Recent Comments

Prev  2351  2352  2353  2354  2355  2356  2357  2358  2359  2360  2361  2362  2363  2364  2365  2366  Next

Comments 117901 to 117950:

117901. Doug Bostrom at 17:51 PM on 7 June 2010
        Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
        Few "umms" or "ahhs" and your thoughts keep up with your mouth, which does not run too fast. You interview well, John. I can't help but note some underlying dramatic tension here. Skeptically Speaking is produced in Alberta, a province up to its ears in tar being enthusiastically liquefied in vast quantities, monetized, shipped south here to the U.S. where we burn it. "They said it couldn't be done", but at $70/barrel the logistical obstacles to creating a mess on this scale turn out not be a problem. Nice that a little of that money is going to programs like this one.
117902. CoalGeologist at 17:25 PM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        (With apologies to Shakespeare): "The lord doth protest too much, methinks". (after Hamlet, Act III, Sc. 2)
117903. Riccardo at 16:40 PM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        In every counry Governments and Congresses ask scientists or scientific bodies for advices on many issues, it's really common (and good) practice. In the USA Congressmen and Senators invite to testify whoever they like, expert or not they may be. Inviting a prominent scientist to testify on his field of expertise is very appropriate and he is supposed to be there as such, a scientist.
117904. Doug Bostrom at 13:44 PM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        As this is a "meta-thread", I think it's ok to point out this interesting article in CSIRO's magazine about the travails of climate blogging, mentioning Skeptical Science: Blogging on climate change – a job for the brave (pdf) Brave as well as preternaturally patient, I'd say.
        Response: Thanks for the heads up, Doug, that interview was ages ago - I'd forgotten all about it.
        
117905. Doug Bostrom at 12:40 PM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        BP: Testimonial to a House Committee is an overtly political act. Of course [Ramanathan] can do that as an ordinary citizen, but for that time the role of "scientist" is given up. That's an absurd statement, ridiculous on its face. Ramanathan was -requested- to testify, to provide scientific advice to a House committee, he did not invite himself, did not appear spontaneously in the committee chamber. Should he refuse a request from a House committee chairman to testify? And if he were to do so, what defense would you be prepared to supply him with, when Congress begged to know what was the point of his research? Would you suggest he write back to the committee saying that providing requested scientific advice is an "overtly political act" so he must politely decline? If so, what's the point of his work from the funding perspective? How about when epidemiologists are asked to testify? Is such testimony an overtly political act? I could think of a thousand analogies, find more cases in the long record of scientific assistance to the Senate and House but it's not necessary. And what global environmental issue would you suggest is worse than GHG buildup, other than an out-of-control human population increase and attendant stress on the planet? Ramanathan's remark is in keeping with the assessment of the bulk of the scientific community, so it's hardly a political statement in its fundamentals. Oh, right, I forgot; all theory, calculations and observations tending to demonstrate that there's a problem with GHG emissions are coincidentally wrong, no matter how unlikely that may be. For the curious, here's the summary of the information Ramanathan provided to the House committee: Role of Black Carbon on Global and Regional Climate Change, Testimonial to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
117906. Passing Wind at 12:32 PM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        A. Phillips at 09:36 AM on 7 June, 2010 In just the segment of his takedown on the existence of the MWP, Abraham claims he is going to check Monckton's claims by reading the actual papers cited or asking the authors. Of the 9 graphs Monckton shows on his slide, Abraham tackles less than half of them, 4. Instead of reading and commenting on the contents of the papers, he emails the authors to ask if Monckton correctly interpreted their papers. Monckton did not interpret their papers, he merely showed graphs those papers contained. Did the papers include those graphs as Monckton claims or not. Yes they did. Did even one of the authors contacted say Monckton misrepresented their graphs. No. Not one. Huang did say that his 1997 paper should not have claimed the MWP to be warmer than today, but that's what it did indeed say. Therefore, Monckton did not misrepresent Huang unless Abraham has evidence that Monckton knew Huang had recanted. Furthermore, Huang's current work does not claim there was no MWP, only that it was slightly cooler than today. Abraham seems trying to create a new scholarly method of inquiry. One that ignores what has been published for one that asks the author (or an author's friend) if someone has correctly interpreted their work, or if they have since changed their mind. For more details see this post in the other Monckton thread
117907. villabolo at 12:23 PM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Lord Monckton (#10) said: "Mr. Abraham, and the president of his university, will shortly be receiving a long letter from me asking him a number of questions about his presentation . . ." "This is the first of many indications of bad faith on Mr. Abraham's part that I shall be drawing to the attention of the authorities at the Bible College where he lectures." I think it is obvious that, from the first sentence in his response, Lord Monckton simply wanted to intimidate Dr. Abraham by stirring trouble for him at his university. He had no intention of communicating anything else to the Dr..
117908. Ned at 12:17 PM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Thank you for humoring me, johnd. Let's just continue a little. I think we're approaching some clarity here. By "uncertainty of 50%" it seems you meant "uncertainty of 80 km3, which in 2002-2005 was about 50% of the absolute value of the annual trend". Thus, if for another period the estimate of the change in ice mass was near zero, you would still expect the uncertainty to be plus or minus 80 km3, but centered around 0. Now, presumably, this error model suggests that if the estimated rate of ice loss in 2006-2009 were higher than in 2002-2005, the uncertainty would be less than 50%. Next, we'll want to incorporate Tom Dayton's point that "a sufficiently long time of observations reduces the uncertainty." The 80 km3 figure was based on ~3 years of data. Presumably, the uncertainty will be lower as more years' worth of data are acquired, right?
117909. Ned at 11:53 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        Berényi Péter writes: Worse than that. Testimonial to a House Committee is an overtly political act. Of course he can do that as an ordinary citizen, but for that time the role of "scientist" is given up. I suppose that's one way of looking at it -- a person is only a scientist during the hours when she's in the lab or the field actually doing science. Likewise, I suppose, a person who drives buses for her living would no longer be a bus driver when she's relaxing at home in the evening. Personally, I would be a bit less strict. A bus driver doesn't suddenly become not-a-bus-driver just because she's been asked to provide testimony to a Congressional committee about mass transit, and a scientist doesn't suddenly lose her or his status because the committee asked her or him to come to Washington and answer questions about science.
117910. johnd at 11:51 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Ned at 11:10 AM, uncertainty has nothing to do with avoiding drawing conclusions, but rather accepting the responsibilities of the physical limitations of being able to measure anything accurately. Those who ignore them are avoiding the reality that perhaps what they attempt to quantify may be far from what they desire, or even preventing them from reaching any conclusion at all, not good if you desperately want to make a case. To answer your thought game, the 1Kg would be 1Kg +/- 80 cubic kilometres as tolerances are generally expressed in absolute terms depending on how they are derived. As I stated earlier the errors were in excess of 50% and this certainly is. That doesn't exactly make your 1Kg very meaningful, or the thought game. Perhaps you would like to offer a different value?
117911. Ned at 11:23 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        BP, I mean some combination of reduced but still non-zero fossil fuels, plus a mixture of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power, biomass, nuclear, and hydro. As discussed in the other thread, I would prefer not to dictate that in 2025 we ought to have x% of our power from nuclear, y% from hydro, etc. I'd much prefer a market-based approach, where a reasonable tax on carbon is coupled with a reduction in subsidies for all other sources. Then, each power source can be used when and where the market decides it's most cost effective. Currently, about half of my electrical supply comes from nuclear, and half from a combination of hydro and renewables. I believe <1% is from oil and natural gas. All that said, however, I admit some bias in favor of distributed power generation (as opposed to highly centralized generation). This is for purely practical reasons.
117912. Ned at 11:10 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        johnd writes: Perhaps you should ask those who process the data how they handle the range of uncertainty at that exact point. I suspect her answer would not be that the uncertainty is 50% of the measured change. That's why I'm asking you, not her. I have observed that a lot of your comments at this site involve emphasizing the high degree of uncertainty in this or that measurement or conclusion, regardless of the subject. Paying close attention to uncertainty is a good thing ... but there's a difference between paying close attention to uncertainty and using the existence of uncertainty as an all-purpose justification for avoiding the responsibility of drawing conclusions.
117913. Berényi Péter at 11:00 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        #66 Ned at 09:17 AM on 7 June, 2010 developing a productive, satisfying, and low-carbon civilization ASAP You mean nuke, do you?
117914. Berényi Péter at 10:53 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        #64 chris at 04:26 AM on 7 June, 2010 "Dr." or "Professor" Ramanathan rather than "Mr." - he's not a surgeon! Worse than that. Testimonial to a House Committee is an overtly political act. Of course he can do that as an ordinary citizen, but for that time the role of "scientist" is given up. And he is well aware of it. Otherwise he would never utter sentences like "The global build up of greenhouse gases (GHGs), is the most vexing global environmental issue facing the planet" which is both unrelated to the topic at hand and mixes fact with value judgment. Vexing, indeed. And yes, I agree with him air pollution should (and can) be stopped. Not for buying time, but because it's filthy. And I do mean pollution, not breathing out.
117915. johnd at 10:51 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Ned at 10:40 AM on 7 June, 2010, given that each year there is a period where the mass not only slows the decline but actually increases, there is obviously is a point where a 1Kg decline does actually occur. Perhaps you should ask those who process the data how they handle the range of uncertainty at that exact point. :-)
117916. Ned at 10:49 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        johnd writes: it is the responsibility of whoever provides the data to make known the tolerances that apply to their measurements. Ah, but the statement "even with GRACE the measurements are subject to errors or uncertainty in excess +/- 50%" was yours, was it not? I'm trying to get at what you mean by that statement.
117917. ClimateNow at 10:44 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        I'm not a scientist but there's no question that the relentless and insidious climate change denial machine has had a significant impact on public opinion about climate change over the past couple years. Public opinion, of course, plays a crucial role in whether governments, industry, organizations and individuals take action or enact legislation to mitigate rising CO2 levels. I know scientists have a lot of important work to do but I think John Abraham's exercise has shown that some effort to combat the deniers can produce spectacular results. I therefore encourage other scientists to write journalists, the media or government representatives when they see blatant misinformation regarding climate science. Given the gravity of the consequences of inaction, we can't afford to let them continue to deliberately confuse the public in an effort to postpone changing our ways. Yes, it's a PR game, and scientists shouldn't have to worry about PR, but we can't afford to lose this battle. The welfare of future generations is at stake.
117918. johnd at 10:43 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Ned at 10:20 AM on 7 June, 2010, it is the responsibility of whoever provides the data to make known the tolerances that apply to their measurements. It is not something that is always obvious in matters relating to climate change, often considerable digging is required. If always made obvious, the problem that would then "cloud" the debate is that if the range of uncertainty was attached to all data the trends that are so vital to draw conclusions from would often then appear insignificant or non-existent and confuse most people.
117919. Ned at 10:40 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Another thought experiment, johnd. Suppose global warming suddenly slowed dramatically, and GRACE estimated a decline in mass of only 1 kg next year. Does the "uncertainty of 50%" mean that we know that the actual change in mass was somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 kg across all of Antarctica?
117920. johnd at 10:32 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Tom Dayton at 09:59 AM, if over time the uncertainty reduces then perhaps the range of uncertainty will be reduced, but the ranges are there for good and solid reasons and it should not be forgotten how they actually relate to the mean. The uncertainties are generally inbuilt and relate to the resolution available from the technology utilised, but also relate to the range that the raw data falls within. For a mean of 152 to be established, some of the raw data gathered would have given values equivalent to 72, and some 232, with most of it all over the place, perhaps none at all being 152 or even close. Even with sophisticated satellite measuring equipment we are still not far advanced from the equivalent of measuring the diameter of a human hair with a wooden ruler, in a manner of speaking. The climate change debate may be different to the commercial world where there is a high degree of awareness about tolerances and the implications when anything subject to meeting specifications will be measured by a number of different parties under supposedly standardised conditions, but the limitations should not be overlooked.
117921. Gordon1368 at 10:30 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        I wonder if Monckton's reference to Prof. Abraham's university as a Bible College is an intentional slight? Would he use the same term to refer to Gonzaga, Notre Dame or Boston College? Somehow I doubt it. I see that kind of response as an indication of his awareness of the weakness of his own argument.
117922. Passing Wind at 10:25 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Opps. Soory, that post got away from me. Let me start again. chris at 03:36 AM on 7 June, 2010 Will you kindly provide a title and reference to the Huang paper as your links eventually point to password protected site.
117923. Ned at 10:20 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        johnd writes: surely it is obvious, the range of uncertainty always refers to the value it is attached to. Again, it's necessary to be careful. It's now clear that your "uncertainty in excess of plus or minus 50%" refers to 50% of the estimated change in mass. You calculate that from the article's "152 (plus or minus 80)" and sure enough, 80 is slightly more than 50% of 152. So, let's say GRACE estimates a loss of 2500 km3 of ice from Antarctica over the next decade. What is the uncertainty around that? Is it 50% of the 2500? Is it 50% of 152? Or something else? Tom Dayton makes good points as well. But I want to start with something very basic, please.
117924. Dorothy at 10:13 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        I may have missed it, but looking through all the comments I can't find a link to the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis page at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. The NSIDC graph on the right hand side, updated daily, is interesting to watch, especially this year, when the melt started so late. Now, if the sea ice extent diminishes at its current rate, it could well shrink below that of 2007.
117925. Tom Dayton at 09:59 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        I suspect that what Ned was getting at, johnd, is that uncertainty is centered about the mean. Uncertainty does not change our best estimate of the mean, but only our confidence in that best estimate. What is actually the only relevant point is that uncertainty does not change our best estimate of the trend of the mean across time, but only our confidence in that best estimate of the trend. A sufficiently long time of observations reduces the uncertainty.
117926. johnd at 09:52 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Ned at 09:27 AM on 7 June, 2010, surely it is obvious, the range of uncertainty always refers to the value it is attached to. Perhaps this information from NASA helps bring some understanding. Quoting from the article:- "The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005." Plus or minus 80 against a nominal value of 152 is 52.63% to be precise. In other words, all that can be said with any confidence is that the ice sheet decreased by something ranging from 72 to 232 cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005, and if you were buying that ice and paid to receive 152 cubic kilometres, the seller could deliver 72 cubic kilometres and there would be absolutely nothing you could do about it. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005.
117927. Doug Bostrom at 09:46 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        GC, would you mind telling me what "CAGW" stands for? I've not run into it.
        Response: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
        
117928. A. Phillips at 09:36 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Monckton, "Mr. Abraham here admits that he spent several months working on his presentation attacking me personally in the most venomous terms,..." I wonder if you can give an example of a 'venomous term' in Abraham's presentation. I watched the whole thing, and can't recall anything even mildly venomous. You also ask why Abraham didn't contact you with questions. I wonder how you answer a similar one: why did you not contact the many scientists you cite, to check whether your understanding of their work was correct, before you went ahead and gave lectures on it?
117929. J Bowers at 09:29 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Monckton:

        The usual practice in academe is that anyone wishing to rebut another's work notifies that other of his intention and of the rebuttal,..

        Did Christopher Monckton ever approach Al Gore for his side to the subject before attempting to debunk the latter's work? They are both, to my knowledge, as formally qualified as each other to make statements on climate science...., with the exceptions that Al Gore took a climate course run by Roger Revelle at Harvard in 1967, and he shares a Nobel Prize specifically related to climate change.
117930. Ned at 09:27 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        johnd writes: Ned, I understand that even with GRACE the measurements are subject to errors or uncertainty in excess +/- 50%. Plus or minus 50% of what? If we're going to be quantitative, let's be as precise as possible, please.
117931. gallopingcamel at 09:23 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        chriscanaris (#58), Ned (#59) correctly describes the range of the predictions mentioned in my original commnet. Even the best case (2 degrees Kelvin) is an "Extraordinary Claim". Skeptics are not making "Extraordinary Claims"; they are just asking the CAGW folks to produce some convincing evidence.
117932. Ned at 09:17 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        chriscanaris writes: There's the rub - how likely are global emissions to peak and decline by 2020? Alas, that now seems unlikely, though I firmly believe that we could have done so if we had started back in the 1990s. Instead, we have two "lost decades". Thus the CD report's conclusion that There is a very high probability of the warming exceeding 2C. The thing is, we still have to get off this merry-go-round sometime. We've probably missed the opportunity to keep warming below 2C. All that means is that it's even more essential to get to work on developing a productive, satisfying, and low-carbon civilization ASAP. The time for dithering is rapidly running out. Nobody wants to see warming of 4, 5, or 6C ... but if we can't kick the fossil fuel habit, burning coal will send us there sooner or later.
117933. Rogerthesurf at 09:14 AM on 7 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        scaddenp, Thanks for your comment. First of all I make no apologies for the length of my reply as it is in response to the answer I received from the owner of this blog for comment #82. I understand the intentions and content of the papers and abstracts I carefully read, thanks for your concern. It appears however that you do not or refuse to understand the relevant points, I suggest you read again and give it some deep thought. The fact you refer me to any IPCC publication where the AGW hypothesis (Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming) is assumed to be valid, and every thing is based on it, shows me that you have not yet understood what my assertions are about, let alone appreciated the difficulty in arriving at a sufficient standard of proof that will justify the sacrifices expected of us. Some comment though: I'm surprised you haven't heard of the negative logrithmic properties of CO2 and it's greenhouse properties. Try googling the subject. Its even described in that "epitome of authority" Wikipedia " "it is difficult to understand why we did not experience excessive heat (such as enough to make the world uninhabitable) during say the Holocene Maximum where the climate was significantly warmer than today.". " This is in response to the feed back theory mentioned in the above answer. "And by the way, we have no way of measuring what the outgoing radiation was in holocene." Correct and this is a problem when trying to prove the AGW hypothesis. You are welcome to continue this discussion on my site where there is no chance of having reasonable comments spammed. However comments containing Ad Hominem comments and the like. will not be published. Cheers Roger
117934. MattJ at 09:13 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Abraham's rebuttal is excellent. Even so, I think he weakens the potential force he could have by the traditional cautionary phrase "in my view", when it it really not just his view, but the plain facts of the case. After all, the plain facts of the case are that Monckton does not use scientific facts except in a polemical way. Also, there are small errors of inflectional agreement, such as "very periphery issues" where he clearly meant "very peripheral issues". Not to mention this too is a point that needs to be driven home: when faced with REAL science, Monckton retreats into cheap debating tricks, here, the infamous red herring.
117935. Doug Bostrom at 08:28 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        I'd say if there's science to explored here, it has to do with what happens when a fellow such as Monckton catches the public ear, changes the course of public policy and thus promotes climate change by the very act of causing us to ignore or minimize the problem. This can be quantified to a certain extent today and our skill at so doing is steadily improving. See the recent "Climate Change Commitment" posts at Real Climate to understand what I'm talking about. Every ton of carbon needlessly emitted because of delays in public policy response to C02 emissions is going to have an undeniable knock-on effect down the road. So to those worrying about "ad hominem" attacks on Monckton, by all means let's not resort to invective or hollow insults. At the same time, let's not misunderstand, folks such as Monckton are a cultural phenomenon contributing to climate change to the extent their rhetoric is effective. If rhetoric of this kind is found to lack foundation, then that is a characteristic of this phenomenon and must be acknowledged and such acknowledgment necessarily requires descriptive language. The English language provides us with suitably precise tools for that kind of description. Choose your words carefully but don't be fooled into thinking that we cannot or should not talk about the phenomenon of misguidance itself when it has measurable effects on physical phenomena.
117936. DrTom at 08:17 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        @#20 "Dr Abraham, I appreciated your presentation, but I believe contacting Monckton beforehand would only have been fair. We live and learn, eh?" Absolutely not, Sir. If I publish drivel, fabricate data and peer-review my own data through my company which has no more expertise in the subject matter than I; if I have been called out as a charlatan; if my data have been referred to inside and outside the scientific community as "downright misrepresentation" "pseudo-scientific gibberish" and "preposterous" and proven to be manufactured by me to fit my conclusion rather than basing my conclusion on the data; and if I did not choose to request peer review of my subject matter before I published, what leap of logic suggests to you that I deserve any more consideration than I gave? If I wish to present a thesis to the scientific community, I must develop it logically and present my paper and the evidence for it for peer review BEFORE I present it. The alternative is that I may run amok with a completely nonsensical idea....and get caught. Publishing without review leaves no fallback position but to attack the people who document the obvious fallacies of the work...especially if they show the data I used are were falsified. Monckton has been described here as "a skilled ideologue". Not in my opinion, but as I once heard someone say "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." My comments regarding this subject regard the ethical application of the scientific method. We can go back to science; that is specific numbers and charts and graphs...but if the science is not applied in an unbiased and ethical manner, we get exactly what we see here with Monckton. I submit that this discussion is as important to the scientific method as specific data are to the experimenter.
117937. Doug Bostrom at 08:12 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Here's an interesting presentation by Wieslaw Maslowski of the U.S. naval postgraduate school, shown in a talk at the March "State Of the Arctic" conference. Abstract of talk: Recent reductions of the arctic sea ice cover since the late 1990s provide one of the top examples of warming climate. However, the causes of ice melt and its rate are not fully understood. When compared with the satellite record of summer sea ice extent, simulations from general circulation models (GCMs) participating in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report are too conservative in their representation of ice melt in the Arctic Ocean. In addition, ice thickness and volume estimates from submarines and satellites as well as from some models suggest that the trend of arctic ice extent decline may not reflect the more rapid rate of ice volume melt. The inability of climate models to reproduce the recent warming and ice melt in the Arctic diminishes their accuracy of future climate predictions. A more realistic regional model representation of the Arctic Ocean and its sea ice indicates an accelerated thinning trend during the last decade. The model skill is evaluated against ice thickness data gathered during the last three decades. It appears that removal of ice from the shelves in the western Arctic for prolonged time acts to increase oceanic heat content in the upper ocean year around, which in turn has a significant impact on sea ice cover. Warm water advection from the adjacent shelves exerts a thermodynamic forcing of sea ice through the under-ice ablation and the lateral melt downstream at marginal ice zones. However, the absolute magnitude and long term variability of the upper ocean heat storage and fluxes are not well known from observations and are typically poorly represented in models. We hypothesize that the excess oceanic heat that has accumulated during recent summers due to increased solar insolation and oceanic heat convergence is a critical initial factor in reducing ice concentration and thickness in the western Arctic Ocean before the melt season and onwards the following year. The modeled thinning trend is robust which lends credence to the postulation that the Arctic not only might, but is likely to be almost ice-free during the summer in the near future. The accompanying presentation is a smorgasbord of visualizations. Advancements and Limitations in Understanding and Predicting Arctic Climate Change (pdf)
117938. Dibble at 08:02 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Monkton @10: "The usual practice in academe is that anyone wishing to rebut another's work notifies that other of his intention and of the rebuttal, before it is published, to give that other the opportunity to prevent needless errors." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that you don't actually seek to engauge with 'academe', do you? If you did, surely some of your ground breaking interpretations of other peoples research would have been published in a respected scientific journal by now. I was under the impression that your performances (presentations) are more intended to influence the 'court of public opinion' to accept some of your maverick ideas than a genuine desire to uphold standards in academic practice.
117939. johnd at 07:09 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Riccardo at 05:16 AM, what is surprising is that we seem to have gone the full circle without you realising it. This exchange began with my referring to an article about research being done to improve the accuracy of satellite measurements of ice thickness that you contested the relevance of, yet you sum up above by noting "the absence of better measurements we would all like to have". Technical or non-technical the reference was provided as perhaps being of interest to anyone who appreciates the difficulties in measuring ice, by whatever means! Irrespective of what model is used, they are all still subject to the uncertainty or range of errors inherent in the original measurements that comprise the input data.
117940. jeffgreen11 at 06:28 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        I was helping my 13 year old son write papers for school. Admittedly he was struggling to get it right. The teachers were teaching the proper method for footnoting. I believe Mr. Monckton has not done a proper job of what is taught in grammar school. I'm interested in seeing Mr Monckton prove himself. Hopefully his own education standards can exceed my son's level. Leaving a proper trail for people on both sides of the issue to check the work. Will his future presentations come up to this standard or will he try to keep the undeucated people in the dark? Otherwise it appears he is insulting his own audience by playing on their lack of knowledge.
117941. Stephen Baines at 06:12 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Frankly, if Abraham's presentation is an ad hom attack, then every critical review I've ever gotten through peer-review is also ad hom -- maybe even some of the positive ones! Certainly, if I submitted a paper with this many obvious flaws, the tone of the reviewers would have been far worse than Abraham's. I guess that its thoroughness equates in Monckton’s mind to obsessive meanness, but that’s what substantial criticism looks like. We all have to learn to lick our wounds when we are shown to make mistakes in review . Why not Monckton? A proper response would have been to acknowledge the problems and thank the reviewer for pointing them out. I agree with Doug Bostrom. I see no reason why Monckton should have been allowed to see the criticisms before Abraham published his critique. That holds in the peer-review literature, but Monckton himself has never thought it necessary to make use of peer-review or adhere to its principles (see previous point). He choose instead to go straight to the public with what appear to be distortions of the literature and authors he cites that would never have survived peer-review. Why does he require those rules to apply now? Also, when a paper is bad enough, there is no opportunity for a response to reviewers – it is rejected outright without option of response. If I were an editor seeing Abraham's review, Monkton's submission would probably be one of those cases.
117942. Doug Bostrom at 05:57 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        Yikes, I had no idea I was such a radical! So hard for me to be short, but just to sum up what I was driving at but did not explicitly state: -- It takes a very few seconds or minutes to dream up an unsupported and incorrect hypothesis while skipping the vital step of performing some simple plausibility tests based on prior research, much more time to patiently explain why such an idea is wrong. -- It takes even less time to simply repeat an unsupported and incorrect hypothesis, a fictitious popular rumor, again always requires more time to explain again why that rumor is wrong. -- Endlessly repeating the two variations I just cited means we are reliving the same day, over and over again, stuck at a point on a continuum of improvement, burning time and personal energy going nowhere. -- I submit that all of us have limits to our patience, leading those few persons here capable of making cogent contributions to progress in popular understanding of this topic to ultimately conclude they're wasting their time in endless dithering around elementary mistakes. (I do not include myself in that group of worthies; I'm a mile wide and an inch deep) To sum up, what some may call "extraordinary claims" are by another measure boring mundanity, dull and repetitious in spite of their enduring nature. BTW, it's nice to enjoy an occasional non-science related thread such as this one, where we can have meta-discussions...
117943. Albatross at 05:30 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Mark R, I honestly believe it would have been a waste of time for Dr. to engage Mr. Monckton before releasing his presentation. They stand on opposite sides of a wide canyon. It would have just allowed Monckton to go on the offensive/attack before Dr. Abraham's talk had been released. Also, the Mr. Monckton's errors/misrepresentations/distortions etc. are not ambiguous. That all said, when are we going to get back to some science ? ;) I think that we have entertained Mr. Monckton's nonsense for long enough (although I do understand that it was necessary for Dr. Abraham to counter Mr. Monckton's, err, "rebuttal").
117944. Doug Bostrom at 05:29 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Disregarding some insubstantial quibbles Monckton's objections seem to be centered entirely on the manner and style of Abraham's work, not the content. Even his complaints about form seem rather empty, as well as inconsistent. Monckton chides Abraham for not following proper academic form in preparing his response, yet clearly Monckton's lecture circuit is not an academic enterprise, rather it's more of a traveling road show or the like. Thus it seems entirely appropriate for Abraham not to treat this a as an academic dispute and to use a popular venue for his deconstruction of Monckton's lecture. As well, it seems pretty clear Monckton feels free to attack a broad swathe of researchers without bothering to contact them prior to adding to his show material criticizing these people. Monckton ought to stick to substance not style if he cares to rebut Abraham.
117945. MarkR at 05:19 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Dr Abraham, I appreciated your presentation, but I believe contacting Monckton beforehand would only have been fair. We live and learn, eh? I'd request that every time you write something back that you really do stop, take a breather, and remember to stick to the science. This 'trading' of credentials is just the sort of mud slinging Monckton and his ilk want you to engage in. Monckton has massively misrepresented the projections of the IPCC (I particularly liked his modified 'IPCC projections'), repeatedly makes silly mistakes (like how 'cooling since 2002' is valid), and misrepresented the results of a series of academic papers such as from Johannesen. Please get him to see that (heh, fat chance) or when he doesn't, just keep making it clear to everyone what he's doing. He's a very skilled ideologue, please don't get dragged down to his level of mud slinging.
117946. Riccardo at 05:16 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        john, what it's surprising is the shift of the attention as convinience dictates. Indeed, the errors bar relevant to the left figure are not those of submarines data. Having said this, you may have noticed that my comments started saying that determinig ice volume from that satellite images was inappropiate. I didn't see you criticise that. ICEsat determines thickness directly through laser altimetry; there are errors, quite large indeed, yet it's better and gives significant thickness reduction. In the absence of better measurements we all would like to have, a models like PIOMAS are probably better still. As repeatedly said.
117947. tobyjoyce at 05:11 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        @John Russell, It is manifestly false that Monckton has "succeeded in reducing those who have commented down to his level". The fact is that Monckton's response, if written directly here as a blogpost, whould have been taken down by the Moderator as being excessively vicious and ad-hominem. The comments above are mild in comparison. They either state facts, or express rational opinions. Monckton could not hope to be popular for most commenters here, but a thoughtful, graceful response by him would have received more responses in kind.
117948. johnd at 04:53 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Riccardo at 00:17 AM, the only error bar shown was on right hand graph, and then on the thicker ice. The error should be proportionally larger on the thinner ice. From the error bar that they do show, note that the uncertainty of the submarine data is almost larger than the range of nominal thickness for the entire 30 years of data, and exceeds that of the ICESat data. If included on the thinner ice, or included on the left hand graph then it would be more obvious just how significant the errors are compared to the calculated values, and just how careful one needs to be when drawing conclusions on trends. I do note that throughout the whole climate change debate little is made of the range of uncertainty inherent in any of the data referenced, and little appreciation of such uncertainty by those who debate values and trends as if the values quoted are 100% rock solid. The uncertainties or range of errors are there for an obvious reason. As an analogy, if the value of ice thickness data collected by submarine indicated by the blue line in the right hand graph, instead represented the thickness of sheet steel, say 3mm thick, with the indicated accepted error, over the years any steel mill could have supplied me with steel that varied as the graph indicated and rightfully claim that it is still the same nominal thickness.
117949. Paul D at 04:47 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Has anyone counted the number of ad-hominem attacks Monckton has made about Monbiot and John in that article? He uses the word 'Venomously', sounds very appropriate for what he has written.
117950. Riccardo at 04:41 AM on 7 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        Berényi Péter, read again the post and look at the graphs, it's about CO2 and fig 3 adds methane. That's all it's said.

Prev  2351  2352  2353  2354  2355  2356  2357  2358  2359  2360  2361  2362  2363  2364  2365  2366  Next