Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 Next
Comments 118201 to 118250:
-
ubrew12 at 13:34 PM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
CoalGeologist at 09:44 AM on 2 June said: "Anyone who has heard Monckton speak will know that he's not a stupid man, yet he says things that have no scientific foundation. He must have seen the same data as are reported here, yet chooses to misrepresent it. The question is why does he do it?" At the risk of being unscientific (and thus rejected), I must say I think this is a critically important question. Why are intelligent people rejecting GW science out of hand? Increasingly, it clearly is not about the science. If you've heard Monckton speak when the subject turns to economics, I think you'll have your answer. The passion is for a healthy free-market capitalism; they see themselves as the defenders of economic freedom in a world beset by collectivist thought. Even making the economic argument that Paul Krugman makes in a recent editorial, that GW remediation is expected to cost only half of what nonremediation is likely to cost, in the 21st century, doesn't register for people like Monckton. I believe that for him there is a fundamental tenet of individual freedom at risk here, and people who think likewise are his best audience. Somehow, the debate on GW needs to begin to address these apparently real fears of economic collectivism. Especially here in America too many people hold such fears. There's a common-sense saying 'united we stand, divided we fall'. For people like Monckton, this saying is exactly backwards as regards economic decisionmaking. For them, the prospect of people uniting against a common threat, like GW, heralds the end of society. I wish I understood better where such extraordinary fear comes from, but its a powerful motivator. In service to the 'greater good' of combating collectivism, it literally doesn't care how strong the scientific case for GW can be made, and is certainly not above fudging data to combat it. It really is fighting a crusade, of some kind. And, unfortunately for us, it's often winning that crusade. Its not winning the science debate, but its winning the policy debate. -
theendisfar at 13:32 PM on 3 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
To understand the warming you must also understand the cooling. Radiation emissions are a result of the planet cooling. Convection is also a result of the planet cooling. Lastly evaporation is a result of the surface cooling. Since convection is is more efficient at cooling than radiation, any increase in surface temp will create a greater increase in convection than radiation. Since convection is not impeded by anything other than less dense air above the convection column, convection will remain the most efficient means to cool the surface up to the tropopause. Even without evaporation, any trapped radiation will simply be transfered to the tropopause via convection. The greater the trapped radiation, the greater the convection rate. How are these givens accounted for in the AGW model? -
chris1204 at 13:20 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
As a psychiatrist, I get to see a fair bit of denial. I've also learnt not to typecast people. I know devout born again Christians who have enormous concern for the environment and vote for the Greens, atheists who don't believe in AGW and vote conservatively, physicists who belive fervently in homeopathy, and so the list goes on. -
theendisfar at 13:10 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
shawnhet, How about leading us to a well defined definition of AGW that we can test? There were plenty of Relativity 'Deniers' until Edmonton provided proof to a WELL WRITTEN and DEFINED THEORY that could be tested. You are not going to convince a scientist, well a classical scientist, that your conclusions have any merit until he/she is able to repeat the methods and results. As for name calling "Sticks & stones". Both sides need to grow up. Convection and Evaporation are two major obstacles for AGW. Until you have satisfied the falsification that they counter (negative feedback) the effects of a warming surface, you will not convince anyone of anything. Especially since there is no actual Theory to test. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:05 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Shawnhet, I'll offer that your use of the phrase "AGW supporters" arguably reveals that to you this is all a game or competition of some kind. It might be possible to sell conservatives on the idea of a carbon tax, if it were revenue neutral(all taxes raised would be offset by tax cuts elsewhere). That's been offered, rejected. As an exercise, try looking it up. Any other ideas? -
shawnhet at 12:56 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Loath as I am to get involved in these sorts of political arguments, I will add my 2 cents here. From a political standpoint, (C)AGW is a liberal issue - it argues for bigger government. Thus, liberals tend to support the theory and conservatives tend to oppose it on that grounds. The majority of the politically motivated *on either side* tend not to be too concerned over the state of the science, simply choosing to use it as convenient to further their other goals. If AGW supporters wanted to win over the conservative political opposition, all they would have to do would be to show how to effectively combat AGW without markedly increasing the size of government. It might be possible to sell conservatives on the idea of a carbon tax, if it were revenue neutral(all taxes raised would be offset by tax cuts elsewhere). It would definitely be an easier sell. Ironically, I think that if they could do this sort of thing, AGW supporters would end up losing a great deal of the support of their base. Further, may I say that if you are really hoping to convince someone that what you say is accurate, you need to be pretty careful what you call them. Calling someone a denier is practically guaranteed to lose you any credibility you may have had with that person, especially if they think that they have a reasonable position. Cheers, :) -
chris1204 at 12:49 PM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
dhogaza @ 26 Your comment about the much lengthier NSIDC measures is valid. However, the point I'm making is that we still don't have a gold standard way of measuring what the ice is doing. Consequently, different algorithms give divergent results. We don't know what the trend would have been had the JAXA algorithm been available thirty years ago. I assume the likely answer would be 'more extensive ice' but in reality we don't know. This highlights the problems that arise from metaanalysis - we don't know whether we are comparing like with like even when we are attempting to measure the same variable. Humanity Rules @ 34 Thanks for the tip - I'll splurge :) -
Doug Bostrom at 12:27 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Rob, I forgot to mention I really enjoyed this article. I've spent a lot of time pondering the taxonomy of this whole affair and your graphical perspectives are great for helping to think about it. Any chance of making your diagrams into links to larger versions for us in the 50+ failing optical body parts demographic?Response: Done, the last 4 pics link to larger versions. -
Bern at 12:19 PM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
An interesting read there, Rob, thanks for that. I think you're right, coming up with solutions that are better than the things we have that cause the problem will be how to fix it. Daisym does have a point, though - the fossil fuel industries are worth $billions every year in government revenue, and exert enormous political pressure due to providing employment for many people (and political donations, of course). We see that here in Australia, particularly in regard to the coal industry, where enormous sums have been promised to investigate "clean coal" technologies that are decades off, at best, while all but ignoring "ready to build right now" alternatives. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:47 AM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@daisym... Actually, it's my understanding that, if everyone bought electric cars as Anthony Watts did, it could help the grid out quite a bit. Right now part of the problem is that we have such large peak demand during the day. At night many plants operate in a spin state where they could be generating electricity if there was any demand. Electric cars would be charged at night and take advantage of this off peak spin. It's not a perfect scenario but better than what we do now. There are some studies that show that current capacity could charge the entire nation of personal vehicles. And in states like California where less of our electricity is produced through coal then it's a win-win scenario. But overall I think this misses the point I'm trying to make which is, it's coming up with solutions to our nations' energy problems that are going to erase the gulf between climate deniers and believers. -
Daved Green at 11:46 AM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Very interesting post robhon , from my experience the man in the street denier is worried about losing thier "stuff" and its easy for the right wingers to play on this and tell them what they want to hear show them some nice graphs and its all "nothing to see here move on " is one of their favorite sayings . Rational People would like to use less energy but when they look at the set up costs (solar pV panels electric car ) or even just the extra time it takes to get the bus or train to work instead , a economic rationalism kicks in and they look for reasin to put it off and so in come peopl like Monckton . -
Doug Bostrom at 11:37 AM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Rhetorical Question: Hasn't the government patiently thrown $100 billion over the past 20 years to identify the problem posed upon the planet by fossil fuel emissions? Reality Answer: No. Some interesting ideas in that post but overall way too much hyperbole and ideological trimmings. -
daisym at 11:32 AM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
If everyone bought an electric car, as did Anthony Watts, the grid would be quickly overwhelmed. We would have to build fossil fuel electrical generating plants to provide additional capacity, as well as transmission facilities to carry the additional load. The increased capacity must be huge. The notion of any resulting net reduction in fossil fuel emissions is dubious at best. These electric cars must therefore rely on continued burning of fossil fuels to support them. Nuclear power generating plants are generally feared and not seemingly acceptable, at least at present. The obvious solution is to develop an affordable, 24/7 alternative energy source (non-nuclear) to the trusty fossil fuel. How far along are we in this search for the Holy Grail of alternative energy? The answer: Nowhere. Why? Hasn't the government patiently thrown $100 billion over the past 20 years to identify the problem posed upon the planet by fossil fuel emissions? Hasn’t the government declared that it’s time to act to save the planet from climate calamity? As I see it, the government could begin a crash R&D effort to develop the needed alternative, similar to the so-called Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb during WWII. President Obama could declare to be a National goal to find the affordable 24/7 alternative energy that we need to remove our economic and societal dependency on fossil fuels by, say, the year 2020. President Kennedy made such a proclamation in 1961 to put a man on the moon, and he did it. And he only wanted to one-up the Russians… there was no looming crisis. But President Obama has not done this. In truth, the government will not do this, doesn’t want to do this, and doesn’t want you or me or anyone else to do this. The government hasn’t even given us a coherent National energy policy. Bolstered by 20 years and $100 billion in climate research, the government has become emboldened, ironically, on perpetuating our dependence on fossil fuels. It has supported the creation of biofuels which can only hope to distill enough alcohol fuel energy to replace the fossil fuel energy that creates it. Of course, the price of corn has gone up in the process. The government has supported construction of windmills and solar panels, but these cannot be installed in sufficient quantity to come close to replacing fossil fuel power, even at high noon on a sunny, windy day. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind is just as fickle. These technologies still rely on fossil fuels for reliable, 24/7 heavy lifting for power generation. But a lot of money is being made by the large, politically connected corporations that build them. The government is desperately trying to pass a Cap and Trade law which will require all users of fossil fuels to pay for the privilege of continuing their use, or somehow force them to switch to an alternative energy source that doesn’t exist. The government knows that we have no alternative to fossil fuels. This carbon derivatives trading scheme has been estimated to be a $10 trillion per year operation. Once it gets going, the Green Industry will become institutionalized and will never go away. Despite proclamations of harmful manmade climate change from burning fossil fuels, the government is creating this new Green Industry, an industry which will be Too Big To Fail. Development of a 24/7 alternative energy source will mean no more need for oil, gas, coal, windmills, solar panels and Ethanol. And it will destroy the $10 trillion per year carbon derivatives trading market. Development/discovery of the needed alternative energy source will collapse the world economy. It matters little whether or not fossil fuels will cause a global climate calamity. The government has created a scenario whereby they tax us in some form for continued use of fossil fuels. In the final analysis, the government’s $100 billion spent on climate research was an investment in a future world where a few get richer while the rest of us get poorer. Are you sure you’re still in favor of Cap and Trade becoming law? Are you really sure that manmade fossil fuel emissions are the problem? -
Chemware at 10:54 AM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The question of "Why do deniers deny ?" is one that puzzles most of us here. While the denial of some (eg: mining companies, electricity companies, big oil, and their shareholders) is understandable from an economic point of view, that of apparently rational people is difficult to comprehend. New Scientist has an excellent series of articles on this at: www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial My own personal experience is that you can show a denier all the papers and graphs you want, and he won't budge an inch. However, tell him about your personal experience, such as "Geez, I remember when there was 3 m of snow at Perisher when I was young and we skied off the balcony", and you'll get back "Yeah, the snow used to be really great, but these days it's crap". They only seem to respond to direct personal experience. -
yocta at 10:51 AM on 3 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Good post robhon! It is a good model you present and will be sure to stimulate discussion. RE# 1 robhon most likely said only CO2 in this statement as it is in the context that the reader would understand that the issue with global warming is about CO2. John has links on his site to the relevant topics that discuss what you are speaking about. I suggest commenting about it here CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Also, in order for any educational discussion to take place you need to present peer reviewed studies that actually support your skeptical claims. I will remain completely skeptical of your skepticism unless you present evidence. -
HumanityRules at 10:07 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
15.chriscanaris I've read that paper, I'd recommend a look.It makes some interesting observations about the state of the ice, speculastes on what may have occured in the 2008 season and of course presents some thickness data for 2007 and 2009. It's general conclusion is that ice thickness has slightly increased between 2007 and 2009. They add that this is within the range of natural variability, I wonder given the pausity of ice thickness data how you quantify such a thing. Anyway apart from that it's a very interesting read. Pro-AGW, but I have to say one that doesn't let the need for headlines get in the way of the science. 24.CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 2 June, 2010 So you favour an idea that the 1930-40's weren't a warm period. That there wasn't some exceptional ice melt in that period and that the Arctic wasn't warm? I thought it's been established that the 1930-40s were a period of relative global warmth I don't see why the Arctic should be excluded from that. All older records are by their nature fragmentary. It would be hard to argue that the complete temperature record was truely global before recent decades (think about the oceans). Always we work with what we have. And what we have suggests that there were periods of considerable Arctic ice melt. Don't ignore this, put it into a workable AGW theory. -
johnd at 08:41 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Riccardo at 07:58 AM, whilst the link between Arctic Ocean circulation and AO detected by NASA was reported just over 2 years ago, I am not as confident as you appear to be, that all that there is to learn on how the link relates with all other factors under all circumstances, has in fact been learnt. It is more likely that the understanding has barely started. Salinity is obviously a very important factor in understanding ice formation, not only for the present or the future, but for understanding past cycles. As is noted in the article, "the results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming", is perhaps something to keep in mind. -
Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
One of the good things of this site is that people can learn. Apparently the last successful lesson was on the Artic Oscillation impact on Arctic climate; i guess next one will be that scientists didn't discovered it today nor yesterday. And second next that they did take it into account and it does not explain current melting. -
cloneof at 07:24 AM on 3 June 2010Models are unreliable
Riccardo: Oh really? Sweet, got to see that when it get's published. Thanks for the link, even though I'm a few weeks late. -
johnd at 07:20 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
This article "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131) and "Arctic Oscillation (AO) time series, 1899 - June 2002" (http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/) may provide some historical perspective for the Arkadiusz posts -
GFW at 05:24 AM on 3 June 2010Update of Visualisations of Carbon Dioxide
That first animation is phenomenal. What an amazing way to present data of such a wide range of measurement-density, timescale, and value. It's utterly compelling. Oh yeah, the final result looks a bit like a hockey stick :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 05:08 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Amending my previous comment, it's actually "doubt" as opposed to "uncertainty" that is promoted by Monckton, Luntz et al. It's not surprising Luntz should carelessly substitute one term for the other; despite all the references to science in Luntz's memo the focus is not at all on science, it's on public optics. -
chris at 04:40 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June, 2010 Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June, 2010 We should be a little more careful with the scientific literature. Looking at the paper that Arkadiusz excerpts from (Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005) [*]) reinforces CBDunkerson's point, namely that the primary source of warming has been the persistent warming trend over the 20th century. [n.b. it’s also worth reading the last sentence of the abstract which Arkadiusz omitted from his excerpt-click on my link]. Polyakov et al (2005) explicitly highlight this background warming trend. If you look at their Figure 3, the Figure legend states:"Long-term variability of temperature of the intermediate AW of the Arctic Ocean. Prolonged warm (red shade) and cold (blue shade) periods associated with phases of multi-decadal variability and a background warming trend are apparent from the record of 6-year running mean normalized AW temperature anomalies (dashed segments represent gaps in the record)."
Also one can't really conclude that (concerning current warming) "the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago" from Arkadiusz papers. If we take the paper he excerpted from, we would conclude the opposite. Polyakov et al (2005)’s Figure 3 indicates that the current warming period has taken Arctic temperatures higher than in the early 20th century, and the more general evidence for that is strong. In any case, despite the limited direct measures of Arctic temperatures/sea ice extent etc. from ~100 years ago, we do have independent evidence that the warming from that period was considerably less significant compared to current Arctic warming since Arctic land ice melt produces a worldwide sea level signal; the rather slow rates of sea level rise in the early parts of the 20th century compared to current rates of rise is rather strong evidence for an absence of major persistent Arctic warming in the earlier period that matches the current period. It’s also worth pointing out that the early 20th century Arctic warming likely had a strong, and perhaps dominant influence from the effects of volcanic aerosols to which the Greenland ice sheet temperatures, in particular, seem particularly vulnerable (volcanic aerosols strongly cool these). So the evidence supports the interpretation that late 19th century, early 20th century strong volcanic activity knocked back temperatures and suppressed small solar and greenhouse-forced temperature rise in the Arctic during this period. Much of the enhanced warming from 1910/1915 (which likely was rapid) was probably a recovery from this volcanic-induced temperature suppression of accumulated solar and greenhouse-forcings which were “unleashed” rather quickly (see e.g. Box et al. (2009) [**]). A concern with respect to current Arctic warming (especially in the case of Greenland) is that Greenland warming is expected to be “in phase” with Northern Hemisphere warming, and although it has warmed considerably during the last 20-odd years (and started to release rather significant meltwater), it hasn’t recovered this phase relationship following the temperature statis during the mid-20th century. So [see Box et al. (2009) link just above] we may have some 1-1.5 oC of warming “catch up” to come. Clearly the situation in the Arctic now is very different indeed from the situation in the early 20th century. [*]Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005), One more step toward a warmer Arctic Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17605. [**] Box, J. E. et al. (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007 J. Climate 22, 4029-4049. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:43 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
I believe Monckton's most effective part in this drama is his ability to highlight and maintain uncertainty. Regarding uncertainties and the role they play in formulating coherent and useful policy response to AGW, it's interesting to read what the U.S. GOP pollster and thought-leader Frank Luntz wrote about the crucial role of uncertainty in public discussion of climate science. Luntz: Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate... Entire Luntz memo, influential, with eerily familiar tone and content, breathtakingly cynical: THE ENVIRONMENT: A CLEANER SAFER, HEALTHIER AMERICA I think this key issue of promoting and maintaining a sense of uncertainty is why the IPCC has been the subject of concentrated attack by Monckton and others. As Luntz noted prior to IPCC's 2007 report, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." The IPCC reports represent that window, which has closed still further since Luntz wrote his memo. Whether promoters of uncertainty will be able to withstand what's becoming an overwhelming flood of similar messages (recent NRC report, for instance) is an open question. -
tobyjoyce at 03:14 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
John Russell, I relate to what you say. Monckton's plummy voice is probably a selling point for much of the globe because they link it with honesty and probity. However, to an Irishman or a Scotsman, he is at a definite discount! -
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
NSIDC and JAXA agree closely in trend. They use different running averages (5 vs. 2 day) and of course a different algorithm processing data from different sensors. The biggest difference of course is that the NSIDC data goes back over thirty years, and JAXA less than a decade. So your daily tea-leaf reading of their graphic output might lead you to think that JAXA supports the notion that things are "almost average" while the longer-term data shown by NSIDC makes it clear that it's not. Greater than two sigmas down from the 1979-2000 baseline (JAXA first year is 2002) and diverging rapidly. -
chris1204 at 01:47 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
CBDunkerson @ 21 I don't make a big deal out of things being average - I'm merely pointing citing the site quoted in the post which reads as, well, average. Moreover, IARC JAXA tracks the ice level today as being exactly at 2006 levels which was followed by what turned into the second largest sea ice extent in the data presented only to be followed by the 2007 plummet. I don't want to cherry pick so all I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science. kdkd @ 19 Thanks for the reference. I'll have a peek behind the pay wall. As a doctor, I have a fair bit of experience with tipping points - eventually, we all confront a humongous tipping called death. At a less dramatic level, the transition from a mild to severe illness or from being a person at risk to a very sick person is often retrospectively easy to track. However, keeping people (and a human being is the epitome of a complex system) healthy is another story involving risk management decisions and my experience suggests we don't do it well. I note the abstract says as much. -
CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Arkadiusz and Ken, a novel approach... as it is clear that the Arctic sea ice is melting now insist that it isn't due to global warming. The problem is that the 'evidence' of this isn't strong at all. You're talking about fragmentary records from a century ago. Nobody was doing surveys of the entire Arctic back then. You can't say that because Spitsbergen experienced a warm period (similar to the recent trend) that this means the entire Arctic basin did. At that we don't have any accurate >ice< data for that time period... ok, ice around Spitsbergen retreated. How much exactly? How widespread was this ice retreat? It is pure guesswork. As to the current warming being all down to the ocean rather than CO2... the ocean is warmer BECAUSE of CO2, ergo ocean driven warming IS CO2 warming. -
Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Arkadiusz Semczyszak #22 Seems like AS has cited some pretty strong evidence that while the Arctic has warmed - the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago. The most likely global cause 90 years ago was Solar variation and local cyclical warming currents like the AMO. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
@CBDunkerson arctic-warming. 26th June 2009: "The starting point is the extreme warming at Spitsbergen in winter 1918/19. The winter temperatures exploded (see Fig. above- http://www.arctic-warming.com/hottopics/20090626/20090626_clip_image002.jpg) only here. The warming was sustained and remained for two decades, showing up in the Kara Sea and eastwards only after 1920. That is an evident aspect that the warming started at Spitsbergen. When Syun-Ichi Akasofu [2009] recently acknowledged that: "The recent rapid retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, particularly in 2007, is partly caused by the inflow of warm North Atlantic (Karcher et al., 2003; Polyakov, 2006)", it would be the same situation as during the Arctic warming 90 years ago. An earlier paper by Polyakov et al., [2005], expressed it in this way: "This study was motivated by a strong warming signal seen in mooring-based and oceanographic survey data collected in 2004 in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean. The source of this and earlier Arctic Ocean changes lies in interactions between polar and sub-polar basins. Evidence suggests such changes are abrupt, or pulse-like, taking the form of propagating anomalies that can be traced to higher-latitudes. For example, an anomaly found in 2004 in the eastern Eurasian Basin took 1.5 years to propagate from the Norwegian Sea to the Fram Strait region, and additional 4.5–5 years to reach the Laptev Sea slope." Many scientists have shown that the current rapid warming of the Arctic is not much "room" for CO2. For me, the most interesting works are: - Piechura, Walczowski (2009) Warming of the West Spitsbergen Current and sea ice north of Svalbard , - Alekseev et al. (2007) Arctic Sea Ice Data Sets in the Context of Climate Change During the 20th Century, - Chylek et al. (2009), Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. -
CBDunkerson at 20:52 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
chriscanaris #12, I still can't fathom why 'skeptics' make such a big deal out of ice extent briefly approaching AVERAGE. The mere fact that 'almost hitting average' is such a big deal serves as a tacit admission that ice extent has been BELOW average continuously for years now. In any remotely 'level' system you'd see values going ABOVE average on a regular basis... rather than merely getting CLOSE to average being a rare and noteworthy event. BTW, that report is also a month old. Since then Arctic sea ice extent has plummeted at an unprecedented rate and is now below the level for this time of year in 2007. They should have a new monthly report out by next week, but you can see the current status HERE. -
Alexandre at 20:35 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
John Russel #16 Totally agree. Here in Brazil there´s a nearly-retired meteorologist that has made some late fame among the broader public by making contrarian statements in interviews and right-wing Economy and business conferences. Except for the accent, the tactics are much the same. -
kdkd at 19:16 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
chriscanaris #12 A paper from Nature demonstrates how perturbations in these complex periodic systems are important. In that context, the jury seems may be still out on the Arctic ice extent, but very close to a verdict. Full reference: Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S.R., Dakos, V. et al. (2009) Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461, 53-59. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:12 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
1.565 ppm - sorry -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Also, I think about the Arctic ice experts - should speak out, others can only cite them, but ... "Unprecedented" ... Monckton is not a scientist about "the ice" ... but ... ... Polish professor Marsz all his long "scientific" life deal with the Arctic ice (recently also Antarctic). March of the first explains: "The correlation coefficient between the average annual surface ice (extent), and the value AMOMSar a year is equal to -0.80 (p <0.00001, 1979-2008). The strongest relationship between the value AMO MSar last year [2008] and the average monthly surface ice occur during the period from December to June - during the polar night, and spring (r from -0.82 to -0.74). The higher the value AMO MSar (ie, the Sargasso Sea SST), including in all months of next year in the Arctic ice surface is smaller." ... and then says the following: "The air temperature in the northern hemisphere has increased over this period (1979-2003, 25 years) to 0.73 ° C, which gives, also lower than in the previous period, [1917-1938 (22 years)] average increase of 0.0292 ° C • year -1. At the same time the growth rate of CO2 concentration was equal to 1565 ppm • year-1 (P <0.00001), almost four times higher than in the previous period of warming, and the same concentration of CO2 in the troposphere was also significantly higher than in the previous period and ranged are between 337 and 375 ppmv." "In the second period of warming (the current), despite the much higher concentration of CO2 in the troposphere (about 27-65 ppmv) than in the previous period, and a much stronger trend in the concentration of CO2, the rate of temperature rise in the northern hemisphere is smaller than during the first warming. If the concentration of CO2 govern the SAT changes, it should probably be different [...]. Presumably, increased concentrations of CO2 have some impact on the course of air temperature in recent years, however, in relation to the role played in shaping the changes in the SAT - scale NH [including the impact on Arctic ice], play AMO changes, the effect of the pCO2 is secondary, and perhaps even TERTIARY." Monckton is wrong (in principle) in detail, but his general conclusions that: the ice there is "nothing special" and even more so "UNPRECEDENTED" (for example, it was a "precedent" - by Marsz - in the years 1917 to 1938) may be the most consistent with the views of (at least) some researchers - Arctic sea research. -
John Russell at 18:56 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
I've spent some time in the past refuting some of Monckton's lectures and posting the results to various groups. I'm no scientist, but then neither is Monckton so it's not difficult to find what he's done in support of his deliberate campaign of misinformation. As a writer and director of films -- a role that also extends to producing visuals for conferences and presentations, I understand what he's doing. There are a couple of observations worth making. 1) Monckton, like many other anti-climate change lobbyists, specifically targets an audience that has limited scientific understanding of the subject. He knows the argument is not about science, it's about PR; about creating a groundswell of public opinion. 2) Monckton is not interested in addressing the counter-arguments of his more scientifically literate critics (like the people who frequent SkSc, I guess). His work is done long before we pull it apart. 3) Monckton -- for the sake of clarity he would say -- redraws ALL the graphs he uses in his presentations. He almost invariably changes the scale or truncates the timeline, or uses other tricks to change the essential message of the graph. Graph one of John's article is a perfect example of this. By concentrating on seasonal change and thus exaggerating the much more subtle annual variations in sea ice extent, he's able to give the impression to his specifically-targeted audience that all's tickety-boo. 4) If you look at a video of any of his lectures (there are plenty to find on Youtube) you'll note that he uses graphs and illustrations in rapid succession, just giving an impression and not allowing the audience to either study or think in any detail about the graph he's presented. 5) It's a well known fact in presentation that the words being spoken should follow closely any words being shown on screen. The human brain cannot read one set of words and listen to another at the same time. One either listens or reads. Monckton knows this and by talking rapidly and authoritatively he ensures the audience cannot analyse his graph. The only time the on-screen words and his voice coincide is when he reads the title at the top; in this case, "Arctic sea ice just fine... etc." One is just left with an impression. It's no accident that the titles of his graphs are the spoken word, rather than the more formal descriptive text a scientist would use. 6) He often leaves off the information one needs to authenticate the graph. He'll use enough to meet his purpose of providing credibility; not enough information for someone to be able to check out the original quickly. 7) He's a good presenter. He knows his upper-class English voice works well, particularly with people from the colonies (if you'll excuse the expression) -- which is probably why he does so many tours abroad. We working-class Brits hear it for what it is (I'll not say what, for fear of being moderated). To sum up. Anyone attending a Monckton lecture is being manipulated with great skill. Throughout history there have been other great orators who did this. 'Nough said. Hope that helps. -
chris1204 at 18:40 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
From: Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Andreas Herber: Synoptic airborne thickness surveys reveal state of Arctic sea ice cover GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09501, 5 PP., 2010 While summer Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased over the past three decades, it is subject to large interannual and regional variations. Methodological challenges in measuring ice thickness continue to hamper our understanding of the response of the ice-thickness distribution to recent change, limiting the ability to forecast sea-ice change over the next decade. We present results from a 2400 km long pan-Arctic airborne electromagnetic (EM) ice thickness survey in April 2009, the first-ever large-scale EM thickness dataset obtained by fixed-wing aircraft over key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. The data provide detailed insight into ice thickness distributions characteristic for the different regions. Comparison with previous EM surveys shows that modal thicknesses of old ice had changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability. I haven't splurged out to go beyond the abstract. It's just another random paper which leaves me thinking that the jury's still out. My main reservation about some of the fascinating and informative scientific argument on this site lies in the assumption that lots of trends pointing in the same direction suggest a robust conclusion (effectively metaanalysis). Metaanalysis has numerous limitations and can obscure as much as it can illuminate (for example, comparing apples and oranges). Equally, I have very little time for the Monckton/ Plimer modus operandi (the former claiming authority and expertise which is manifestly lacking while the latter being less than rigorous in his referencing to say the least) which equally oversimplify to the point of making sensible discussion impossible. -
daisym at 17:43 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
An article posted on May 29, 2010 in the blog 'Watts Up With That' claims that Arctic ice has increased. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/?utm_source=co2hog . The article by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts says that, according to the U.S. Navy's PIPS sea ice forecast data, Arctic ice volume has increased by 25% since May, 2008. One of the functions of the PIPS forecasting model is to help identify ice that is too thick for penetration by the Navy's nuclear submarines. PIPS is a computer model, and as such, it could be wrong, but the Navy hangs their hat on it for operational purposes. There appears to be some ambiguity in the way the Navy's model manipulates the data compared to the way the scientist's model does. How can these differences be reconciled? Who's right... the Navy or the scientists? Or is WUWT off the mark? -
Jeff Freymueller at 17:07 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#36, I agree that my speculation about PIPS is speculation. But I'd say it is on you to demonstrate that the older part of the time series of PIPS forecasts tells us anything about anything other than the performance of their forecasts at that time. -
philipm at 17:02 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
This ice thing is really silly. You don't have to be a professor to take it down but thanks anyway for doing so: my point is not that you needn't do this, but that the anti-science is inexpert. You'd think the multi-billion dollar fossil fuels industry would be able to defend its interests better than that. Then again, looking at what BP is currently doing, maybe not. Recently on my blog I did a retrospective of the prediction in The Australian in April 2009 that a big drop in sunspots presaged an ice age. What's so nice about this anti-science stuff is that the predictions are so hard to take down. When they make predictions. What's not so nice is they are still winning the propaganda war, and the Laws of Physics don't play nice with people who violate them. Aside from Arctic sea ice extent (which in the latest data is dipping below the 2007 low), Antarctic and Greenland ice volume are crashing, as reported elsewhere on this site. Even in the Antarctic, volume measures are crashing, indicating area will follow as soon as we have a warmer than average summer because there's less thick multi-seasonal ice. -
chris1204 at 17:00 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
PS: From The National Snow and Ice Data Center: 'Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 square miles) for the month of April, just 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was also close to average, at 41,000 kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day. As a result, April 2010 fell well within one standard deviation of the mean for the month, and posted the highest April extent since 2001. Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter.' All sounds pretty average to me. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 16:53 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Berenyi Peter> I agree, a forecast for tomorrow is probably not completely off from data for today. But this is a rather clumsy way to get at todays values. According to the NSIDC page I linked to before, they are continuously improving the quality of the microwave data. That could possibly account for the "gradual fix" you mention. But there are still huge error terms. I feel that there is so much uncertainty about these data, that the burden of documentation is on whoever wants to use them. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:46 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Riccardo, that note at the Register is quite remarkable, not the least for me because it was mostly Steven Goddard's thoughtless accusations of fraud and the like at "El Reg" that shifted me into prattling at RealClimate and (later) here. I'm married to a scientist, my dad was a scientist, many of my friends are as well. They all have in common regardless of other faults (my wife of course is faultless) a strongly inculcated attachment to following facts wherever they may lead, stacking bricks of information no matter the shape of building emerging from that work, indeed that appears largely the entire fascination of the process. Putting together a jigsaw puzzle is no fun if you trim the pieces to fit with scissors. Goddard's infamous articles at The Register irritated me in large part because of his strange belief that scientists are inclined to shape their work around ideology or some other distorting influence. I never knew Goddard and The Register published that retraction. For what it's worth, I corresponded with Goddard at the time and I actually concluded he was sincere in his odd way, not that it excused his departures into unfounded accusations. Perhaps he learned his lesson; I've largely avoided reading what he writes these days so I wouldn't know. Anyway thanks again for pointing out the retraction, it leaves me feeling as though The Register has some shred of integrity, nice because I'm fond of their over-the-top headlines and ledes. -
Berényi Péter at 16:31 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#31 Jeff Freymueller at 10:54 AM on 2 June, 2010 these plots are NOT DATA. I'm not sure why you seem to be interpreting the older forecasts as if they were data They are not data, agreed. But these are 24 hour forecasts and for immediate physical reasons neither sea ice extent nor volume can change much in a day. Therefore the numbers depend on the realtime data assimilation procedure used and the very quality of data assimilated. If this system was faulty before 2003, gradually fixed from 1998 on, it would explain the divergence. However, at least some hint of a documentation is needed for this kind of reasoning to be satisfactory. -
Riccardo at 16:18 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
doug, i already noticed in a comment in the other post that more than ice extention it is critical thinking that is falling below the absolute low in human history. Indeed Goddard knows very well that his pixel counting technique is bogus, given the full retraction he was forced to make not so long ago (scroll down here to editor's note). Neverthless he used it again and some people followed suit, blindly I'd say. (Thanks to Phil Clarke in a comment here for reminding us). -
KeenOn350 at 16:06 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Just want to say thanks for excellent, painstaking, detailed refutation of Moncton's materials/presentation. -
sailrick at 15:47 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Humanity Rules If I'm not mistaken, St. Paul IS in the Pribiloff islands. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:14 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Lot of that PIPS going around. Berényi, I'm surprised, usually you don't go in for fads of this kind. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 15:04 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
The way I understand this, the PIPS system directly uses passive microwave satellite data, as discussed here. Then they run some algorithm to check if the ice is growing or shrinking. So the actual data on ice extent trends which powers PIPS is from the SSM/I satellite data. The PIPS forecast can't be better than those (but it could be worse). However, these data are subject to really great uncertainty, as explained the section of error sources here. I think it would be unwise if anyone seriously used the PIS maps directly to estimate ice trends, at the very least that would require a lengthy discussion of the possible error. -
chris1204 at 15:01 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
WUWT vs Skeptical Science - the battle of the graphs!
Prev 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 Next
