05:17 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
CBDunkerson, even granting arguendo that you are correct the reason this is still a big deal is that it speaks to the credibility of the climate science community. I don't think that a reasonable person can look at the use of trees as temperature proxies and conclude that they are very poor proxies that should not be used in reconstructions. The issue for the non-climate science community is why do we need to rely on outsiders to find this sort of stuff? An effective scientific community would go to great pains to make sure that EVERY time this work is discussed that the flaws with it are also pointed out. Clearly, this has been a major failure on the part of the mainstream climate community. Many supporters of the mainstream position want to have it both ways - essentially saying that one should accept the consensus position even though said consensus does not have a vigorous self-policing function. Cheers, :) -
Daniel Bailey at 05:16 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
CW also ignores that the Arctic Polar ice cap of the 21st century is much thinner, friable and decrepit that of the 20th Century. Why? Arctic amplification of global warming. A cap that in winter was essentially a monolithic bloc 8-10 meters thick is down to about 2 meters thick. What was once 40% or more multiyear (MY) ice is down to perhaps 5% MY ice. The cap of yore was very resistant to advection during winter. Not that of today. Winter was once the time the cap recharged its volume to endure and withstand the summer onslaught of sun/insolation. As evidenced by the lack of winter recovery of the cap in the OP graph above, this summer melt season will be...interesting. In the Chinese curse sense of interesting. The Yooper -
Albatross at 05:01 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
We have to be careful about making dichotomous statements about what drives Arctic sea ice area and volume. The climate system is a continuum and a myriad of intertwined factors/processes modulate its behaviour. So for someone to state with authority that increased GHGs have nothing to do with Arctic sea ice coverage when we the science and data show that CO2 is a major control knob of the climate system, is simply not true. So let us please ignore the myth floated @1 on this thread. ChrisG @6 is right, the Arctic is the canary in the coal mine and we ignore its warnings at the peril of future generations. -
Chris G at 04:52 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
ClimateWatcher, What is your point? Or, what are you talking about? "There is much less tendency to blame temperature on Arctic Sea ice change." Circulation patterns are driven by patterns of energy imbalances. Without a change in the thermodynamics of the system, there would be no cause for the circulation patterns to change. "Also, sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared." Emission spectra of black bodies is given by Planck's Law. Granted, neither is a perfect black body, but this is the first I have heard that they are categorically different in that respect. Are you confusing emission with reflectance? -
CBDunkerson at 04:51 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
CW#7: On what grounds do you proclaim that global warming is not a factor in ice export/advection? I'd think there is a direct correlation; 1: Warming melts ice (as you have conceded) 2: Melting ice increases the likelihood that ice bridges/jams break up... allowing advection through more channels. 3: Melting ice means less ice for currents to propel... resulting in less energy being used to move the ice and thus faster currents / advection. Basically, you are arguing that the Arctic sea ice loss is caused by advection rather than global warming... as if global warming weren't directly responsible for the increased advection. -
muoncounter at 04:34 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
CW#7: "sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared." That's part of the problem. Decreasing summer ice extent means increasing areas of open water. This was addressed in detail on the Flanner threads. -
dana1981 at 04:30 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Dennis #29 - we're looking into McIntyre's claims and may do a blog post on the subject. It's a complicated issue, and unlike certain other blogs, we prefer to get the facts straight before posting about them. -
muoncounter at 04:23 AM on 30 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles#119: "what is classic is your continuous misreading ..." Beg to differ; I have not misread you at all; you've set a pattern of saying X and claiming you said Y when you are called on it. "My question was : why does the IEA think oil is "needed"" That was exactly what I addressed in #118, in particular where I demonstrated that your interpretation of the purpose of this graphic is utterly incorrect. Where do you obtain the idea that IEA thinks this scenario means that 'oil is needed'? It is merely a projection of what is likely to occur given the meager commitments made to reduce CO2 emissions. Interestingly, you've managed to steer the discussion away from what should be the main point: Given this likely scenario, we are headed for 650ppm! Maybe that is your real intention in being so persistent here. "on which basis can IEA produce such a graph ?" Easily. There are known production rates which are not going to accelerate radically in the near term. There is a finding rate based on historic industry performance, which can be used to forecast future production. Unless you believe the last barrel of oil has already been located, that is likely to continue in the near term. How do you think any industry makes projections for long term investment? It takes years to get a new product to market; it takes years to get newly discovered oil to market. Industry must make projections of future demand to justify investment. You seem to believe that a scenario must either be absolutely true or else its worthless. This opinion is unfounded, yet all too common; indeed, the same ideas were stated by another commenter on a thread regarding computer modeling. Such statements indicate a profound lack of understanding. If you disagree with the results of a scenario or a projection, state your objection and back it up with specifics. Taking the attitude that 'all projections are subject to error and therefore worthless' is the lazy way out; you won't get away with it here. -
ClimateWatcher at 04:21 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
#3. Isn't Arctic amplification a predicted result of an enhanced greenhouse effect? Perhaps, but advection is not. Clearly this:
has everything to do with advection.
There is a tendency to blame Arctic Sea ice change on temperature.
There is much less tendency to blame temperature on Arctic Sea ice change.
But there are a couple of reasons to do so.
Sea ice insulates the air from the warmer water below, allowing temperatures to decrease further and thinner ice insulates less well.
Also, sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared.
Surely it takes heat to melt ice. But cause and effect are intertwined and dynamics are at work as well as thermodynamics.
-
Chris G at 04:20 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
In some respects, the Arctic is like a canary in a coal mine. The fact that the canary dies itself has relatively little effect on people. By itself, it is merely an indication that something is happening. But maybe that is not a good analogy because the canary has no impact on the gas content of the mine, but replacing ice with water changes the albedo from 90% reflected to 90% absorbed. So maybe a better analogy to the current situation is watching a canary become ill at the same time that the noise from the air circulation system is faltering. -
Albatross at 04:11 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
CBDunkerson @46, A great synthesis of a sad situation. Appeal to emotion is what Muller is trying to do here. -
NewYorkJ at 04:10 AM on 30 March 2011The Day After McLean
"David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration and climate science. After graduating in science at Queensland University in 1979, Mr Archibald worked in oil exploration in Sydney and then joined the financial industry as a stock analyst. Mr Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia. He has published a number of papers on the solar influence on climate, and is a director of the Lavoisier Society (Lavoisier Group), a group of Australians promoting rational science in public policy." Australian Climate Science Coalition Google Scholar reveals those "papers" are mainly E&E and non-peer-reviewed stuff. Here's one: Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response "Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum." Have fun with that one. Would be fun to see this plot on Dana's graph (the vertical axis would need to be nearly doubled for it to fit), perhaps in a different post that examines Archibald's past predictive powers. I'm trying to figure out where Archibald gets his Dalton Minimum info from. On Wikipedia, the DM page has a similar statement that references "Archibald says" with no link. Pretty sloppy page overall. Dalton Minimum -
dana1981 at 04:09 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Peter #2 - sorry about that, I think I've fixed the links now. Thanks for pointing that out. -
CBDunkerson at 03:57 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
The problem with this sort of analysis is that it doesn't really matter to most 'skeptics'. Think about it. Let's pretend for the moment that Muller's claim of Mann having used a 'trick to hide the decline' were completely true in all its nefarious implications. Applying logic we would then conclude that this was evidence that Mann was not to be trusted and we should question his work... but in doing so we would then examine other results and discover that every paleo-temperature reconstruction done since, even those by 'skeptics' who denounce him venomously, validates the original 'hockey stick' results. Ergo, a >logical< approach would lead us to the conclusion that even if Mann was a complete fraud it would have no impact on global warming science, because all available studies confirm Mann's results. Yet skeptics will insist both that Mann is a fraud (despite this accusation being groundless) and that therefor the 'hockey stick' and indeed global warming as a whole must also be frauds... even though all his contributions have been independently confirmed many times over. This is not logical reasoning, but rather emotional reasoning. Thus, no amount of proof of misdeeds on Muller's part or innocence on Mann's is going to make a bit of difference. If logic worked then the fact that Mann's work has been confirmed would already have made this a non-issue. That said, there is still value in documenting false statements by the 'skeptics' because it allows people who do use logic to see that once you eliminate 'skeptics' spreading misinformation there aren't any skeptics left. However, in the long run we're going to have to come up with a way to address the people who 'think' emotionally. Otherwise they'll still be debating global warming at their Antarctic beachfront property. -
Albatross at 03:29 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Dr. Cadbury, I agree with John Cook, who invested a lot of time researching this story to unravel Muller's confusion and to get the facts straight. I might suggest that you do the same using the helpful search function on the top LHS of the page. Muller's confusion and misdeeds run deeper than the (equivocal) concession that you have just made @42. -
Albatross at 03:25 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Please, Dr. Albatross, we Drs. are very important and all knowing are we not ?:) And please spare us the attempt at sincerity-- you have been "attacking" Mann on this thread and going off topic. Are you familiar with the term "concern troll" Dr. Cadbury? You and Muller are entitled to you own opinions, but not your own facts. As it happens the reality and the facts show that Muller is wrong. Sad that you and other "skeptics" cannot, will not recognize that. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:24 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
@dhogaza What are you referring to? What is item 3?Moderator Response: [DB] He was referring to Charlie A's comment earlier in this thread. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:24 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Okay Albatross. So I see that Muller paraphrased a quote and tried to connect 2 of the emails together as part of the same. So he is mistaken in this instance. What do you think though? I noticed all your doing is complaining that I am off topic. -
CBDunkerson at 03:22 AM on 30 March 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
fydijkstra, while the article above doesn't actually say so... February 2011 was a record low, not a 'new' one but still a record... tied with 2005. Granted, given that the prior two months (December 2010 and January 2011) were new record lows you might draw a distinction of February having 'merely' tied the record, but it seems a bit desperate. -
Albatross at 03:18 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Dr. Cadbury @37, You continue to remain off topic. The MWP has been discussed here, and here, and here -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:18 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Albatross I am not going to attack or defend anybody. I think everyone has had a different perspective on this topic. I think if Mann and his colleagues had a second chance, they would have approached the issue in a different way.Moderator Response: [DB] No more on the MWP or Mann on this thread. See Albatross' links in the next comment for direction if you wish to pursue your interest. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:15 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
@Albatross, @moderator I think this is the best moderated climate site by a long shot. I appreciate and respect that even though many of my comments are in opposition to the moderator's viewpoints, they allow me to post and provide feedback on what they want me to avoid posting. Albatross, I hope your comment was not aimed at me. I'm not trying to hijack anything. I think it is good that 2 opposites like ourselves can come here and analyze the information for ourselves. -
Albatross at 03:14 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Dr. Cadbury, With respect, you are wildly off topic and now engaging in innuendo. Are you here to defend Muller (who is the subject of this thread)? Either defend Muller or concede that he is wrong, or please take your OT discussion elsewhere. Sincerely, Dr. Albatross, PhD Meteorology :) -
SNRatio at 03:09 AM on 30 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
#53 Gilles: You still haven't got it? How could you say sensitivity is "a priori definite quantity"? For all practical purposes, it is not-deterministic, and maybe it is even in principle. It is one of the best examples of a "real" random variable that I can think of, because it follows the chaotic aspects of weather. And even "deterministic" things like a digital camera exposure is by no means "apriori definite" when you go down to pixel level. Because of the quantum nature of light, it is not "a priori definite". Whether it is "objective" or not, is a philosophical question that I don't think we have to answer in order to work with it, and reproducibility is a basic feature of natural science. When e.g. random effects make complete reproducibility im,possible, we turn to things like statistical distributions. If different methods do not converge to the same distribution, we usually consider the entity as ill-defined, or our methods as inadequate. This is rather basic natural science, as I normally work with it. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:08 AM on 30 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
"A common and broadly held misconception is that Mann's hockey stick hides the decline. There is no "decline" in Mann's reconstructions." Yeah okay, there's no decline if you believe the MWP was not as warm as today's temperatures. I believe the MWP was warmer than the current temperatures so I see a pretty big discrepancy.Moderator Response: [DB] "I believe the MWP was warmer than the current temperatures" Please take discussion of the MWP to a more appropriate thread.
Prev 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 Next
