Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 Next
Comments 122401 to 122450:
-
LauraM at 20:34 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#44 CBDunkerson at 03:40 AM on 17 March, 2010 Thanks for those links. JeffID was confusing me for a minute, but those links cleared the air. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:17 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
While agreeing in general with the description of defects in the process of advertising education, especially the science that affects the economic fundamentals of the global economy ..., I have given: 1. In my country, I was repeatedly called denialist ..., the concept that this is often used when there is no scientific rebuttal ..., 2. denialism initially served for the determination of the people contradicting the Holocaust. Use it interchangeably for "skeptic" - is: unscientific, unethical and immoral (The broad use of the word "denialism" is controversial, as it has been criticized as a polemical method of suppressing non-mainstream views. Similarly, in an essay discussing the general importance of skepticism, Clive James objected to the use of the word denialist to describe climate change skeptics, stating that it "calls up the spectacle of a fanatic denying the Holocaust" - Wikipedia), 3. Interests - lobbyists, often change their minds - in Europe: Statoil, Shell began to fund scientific work to confirm the accuracy of the theory of AGW ... (CCS very pays them ...), 4. Titles, the assumptions for grants, often suggest a research results. Without reform of science - the release of the "utopia" of grants, particularly in the complex area of science such as climatology, can never be said of the honest scientific consensus ... 5. According to many theorists of scientific methodology - "scientific consensus" is a concept unscientific ... This censorship ... 6. Until recently it was "scientific consensus" regarding LIA - Black Death - rats - bacteria, currently the last few years this pattern is different: LIA - black death - a man - a virus similar to HIV ... 7. Such researchers as e.g.: Copernicus, Bruno, Milankovitch, Wegener, etc.. by official science, de facto, too, were called "denialists" ... So Let's get the concept of "denialism" to the trash can and return to the discussion on climate. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 19:53 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Robert Park has an excellent book called:Voodoo Science which deals which anything from pathological through junk and pseudoscience ending with basic fraudulent science. The warning signs of bad science are (wikipedia): 1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists. 2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery. 3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal. 4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim. 5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim. 6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community. 7. The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature. All of the above criteria fits nicely onto various blogs and prominent figures in the non-scientific and very minor scientific community that strongly opposes mainstream climate science. Of course, you can be exited about discovering something new, just make sure it is not voodoo. -
Argus at 19:46 PM on 17 March 2010Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
Yeah, sure. Also, if you take the current birth rate in the world, 2,6 child per woman, and apply it the development of the world's population, you get the frightening figure of 134000 billions of people on earth by the year 2300 (according to a UN report). In other words, stop projecting millimeter figures hundreds of years ahead! It's not going to happen according to our little curves, based on the years 2003 to 2007 or whatever is the latest alarming 'report'. We have no knowledge of what is going to happen to sea levels, temperatures, or ice sheets, with a perspective of hundreds of years into the future. It is just guess work.Response: Actually, the past gives us a good insight into where we're headed into the future. Our lower CO2 emission scenarios have global temperatures rising by around 2°C. The last time our climate was this warm, around 125,000 years ago, global sea levels were over 6 metres higher than today. So we are on a current trajectory for sea level rise of at least 6 metres. There is some uncertainty about how quickly this might happen - at the moment, the peer-review research indicates we'll face 1 to 2 metres sea level rise by 2100 but how quickly we reach 6 metres is uncertain. -
mikel01 at 19:03 PM on 17 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Just a question on the temperature chart. I don't understand how you have interpreted the chart. The shape of the chart suggests the measurements for near surface are being taken in the northern hemisphere only, while the sea surface chart (I went and played on the site) appears more likely to be for the entire globe. For the near surface chart (the one you have shown) you state that Feb is the second hottest Feb on the satellite record, when the chart you are using for your point fairly clearly shows it is the hottest, yet as mentioned appears to only be for the northern hemisphere. I am not trying to deny any of the statements you have made, I am not nearly knowledgeable in the science to do so, but your use of information to support your point does leave it open to some questions and interpretation. Could you advise where the satellite data showing Feb 2010 as the second hottest on satellite record is since it is not the chart you have shown in support of it? ThanksResponse: As far as I can tell, Figure 1 is global, not Northern Hemisphere. I gather the seasonal aspect favours Northern Hemisphere seasons because the NH features more land than the SH hence the temperature variation is greater there.
Eyeballing Figure 1 shows February is clearly the hottest month on record. However, I've opted to quote Roy Spencer who claims February 2010 is the 2nd hottest year on record on his blog. I figure his data analysis is more rigorous than my eyeballing a graph (we've all seen the danger of citing eyeballing over data analysis). He also uses "lower atmosphere" but doesn't specify which altitude specifically.
Incidentally, here is the updated UAH satellite data captured today. Global temperatures for March 2010 have shot up and it's looking like 2010 is going to be a very hot year:
-
NewYorkJ at 18:35 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
"#62, It's also obvious that nobody can refute my claims b/c they are correct." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof Falls into characteristic #5 in John's recent post. -
ScaredAmoeba at 17:21 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, A slightly O.T. post, but one that I hope you'll find interesting and that I feel dovetails with your post on the 5 characteristics of scientific denialism, although these combine methods, tactics and motivation.Jacques, Peter J., Dunlap, Riley E. and Freeman, Mark(2008) 'The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism', Environmental Politics, 17: 3, 349 - 385 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09644010802055576 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576
'Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement coordinated by CTTs [conservative think tanks], designed specifically to undermine the environmental movement's efforts to legitimise its claims via science. Thus, the notion that environmental sceptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of 'junk science' lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised 'Davids' battling the powerful 'Goliath' of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as sceptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.'
Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? Behind the Wegman Report and Decades of Related Anti-Science Attacks John R. Mashey February 11, 2010 V 1.0.1 www.desmogblog.com/plagiarism-conspiracies-felonies-breaking-out-wegman-fileDr Mashey meticulously chronicles and documents the vested interests' subversion of ideological propensities of certain political groups and the almost innumerable deceits, distortions conspiracies and the downright lies, used by right-wing Americans to undermine science, ever since the Tobacco Industry discovered that to combat science, all they needed was to spread doubt! Of course, the original Tobacco strategy has been expanded to exploit the power of internet blogs and websites. On page 22, Dr. Mashey catalogues the crescendo of Denial Industry manufactured stunts and events in the run-up to Copenhagen, which were intended to and succeeded in derailing the COP15 Climate conference and have led to a new low in public perception of AGW science, in sharp contrast with the continued accumulating of scientific evidence . The crescendo is in itself circumstantial evidence of a carefully planned and coordinated campaign, including the CRU hack
Of course, I couldn't omit 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science' - by The Union of Concerned Scientists.
-
RSVP at 16:40 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The last time I saw a definition of the Scientific Method it said nothing about reaching consensus. That said, perhaps the rise in obesity is making people feel that much warmer. It would be quite ironic if global warming turned out to be due to transfats. -
Jeff Id at 16:24 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#62, It's also obvious that nobody can refute my claims b/c they are correct. #64, How so? I wonder what you consider arm waiving about the claim that sea ice has recovered in 2009-10 along with the point that the minimums support it? I refuse to live in a world where other peoples words govern the truth. There is no need to have a reference to a different scientist pointing out the obvious - they do exist btw but if you want the truth you can look them up. Again, this isn't a complex point I made. You have the key's, it's up to you to look in the door. On your comments about Beck, I'm not at all familiar with his work. Tony B did a post which contained some Beck work at tAV, so far I've been critical of his statements and his results at tAV. Also, I think you agree with me that Beck so far at tAV was unconvincing. I like to offer people like him a chance to defend themselves but there were several problematic statements made. 1- referencing a paper supporting his CO2 argument with the same sort of bad math that the hockey sticks were made from. 2- accepting high CO2 values in local regions which were well outside of nearby values. These were then described as having an effect on temp. Even the most egregious believer would admit that a local CO2 variance wouldn't cause large warming. 3- he said he was attempting to prove that CO2 levels were not created anthropogenically, this was as unscientific as some of the advocacy posts we see too much of. The data must lead, not the conclusion. I'm sure there are other aspects that bothered different people, but I wasn't impressed. He really didn't make a full defense/description though. -
Albatross at 16:23 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Sidd @ 65, This post might helpful -
chris1204 at 15:51 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
JC @14 Fair enough! Motive however powerfully influences method. And the generally high level of courtesy on this site convinces me of the good will of contributors from both sides posting here. -
chris1204 at 15:31 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I confess I found the paper a touch simplistic in that it fails to recognise the complexities of human responses to unpalatable realities. In fairness, much of what the paper describes I encounter daily in my work as a medicolegal specialist reading reports by colleagues who act as 'guns for hire.' The motivation here is all too easy to discern. I would point out further that in this particular arena my professional body has been singularly unsuccessful in policing the activities of rogue experts. In this setting, the 'peer review' process has failed dismally. However, when it comes to an issue like AGW, many who take sides in the debates have overtly nothing personally to gain or lose. However, the sheer fervour with which the two sides advance their positions does sometimes leave me shaking my head (which is not to deny the importance of the issue). I feel for some people the issue taps into deep seated needs for a belief system in a world which has discarded spirituality. Equally, there are those on both sides of the divide who seem driven by a need to be noticed. In taking their strident stance, they fill a relational void in their lives. The latter two mechanisms can be seen in a range of fields of human endeavour - not merely the 'warmist/denialist' arena.Response: Lest I get too bogged down into psychoanalysing those who I encounter in the climate debate, I tend to focus on their methods, not motives. You could be onto something with that relational void theory though - my wife can often be heard calling "get off that damn computer!" :-) -
Bern at 13:55 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Thanks for the post - interesting & informative article. I see all five of the key aspects of denialism when I talk to a friend about climate change. He's a pretty smart guy, scientific training, but unfortunately he gets his world-view from right-leaning blogs & Fox News (which he regards as 'balanced', or at least 'restoring the balance'), and is thus politically opposed to the notion of AGW. My strategy is to reply to his emails (usually pointing me to some blog post of article 'debunking' AGW) with the best scientific references & explanations I can find. Skeptical Science has become an invaluable tool in that regard! -
citizenschallenge at 13:51 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The report left out character assassination and ad hominem attacksResponse: Point 1 (conspiracy theories) and to a lesser extent Point 2 (fake experts) both cover these tactics. -
Albatross at 13:31 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Great post John. Peter Sinclair's latest Crock of the week is relevant to this story and well worth watching.Response: Funnily enough, I watched Peter's latest video earlier today and even tweeted it but didn't make the mental connection between his video and this latest post. Here is the video:
-
Stuart at 13:19 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Minor nitpick: "death of more than 330,000 lives" could be improved to "loss of..." or "... people". Otherwise, that's an insightful piece. It's not difficult to see similarities to other anti-science crusades popping up again and again, it's just unfortunate how much attention the crackpots are getting on this issue.Response: Thanks for the feedback. Funny how you can read and reread your own post over and over but still miss those little grammatical anomalies. -
SLRTX at 13:10 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Ned (#6) Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to make it sound like they themselves influence policy. But they were set up to help govts guide their nation's policies. The IPCC itself doesn't actively set policies. "By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive." http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm The point is, the IPCC does not do the science itself. Anyone railing against the IPCC is arguing policy, not science. The IPCC "does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports." Sorry for my misstatement. -
Ned at 13:07 PM on 17 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
At this point, given trends in atmospheric CO2, CH4, halocarbons, etc. "cooling" is not likely to be a problem for the foreseeable future. In fact, if we burn enough coal over the next century or two, it's entirely possible that there will still be enough additional CO2 in the atmosphere 50,000 years from now to prevent the next glacial cycle (Archer 2009). Cooling is not going to be a problem. Heat, sea level rise, and especially alterations to the hydrologic cycle will be. -
SLRTX at 13:01 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
NewYorkJ (#5) "Actually, #2 is technically a falsity too going by GISS's latest adjustment." Which adjustment is that? I didn't see a link in your post. But here's a link to the GISS site. Can you point out the "falsity" to us? Thanks. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Response: I think what NewYorkJ is getting at is that a recent adjustment of the U.S. temperature data has now moved 2006 and 1998 above 1934 as the hottest year on record for the United States. But the difference between the three years is statistically insignificant - as it was for the previous adjustment when 1934 was made the hottest year on U.S. record. NewYorkJ originally commented on this here... -
Chris G at 13:01 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I've met a few rare birds that are rational and have a pretty solid understanding of the basic science, but are fully convinced that it's not CO2 that is causing the warming or ocean acidification. They are likable people. I don't quite get why they don't get it. One tried to convince me that, because the ocean has varying pH levels depending on time and location, it can't be that CO2 is causing a lowering of the pH. I was thinking, well, yeah, we know that there are other factors that affect pH, but that doesn't negate the basic chemistry of the solubility of CO2 in water, or the reaction that results in the formation of carbonic acid. It was like it had to be one thing or the other with him; when, the reality is that it is always a combination of factors. It's like there is some psychological blockage preventing these guys from connecting all the dots. Connect only some of the dots and you get a different picture. Otherwise, I find myself most often repeating the question, "What does the size Al Gore's bank account have to do with the absorption spectra of CO2?" -
Ned at 12:59 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
SLRTX writes: Same thing goes for the IPCC. That organization's main purpose is to influence policy, based on the evidence of AGW/ACC. But, the IPCC doesn't define the science. Er, actually I'd say exactly the opposite. The IPCC's role is simply to provide a conservative, cautious overview of the science of climate change based on the totality of the work in the field during the years prior to each updated report. -
sidd at 12:54 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Mr. Hogarth, thanx for the references. May I add Schuckmann, JGR, v114, C09007, 2009, which, in Figure 5 clearly shows lowered salinity to great depths in the Southern Ocean in the period 2003 to 2008. Would anyone care to comment on any possible connection this may have to surface ice (or the lack thereof) ? -
Ned at 12:52 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Peter, that is nice -- and I myself posted a reference to analysis of ARGO data from the Southern Ocean on another thread recently -- but there is no need to cater to Jeff Id's absurd and completely unjustified dismissal of satellite-based sea surface temperature retrievals. Jeff, that's enough arm-waving. It's increasingly clear that on this topic you simply don't know what you're talking about. Google Scholar lists over 9000 references to papers with the keywords "AVHRR" and "sea surface temperature". That's not surprising, because retrieval of SSTs from AVHRR imagery using various multiwindow algorithms is one of the most robust and best-validated methods in remote sensing. The use of these data has been a staple of quantitative meteorology and oceanography for three decades. I am uninterested in assurances that "you've spent hours with the actual data". Many, many people spend their entire careers working with AVHRR derived sea surface temperature measurements. I find it particularly ironic that you'd describe this very robust and high-quality data set as "the worst possible" considering that as of a few days ago your own blog was promoting E.G Beck's ridiculous interpretations of chemical CO2 measurements. In light of that, I think that you might want to back up your claims here by references to the peer reviewed literature rather than by references to rather dubious blog posts, since a visit to your blog is more likely to decrease than increase your credibility here. -
NewYorkJ at 12:51 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
They seem to need a category for basic falsities. Fallacies deal with poor logic. Falsities (such as "sea levels aren't rising") are demonstrably false statements. 1. Falsity: 1934 was the warmest year on record globally 2. Fallacy: 1934 was the warmest year on record in the U.S. Actually, #2 is technically a falsity too going by GISS's latest adjustment. Most on John's list I suppose could probably be categorized into cherry-picking (pretty extreme in some cases) or logical fallacies. So it seems that fighting denialism long-term might involve teaching critical thinking skills at all levels of education. -
Peter Hogarth at 12:46 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Here are some recently published papers which do not rely on AVHRR data and thus provide independent corroborating evidence that the Antarctic Ocean is warming, - at all depths. For depths down to 1000m, we have "Decadal-Scale Temperature Trends in the Southern Hemisphere Ocean" Gille 2008 "Long-term trends in the heat content of the Southern Hemisphere ocean are evaluated by comparing temperature profiles collected during the 1990s with profiles collected starting in the 1930s. Data are drawn both from ship-based hydrographic surveys and from autonomous floats. Results show that the upper 1000 m of the Southern Hemisphere ocean has warmed substantially during this time period at all depths. Warming is concentrated within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC." We also have "State of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean climate system" Mayewski 2009 "The upper kilometer of the circumpolar Southern Ocean has warmed, Antarctic Bottom Water across a wide sector off East Antarctica has freshened, and the densest bottom water in the Weddell Sea has warmed". For deeper waters we have "Decadal warming of the coldest Antarctic Bottom Water flow through the Vema Channel" Zenk 2007 "From today's perspective the apparent stagnant temperature level until 1991 can be interpreted as a period of feeble rising in comparison with a perspicuous warming trend of 2.8 mK yr−1 in the following 15 years." and also "Recent decadal warming and freshening of Antarctic-derived abyssal waters" Johnson 2009 "Here we review evidence of recent decadal warming of these Antarctic-derived abyssal waters around much of the global oceans, and recent freshening of these waters in some basins near their source regions. We also attempt to assess the potential contribution of these changes to global heat and sea level budgets". And for a magnificent comprehensive recent overview of the Antarctic: Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment edited by Turner and many others, which also examines effects of warming such as recent Ice Shelf retreat (but be warned it is 20Mb) -
SLRTX at 12:40 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
josil (#1) Denialists mix ideology with science as if ideological arguments somehow define climate science. Al Gore is not a scientist. So he's a moot point. Same thing goes for the IPCC. That organization's main purpose is to influence policy, based on the evidence of AGW/ACC. But, the IPCC doesn't define the science. Denialists would like us to believe that somehow Al Gore and the IPCC is using the "hockey stick" to "swindle" us into believing in climate change. That simply isn't true. Those arguments are red herrings. They have nothing to do with the science of climate change. -
SLRTX at 12:32 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, Great post. Regardless of the evidence clearly supporting AGW/ACC, some people are beyond any rational comprehension of the evidence. When it comes to discussing climate science, I separate people into 4 categories: 1. Those who get it. 2. The rational ignorant. These people are rational and understand the experts may know a bit more about things than they do. They may not completely understand the science, but they know they don't have to understand everything to believe the experts. The "rational skeptic" may be in this group. Emphasis on "rational". These people would appreciate this site for its simplicity and links to solid references. (Here's a link to a description of a "rational skeptic": http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html) 3. The irrational ignorant. These people make up a large part of the denialist camp. They don't understand the science, argue the peer-review process is a conspiracy, and think they know more than the experts. This group thinks they are skeptics, but they certainly aren't rational. Forget even trying to convince these cranks. Their train left the station long ago. 4. The misinformer. These are the corporate or political hacks who (should) know better. They make up the remainder of the denialist camp. They have an agenda, and will do anything to stop actions to curb global warming. They use the irrational ignorant to amplify their lies. Too bad the irrational ignorant can't see the real conspiracy in front of them. The misinformers are part of the real conspiracy, and the irrational ignorant are just tools to further the denialist agenda. WUWT is a good example of a misinformer site. It sure attracts a lot of the irrational ignorant. -
shawnhet at 12:23 PM on 17 March 2010Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
"i can't understand why you continue to jump to different issues. What's the problem with parametrizations as far as the climate change thory is concerned? Is it included in the parametrizations? Again, it might be a problem of the models, not of the theory." Personally, I can't see how you don't see the relevance here. You were arguing that we can just plug "the physics and chemistry" into the models and come up with some predictions(or projections). The Wiki page discusses how this is *not* what the models do - "Parameterization in a climate model refers to the method of replacing (physical)processes that are too small-scale or complex to be physically represented in the model by a simplified process. This can be contrasted with other processes—e.g., large-scale flow of the atmosphere—that are explicitly resolved within the models."(bracketed term added by me for clarity) Notice how they replace a more complex real process with a simplified process. "You can make predictions without knowing how PDO works? You can not even hindcast, at best you could could do some regressions. But without the physics you are limited to correlations, which can dismiss but not affirm the validity of any theory." Well, we could make hindcasts for periods if we got some previously undiscovered data. If we found a way to reconstruct the PDO for the last 1000 years we could use that to hindcast the temperature. IAC, there is no requirement for a theory to make predictions of the past, just that it make some testable predictions that can be tested against real world observations. Thanks for the Atmoz link, I will need some time to digest it, though. Cheers, :) -
josil at 12:18 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Unfortunately, much of Al Gore's "work" has the flavor of denialism more than science. I wonder if the "discussion" on climate would have been more civil if he hadn't been involved. For example, even granting AGW there is still a wide range of alternatives for dealing it.Response: "I wonder if the "discussion" on climate would have been more civil if he hadn't been involved."
Considering much of the conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are directly focused on climate scientists, my guess is there would've been little difference whether Al Gore existed or not. Nevertheless, it's hypothetical and beside the point - what matters is the science, not the former Vice President. -
NewYorkJ at 12:09 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
JeffId..."You guys haven't done too badly. Very minimal name calling and accusation. " Compared with some of the comments I've seen of yours in more contrarian environments, you've done fairly well in that regard here. Unfortunately, there's still the persistent problem of unsubstantiated claims, which is arguably more disasteful than the ad hominens. Things like "I've blogged on it", "[people] agree with me", and "based on lots of hours with the data", all while constructing red herrings that divert attention from the topic, is good for show, and perhaps acceptable among contrarians, but isn't too useful and doesn't fly among critical thinkers. A good suggestion would be to start referencing actual data and papers and make an attempt to stay on topic. -
We're heading into an ice age
OK. This is what I have to say. I am not skeptical about the warming trend caused by atmospheric changes. I do think the current discussion in the media is limited. If we were about to enter an ice age, we might want more greenhouse gases to counter an ice age trend independent of the atmosphere and likely caused by astronomical features. The above discussion says an ice age is unlikely becasue of the warming forces. I say that gets to my basic point. The discussion is too narrow. Do not say "it is getting warmer, we must cool the earth." Ask what will come next? What should we do if the future will be warmer? and also ask "What should do if the trend is for cooler weather?" Our changes to the atmosphere must be in response to what we know about the climate in the future. Warmer will be inconvenient. Ice will kill most of us. I don't know what will happen. I know we need a wider discussion. Our most important question is "So what?" We need more data and a more comprehensive picture with many more questions. The cureent discussion in public is limited.Response: The question "so what?" is addressed in the positives and negatives of global warming. -
Jeff Id at 11:42 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#59, There is nothing casual about my dismissal. It's based on a lot of hours with the actual data. AVHRR is probably a better measure over warmer areas than antarctic land, but over the land, it's just too noisy for good trends. I provided a link earlier. #60, I don't know what Goddard even said outside of this post. I'm sorry I didn't have time for discussion, I was at work. As far as a source for my statement that sea ice recovered further in 2009, I have several posts done by myself as well as pointed out that it's easy to figure out that there was a further recovery in the summer of 09 over summer 07 just by looking at the extent minimum. Because the winter freeze basically locks in multi-year ice in the center of the Antarctic, the extent minimum is closely associated with the amount of multi-year ice lost. -- It's during the melt when you loose more of the center see.... It's not like we need quantum physics. A substantial point of this post was that despite 'warming land'.... My assertion is that the land has not appreciably warmed. The trend over 50 years is about 0.06 C/Decade and not significant. I said sea ice doesn't respond much to the small warming and responds far more to current, I provided the video of sea ice as evidence. That's all. I enjoy coming to blogs with groups of deep believers and having a discussion once in a while, just to see how open minded they are. You guys haven't done too badly. Very minimal name calling and accusation. BTW, I do believe in CO2 warming.Response: "A substantial point of this post was that despite 'warming land'...."
Quite the contrary, the main focus of this post is looking at warming trends over the Southern Ocean - specifically, where ice-covered regions where sea-ice forms. -
Berényi Péter at 10:34 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
#84 gallopingcamel at 06:53 AM on 17 March, 2010 "seems pretty obvious that the GCMs are way too simplistic" It's not obvious at all, quite the contrary. I would say they are overcomplicated structures on rather shaky physical foundations. Terrestrial climate is a heat engine based on water as a working fluid. Common sense tells that much, one does not even have to be a climate scientist to know that much. Weather-talk is about precipitation or the lack of it, what else? And exactly the water cycle is the most poorly understood part of any computational model of climate. Need to say more? -
yocta at 10:04 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id you have thoroughly confused me. Uou say things like I don't have time to find a source for you. I have looked at the NSIDC data in great detail though. , and then claim you can find a decreasing trend looking at 3 points. You have managed to get everyone OT whilst actively avoiding answering the post's main point on Goddard. All this doesn't help your case for people to take you seriously. I don't understand how you can hope to educate people if you can't explain, or back up your statements with peer reviewed papers that the ice experts you mention have written that agree with you. No offense, but the best scientists I have ever encountered are also very good at explaining things. -
Ned at 09:42 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id writes: I came to this blog after a comment was left at tAV and I saw the blog using the worst possible data for Antarctic trend above. It's a common mistake though because, how can people know that the data which was used isn't very good for trend. This thread is about temperatures in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. Those figures were posted because they illustrate the warming trend in the Southern Ocean. This trend is calculated using measurements of sea surface temperature from AVHRR. Far from being the "worst possible data" AVHRR is routinely and reliably used to retrieve SST for applications ranging from hurricane forecasting to fisheries management. Thousands of scientists in many, many fields use SST data from AVHRR. Your casual dismissal of these data is frankly ridiculous. -
Jesús Rosino at 09:21 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
The link to Kwok & Comiso 2002 is wrong; it is here (or here in full). -
Jesús Rosino at 08:44 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Further recommended reading for Steve Goddard would be Gille 2002, Kwok & Comiso 2002 and Fyfe 2006. -
Jeff Freymueller at 08:12 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#53 RSVP, changes in sea ice by itself won't make any difference for global sea level -- the water is already part of the ocean, whether frozen or liquid (excluding grounded ice). Otherwise, what John said. Changes in the ice shelves off Antarctica, likewise, don't directly impact sea level. But the loss of ice shelves appears to have been followed by a systematic speedup of the glaciers that fed into the ice shelves, and that will affect sea level. -
gallopingcamel at 07:02 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
RSVP (#68 & #78), I am reluctant to disagree with someone who appears to be on my side considering that we are out numbered and out gunned on this blog. However, the limited heat capacity of CO2 (given the very low concentration in our atmosphere) can be ignored as any energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is rapidly shared with other gas molecules in the atmosphere. -
gallopingcamel at 06:53 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
Peter Hogarth (#72), the Royer/Shaviv thing has been going on for some time. Royer's latest update (2010) will likely evoke some response from Shaviv. While I don't buy Royer's exaggerated claims for the role of CO2, I am skeptical about Shaviv too. Shaviv has suggested that the Earth's position relative to our galaxy's spiral arms can affect our climate. Sounds like weird science but remember that Plate Tectonics was laughed at for many years. You appear to be keeping an open mind with regard to climate drivers other than CO2 or cosmic rays. That makes perfect sense to me; it already seems pretty obvious that the GCMs are way too simplistic. -
Peter Hogarth at 06:46 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
33.Ken Lambert at 01:39 AM on 17 March, 2010 Apologies Ken, I misread your post in undeserved haste. Air in contact will indeed take up some of the energy released, and PBs point about a thermostat, more like a regulator, working against cooling/heating when air temp moves below/above zero. -
Jeff Id at 06:23 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#52, Perhaps you could tell them for me. -
RSVP at 06:20 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Regardless of whether this trend represents cooling or warming, how does it ultimately affect the global sea level? Was'nt that the main issue after all?Response: The main issue for this specific topic was the false statement "sea ice is increasing due to cooling". Both satellite, ocean floats & ship surface measurements all provide empirical evidence that the Southern Ocean is in fact warming, not cooling.
The issue of temperature trends over the Antarctic continent and what's causing Antarctica to lose ice mass at an accelerating rate is a whole other can of worms. -
Albatross at 06:10 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id, @51 "I saw the blog using the worst possible data for Antarctic trend above." This is yet another puzzling and unsubstantiated statement-- the continental surface temperature data from the AVHRR sensors may have problems, we can probably all agree with that. The same is not true for the SST data for the polar oceans which are being discussed here. The reality is that Goddard is seems to be confusing temperature trends over the Antarctic specific reference to the the warming oceans surrounding Antarctica. And Goddard also shows an image on his WUWT blog post which is based(according to you) on the "worst possible data" -- have you posted at WUWT to tell him and Watts that? -
Jeff Id at 05:58 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#50, No comments were made here about the long term 'health' of frozen water. Is ice healthy and water sick? I tried to make the point that most of the comments on sea ice melting in the 07 event were related to currents not warm air. Several ice scientists have made this point and are in agreement with me, or I am with them if you prefer. I came to this blog after a comment was left at tAV and I saw the blog using the worst possible data for Antarctic trend above. It's a common mistake though because, how can people know that the data which was used isn't very good for trend. As far as sea ice in general though, I don't think we have much to worry about. -
Albatross at 05:25 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeffrey @46, This discourse is quite revealing. I am not annoyed at all :) I, and other non D-Ks, know for a fact that the scientists who are experts in the cryosphere (Barber, ICESAT, NSDIC etc.) do not agree with your unsubstantiated comments made here and elsewhere concerning the "health" and long term trends in Arctic sea ice. I, and others, also know (as should you) that three points (2007, 2008, 2009) cannot be used to make any assertions (certainly not statistically significant assertions)concerning the trend of any variable, never mind being so bold as to claim that there has been a "recovery" in Arctic MY ice. Anyhow, I find it rather odd that you seem to avoid speaking to the topic at hand here. Do you have anything to say about the Antarctic sea ice puzzle and Goddard's latest campaign of misinformation on Antarctic sea ice? Thanks. -
Jeff Id at 05:23 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#47, I don't have time to find a source for you. I have looked at the NSIDC data in great detail though. Your "latest findings" link indicated that it was about the Beaufort Sea whereas we're talking about the whole Arctic. Certainly you can see the difference. Being someone with the wherewithal to actually study the data myself it is pretty obvious that we again have more multi-year ice than we had at the 07 minimum. I really don't need someone else to tell me. Keep in mind that when you write 'has recovered' it means has increased, nothing else. You write that you haven't seen the winter results, the multi-year ice level is determined primarily by the minimum as that's when the ice breaks up and flows from the region. It melts as it travels southward. Once refreezing begins there isn't much ice leaving the center of the pack. Therefore, you can answer your own question by comparing the sea ice extent minimums in 07,08 and 09. Simple. -
Berényi Péter at 05:23 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Arctic sea ice minimum extent for 2002-2009 2007-09-24 4,254,531 km2 2008-09-09 4,707,813 km2 2009-09-13 5,249,844 km2 2005-09-22 5,315,156 km2 2002-09-09 5,646,875 km2 2006-09-14 5,781,719 km2 2004-09-11 5,784,688 km2 2003-09-18 6,032,031 km2 Looks like rotten ice extent is steadily increasing since 2007. Also, last time I've checked it took at least 2 years for ice to get more than two years old. -
Riccardo at 05:21 AM on 17 March 2010Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
shawnhet, i can't understand why you continue to jump to different issues. What's the problem with parametrizations as far as the climate change thory is concerned? Is it included in the parametrizations? Again, it might be a problem of the models, not of the theory. "There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out the physics of (whatever causes the PDO), however, this is not necessary to make predictions about its effects." You can make predictions without knowing how PDO works? You can not even hindcast, at best you could could do some regressions. But without the physics you are limited to correlations, which can dismiss but not affirm the validity of any theory. As for what is what we now call PDO, you might be interested in this atmoz's post. -
CBDunkerson at 05:06 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff, I've looked at the up to date data. Indeed, I provided links to it. The ICESat link above clearly shows Winter 2008/09 multi-year ice below 2007/08... as did the previous graph from the NSIDC. I haven't seen similar results for 2009/10 yet, and we may not as ICESat was failing by that point, but the study linked under 'Latest findings' shows that multi-year ice decreased again. Your claim that multi-year ice has recovered the past two years remains at odds with all available data... which might explain your continued failure to cite a source. If you can't BACK the claim with evidence of any kind, why do you keep making it?
Prev 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 Next
