The New York Times carried this interesting write-up of the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. For those not familiar with this conference, it's like a scientific meeting on climate change -- without the science.
The NYT article concluded with this statement, which pretty much sums it up:
The meeting was largely framed around science, but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so.
I wonder where the other 95 percent of the Inhofe 400 was. Perhaps they were at their unicorn farm. Or relaxing with the snuffalufagous.
This pretty much confirms what I've been saying for a while: While advocates against action on climate change claim that there are lots of legitimate climate scientist skeptics out there, it's simply not true. To further convince yourself of that, take a look at the speakers listed on the program. You'll see the same old tired skeptics have been recycled yet again: Michaels, Spencer, Singer, McKitrick, Balling, Carter, Gray, yada, yada, yada ...
I guess I shouldn't complain. Here at Grist, we firmly encourage recycling. And no one recycles more effectively than the climate denial machine. The problem is that this is one type of recycling that's not good for the environment.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Flat
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:35 am
06 Mar 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:24 am
06 Mar 2008
Those scientists know that Al "McCarthy" Gore would take the photo and target all the dissenters. Who wants to be checking temperatures in Siberia?
Permalink
davedenali Posted 5:54 am
06 Mar 2008
Permalink
Andy Revkin Posted 6:13 am
06 Mar 2008
As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue). But, for fairness' sake, I added a post on Dot Earth in part elaborating on the turnout.
Andy Revkin
"The North Pole Was Here"
nytimes.com/earth
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 7:27 am
06 Mar 2008
Maybe I'll take the trek up to Texas A&M and debate you in front of your class. You just have to answer one question:
"Without using computer models or predictions, relying only on observed, and objective data, can Dr. Dressler show that increases in CO2 and the slight rise in temperature over the last 100 years has been a bad thing?"
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:36 am
06 Mar 2008
Can you prove to me, using only observed and objective data at the time, that a slight smell and itch coming from a large open wound in your leg will likely turn into gangrene?
Oh, I've got the penicillin, but you cant have it because I don't believe in gangrene.
-Christopher
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:45 am
06 Mar 2008
That's a great idea that was similarly proposed by Brian Valentine, on an earlier blog. (one of the 400 heretics).
However, There was no response from Dr. Dessler.
Neither does he answer questions like could he point to some real evidence....not go read the IPCC report....but maybe a paper at his fingertips, that does not include the word model
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:04 am
06 Mar 2008
Can Global Warming Skeptics prove that they actually exist? Can they prove that they don't get money from big oil companies to make their posts? Can they prove that Global Warming is a good thing?
Under the standard of proof most of them demand, there is nothing provable under the sun!!! Back to the caves!!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 1:34 pm
06 Mar 2008
To answer your question, yes, using only objective data I could show you that I have gangrene and that antibiotics could cure me. We could look at medical case studies of other patients with similar symptoms. We could isolate the organisms which cause gangrene and reproduce them in a lab then use antibiotics to measure the effectiveness of the drugs.
So Patrick do you live in a cave in Beijing? I've been there many times and saw mostly apartment buildings. I don't think asking for data is an unreasonable request, nor is it unreasonable to ask about the accuracy and uncertainty of the data or whether or not the conclusions fall within both the accuracy and uncertainty of the data. It is called science.
Funny but I don't recall name calling as part of the scientific method.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:36 pm
06 Mar 2008
But really that is the root of their argument.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:46 pm
06 Mar 2008
1.) global warming can cause a CO2 rise
2.) a CO2 rise can cause global warming
They "dance" with each other.
CO2 is measured in the bubbles in the ice and temperature is gaged from the oxygen isotopes in each layer, as I understand it.
I also know that CO2 has never been as high in 500,000 years as it is now and that the current spike is from anthropogenic (human) sources.
I also know that NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and the AGU have said that all of these factors point to a 90% probability of human caused global warming that can have a mostly negative impact on a society that has risen within a certain area of climate tolerance.
So, if your going to try to erase all of that for me you have a pretty big mountain to climb, Mr. I'm not going to lose any sleep over fretting about your position.
Besides, this argument is rendered quaint now. We have won and you have lost. There WILL be a clean energy revolution and a transformation of our society between now and the late 2040's. There WILL be a carbon cap and then a carbon tax. You really don't have any impact on this momentum now. Sorry. It was fun.
-Christopher
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 3:33 pm
06 Mar 2008
Christopher - really you should read up on the difference between correlation and causation. And from your post it is pretty clear that for you AGW theory is a political cause.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:50 pm
06 Mar 2008
Ultra strong correlation can lead to what is called 'a likelihood of causation', especially when other forces and factors are considered in the judgement. And it is totally healthy and sane to act on anything more than 80% likely status.
My SOLUTION is political, NOT the problem itself. And you should be glad that is so. Political solutions help keep me nonviolent.
And the politics and culture of this present day have now rendered your opinion into an insignificant footnote of American culture during these last years of oil money's power.
Go to bed. You've earned your pay today. Whatever Houston firm you work for has gotten their worth out of you.
-Christopher
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:35 pm
06 Mar 2008
I do believe that you could find correlations with alleged rising global average temperatures, whatever they are with many other things:
Increasing human obesity in the lead nation; USA, followed I think by Australia, one or the other, or global, of your choice
Increasing consumption of hamburgers and other fast foods
Increasing usage of television world-wide
Increasing usage of anti-depressent drugs
Increasing availability of brown heroin from Afghanistan
What thinkest thou Christopher?
Permalink
VeganCountyFan Posted 8:59 pm
06 Mar 2008
Christopher - I admire your patience, I really do. However, might I suggest banging your head against a brick wall? You may find it slightly less irritating....
I fear that Gristmill is suffering an infestation.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:59 pm
06 Mar 2008
Funny how engineers and other applied scientists such as geologists seem to be able to sort the wood from the trees.
(Although BTW there is no question that WE could be driven by "Climate Science" funding or such peer pressures.)
I don't know if you have seen any of the earlier blog-threads emanating from the wise doctor D, but typically one Max Manacker of your particular discipline has been well represented there.
In case you don't know, and might be interested here are the last seven recent Dessler blogies:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/25/162934/336
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/19/222925/715
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/14/222528/569
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/5/183925/9724
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/23/143028/323
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/24/111256/345
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:17 pm
06 Mar 2008
In what way are you making any contribution to what should be a SCIENTIFIC debate?
I COULD say to you; spread vegemite on your 6-day-old unwashed knickers, and eat them sloshed down with copius apple vinegar lubricant, but how does it forward the debate?
You are currently a waste of page space here.
Please put your brain in gear first, if you wish to actually contribute later!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:48 pm
06 Mar 2008
Okay, Darth, you got me. I don't live in a cave!!
So, let me back up, be polite, and ask the simple question.
What is an acceptable standard of proof for you?? (and for the other people challenging global warming).
What is acceptable generally? What is acceptable in terms of climate data? In terms of issues such as cigarettes and cancer? Chemicals and cancer?
Thanks!!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
stockypig Posted 10:16 pm
06 Mar 2008
A Professor in Bullsh*t, Tedious Personal Attacks and Tripping Over My Own Feet whilst trying to shove an ice core up my ....would be more appropriate.
I haven't posted much but I have read alot and you Dessler have about as much credibility as a scientist as David Beckham. The IPCC report is now 2-3 years out of date in a rapidly moving field yet you are still incapable of discussing new data, new ways of interpreting old data or anything else about your supposed work. I wish I was paid as a Professor to basically blog about 'what a good chap I am' and 'what terrible bad boys those 'trolls' and 'deniers' are'. I'm out of here for ever, this site and your blog in particular adds absolutely nothing to my learning about climate science. I may as well go read The Sun.
Stockypig
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:49 am
07 Mar 2008
Then contribute for crying out loud. Sheesh. Are those bluebonnets blooming and making you so cranky?
Also: please be clear about your new information. Which category does it fall under? Something new around the edges of the subject, or something that changes the fundamentals.
-Christophersj
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:57 am
07 Mar 2008
Your logic fails. Those factors cannot be mapped over 500,000 years of ups and downs in concert with heat and CO2. So it doesn't work.
You don't get an Exxon check today. Do not pass go.
Besides, as I said before, this is just spinning our wheels here. The political momentum is already underway and you are powerless to stop it. (which is your goal in the end)
Look, youre not going to live in a dictatorship. You still get to choose the shape and color of your plug-in hybrid. But your gonna have to buy one.
Do you feel oppressed now by having to buy a catalytic converter?
Permalink
StillSkeptical Posted 7:38 am
07 Mar 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:57 am
07 Mar 2008
It not just the quantity, but the quality as well, and you know that already.
Did Chevron send you the check yet?
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 8:07 am
07 Mar 2008
Permalink
StillSkeptical Posted 9:25 am
07 Mar 2008
And Grist knows the credentials of those listed. If theirs don't count, then neither do the believer's.
"How does it feel to betray the future of your society and possibly your species for a paycheck?"
I don't know; you tell me.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 1:20 pm
07 Mar 2008
Failing that maybe another 100 years worth of satellite data. The earth is billions of years old and yet we have only directly measured temperature for 500 years and satellite measurements for 50 years. That is very small data sample.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:54 pm
07 Mar 2008
Dear Darth Patrol,
Do you demand the same proof for new drugs before they are released to the market? Or new chemicals before they can be used? What kinds of proofs do you accept for other "theories"? Or do you reject all of science?? No gravity? No relativity (just math, after all)? No Physics?
Another 100 years? That is a total fraudulent answer, since you and I will be long dead by then.
Your answer basically is that NOTHING can convince you.
This is where the term "denier" comes from.
Let's see, then you probably refuse medicine and the use of clinical treatments that are less than 100 years old (after all, humans have been around over 100,000 years, so why not require a treatment be tested for at least a 100 years).
You can't go to the dentist, the internet is definitely too young for you!!
But, wait!!! No one should talk to you until you have been posting for at least 100 years!!!
It's spring, the silly season arrives early.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:02 pm
07 Mar 2008
"Your logic fails. Those factors cannot be mapped over 500,000 years of ups and downs in concert with heat and CO2. So it doesn't work."
This is almost certainly a reference to the data that has been extracted from ice core drillings, however the response is severally flawed.
I'll try my best and take it through some steps, but line-by-line dogmatic reactions may prevent comprehension of the whole.
The current concentration of trace levels of CO2 (PPM) as measured at Moana Loa is considerably higher than at any relevant time as currently measured in gas bubbles that were somehow trapped in the ancient ice. Whilst there is a logical inference that because CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas and there are claims that it is at an unprecedented level, there is actually no way of directly observing its net influence or of testing it in realistic laboratory conditions. The ice cores cannot tell us anything about today, because there is nothing there to compare with what we appear to have today. Thus, among other things, we look to possible correlations with the published global average temperatures. Obviously, CO2 could be one thing, but if you actually study the published data of temperature versus CO2, the relationship is not only irregular, but is neither linear or sensibly exponential, despite what the alarmists assert......go look! Thus if CO2 does not show a sensible correlation, what does? I suggested jokingly some correlations which may be better than seen in the CO2-T relationship but it is a stretch of the imagination to assert that they are in fact related, and it was a satirical observation pointing to the fragility in the current claims. Nevertheless, there are some other correlations, which are more serious, such as increased land clearing and agricultural practice, affecting surface albedo, and various kinds of solar activity. See 3) below.
If you have faith in the ice core record, and have actually studied the data in detail over a long time, you may be aware that many AGW alarmists initially trumpeted it as proof of CO2 initiated warming, despite that cause versus effect could NOT be described! Another problem was that it applied to the very few high latitude regions where the proxy data was determined, but nevertheless was stated to be GLOBAL data. At the same time, bizarrely, clear historic and other paeleo-data identifying a Medieval Warm Period around the world evidently warmer than today, were poo poohed as being individually out of phase and hence NOT globally average-able. (Despite that they covered a much larger area than the very few ice cores)
Anyhow this whole argument has recently gone rather quiet. Why? Because as finer resolution data later became available, whoops it became clear in the ice core proxy data that first the proxy temperature levels rise, and then some hundreds of years later, the CO2 concentrations in the entrapped gas bubbles rise. (800 years is the most popular lag number). Oh, and much the same in the opposite direction....whilst the CO2 is at a MAXIMUM, the temperatures fall with a centennial lag in CO2 levels.
An interesting observation is that blogosphere traffic on this topic has been enormous, but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!
Concerning points 3) onward, let's see how you go with 1) an 2) before I spend more of my time on this.
Solar activity, including the so-far alarming trend "transition" to cycle 24, with no sunspots for two months + rapidly plunging T's. (HOPEFULLY it does not continue!)
Ice core data considerations
Is Moana Loa relevant?
Recommended reading
Other stuff
C-J also wrote:
"You don't get an Exxon check today. Do not pass go."
I've been retired for ~14 years and deny your ASSENINE ASSUMPTION that I am still employed. If you can prove it, you could contact the ATO (IR in Americano, and gleefully let them know). Even if I were to be covertly paid by some oil company, (BTW, which one do you totally prefer), so what?
You likely admire Pierre-Humbert (watsisname).... A la RealClimate fame! I seem to recall that he received as head of department over $50 million funding sometime fairly recently. OK, money talks! Non e in accordo?
Concerning your other comments; Can I afford to buy a plug-in hybrid car? No, and it would not make an iota of sense in Australia, despite that many government departments and other apologists and status seekers are doing just that by the thousands!
You see unless we in Oz convert to Nuclear Power, which is impossible because of the not-in-my-back-yard complex, then we will continue to mostly derive our electrical power from a relatively primitive coal-fired source, as in China. (= lots of waste CO2 and particulates and stuff.
My chariot has a new generation diesel with TRULY astonishingly efficient performance, and no evident particulates from the tailpipe! I am very contented with it.
Yes, there is a huge political problem, a bit like when G W Bush and other fundamentalists, even the driven moderate Colin Powell, lied to the world about WMOD, and invaded an oil-rich nation deriding the abhorrence of most of the real-world out there.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:09 am
08 Mar 2008
I suppose he also believes that his team (the "alarmists") number 2,500 scientists, as the media and IPCC chairman would have us believe. (The real number is probably a few hundred.)
Now we all know that BOTH the 2,500 number and the 19 number are pure fabrications, the intent of which is to give numerical legitimization of the Oreskes "consensus" myth, which has since been debunked.
We also know that both numbers as well as Andrew's whole argument are totally irrelevant.
Unlike delegate counts in US primary elections, scientific legitimacy is not based on a headcount.
As a scientist, Andrew Dessler should come with some facts rather than with his tired "headcount" stories.
As to Andrew's statement: "And no one recycles more effectively than the climate denial machine," I'd have to ask, "How about Hansen? (He's been recycled and self-recycled ad nauseum and still whines about being muzzled).
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:18 am
08 Mar 2008
Patrick wrote: "It's spring, the silly season arrives early."
Tell it to the folks in the US Midwest that have been digging themselves out of record snowfalls for the past months, undoubtedly victims of the consequences of James E. Hansen's "tipping point" resulting from anthropogenic global warming.
Max
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:22 am
08 Mar 2008
Drugs conduct clinical trials before being tried on the general public. Even then sometimes well designed studies miss things, like in the case of Vioxx. Same with chemicals, chemicals, clinical treatments, the dentist, etc.
The other major difference between the things you cite are that the clinical benefits clearly outweigh the risks. I trade some immediate and measurable benefit for some unknown risk.
AGW proponents are asking for just the opposite. They want us to give up some immediate economic and societal cost for some unknown and unmeasurable benefit decades out in the future. Some try to equate it to "insurance" but again, insurable events can be measured with far greater accuracy than AGW models are capable of.
The more accurate term would be "global warming agnostic", because as you correctly point out I don't think there is enough proof yet. I don't deny that AGW might be true or go as far as to say it is a hoax. AGW apocolyptics strike me more as members of some cult religion.
It is a cult religion that apparently worships infoulable computer models.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:30 am
08 Mar 2008
"The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.
We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term "global warming" itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?"
So does this person also know nothing about science? Is this mystery person a "denier". Do you wish to heap ridicule on this persons qualifications and intellectual capacity?
Maybe tomorrow I will tell you who said this. Still waiting for Andrew Dessler, the "Great Oz" to come out from behind his curtain.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:32 am
08 Mar 2008
We all know that Andrew Dessler is a respected climate scientist who has written and co-authored many scientific publications in his field.
http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/publicatio ...
He is also a firm believer in the IPCC and in its hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
But most of us (outside the classroom or specialized "climate science" field) know Andrew Dessler from his active participation on the gristmill site, where he writes op-ed articles supporting the IPCC view and criticizing those who are skeptical of this view. These articles usually invoke a series of responses, both from supporters of Andrew's view as well as from those who disagree with his view. The ensuing debate is usually lively and interesting to follow.
Most recently Andrew's articles included:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/26/1971/6517#31
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/6/224510/7920#22
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/14/231236/019
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/21/194839/064
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/23/143028/323
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/24/111256/345
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/5/183925/9724
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/14/222528/569
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/19/222925/715
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/25/162934/336
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753
Only very rarely does Andrew venture into discussing the "science" behind the IPCC claims and projections. This is strange, because this is the area where he would have the most to contribute in the ongoing debate surrounding AGW.
Of the 12 recent articles, one discussed uncertainties in the link between AGW and the intensity or frequency of hurricanes. Here Andrew did venture into a discussion of the science.
Following a meeting with Chris Landsea, Andrew made the statement: "After seeing Landsea's presentation, I concluded that it's very difficult (because of data quality issues) to make statements about past trends in hurricane numbers or intensity --- or the number of intense hurricanes."
When it was pointed out that IPCC postulated a different take on the recent trend in hurricane intensity and frequency, Andrew switched to "The IPCC's statement that there is a trend in hurricanes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is indisputable ... everyone familiar with the data agrees that we are now in a period of intense cyclone activity after several decades of low activity."
When questioned about his apparent change of mind and confronted with very recently published hard data confirming that there is no trend, Andrew started the personal attack approach rather than discussing the facts.
Another article proclaimed that "climate change is real". Duh...
One made allusion to scientific organizations, which essentially all support the IPCC view on AGW, while another suggested that research work relating climate change to solar activity is a "solar distraction", since we already know what is causing current warming (and it is obviously AGW, as the IPCC postulates, and has nothing to do with the sun). Hmm...
When questioned why there is no observed correlation between the historical temperature record and atmospheric CO2, Andrew declined to give a scientific explanation for this apparent discrepancy, but just repeated "read the IPCC", finally resorting to statements such as "no theory other than CO2 explains the modern warming" and "you don't understand science". Ouch!
One article denied the global cooling scare of the 1970s (!), while another ill-advised analogy between global warming and obesity resulted in Andrew being lambasted by irate individuals who saw this not only as ridiculous but also as inappropriate.
In one article, Andrew gave a "birthday eulogy" of the IPCC, claiming that none of its postulations had been seriously questioned to date. When questioned why IPCC ignored specific scientific studies that directly contradicted its claims of melting ice sheets, accelerated sea level rise, reduced snow cover, increased atmospheric water vapor content, increased extreme weather events, unresolved discrepancies between the surface and satellite temperature records and urban heat island distortions in the surface temperature record, Andrew had no answers.
The remaining five articles attempted to personally discredit critics of the IPCC "consensus" view on AGW, and to make the point that there are just a handful of ill-informed scientists who do not support this view.
But it is both entertaining and educational to tune into Andrew's sites. You meet a lot of interesting and engaged people there.
Max
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:15 am
08 Mar 2008
I have to admit I like the image of "infoulable" computer models, though I have never seen one.
Alas, your expert is useless, unless he/she has been around for 100 years and has 100 years worth of questions.
Since you reject logic that does not suit you, how can you use logic to support your case? Remember that if logic is pointless, you cannot make any points. You are left with your cult-like disbelief to use against what you perceive is others cult-like beliefs.
Dear Max,
How poor!!! You mean to discuss global warming without even knowing that it predicts greater variations in temperature and more extreme weather patterns?? How sad!!! Surely you can do better than that!! LOL.
It will be getting close to 70 today!! And we never got our snow. Sigh.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:14 am
08 Mar 2008
I can't believe it! In explaining the recent harsh winter weather and heavy snowfall, you actually wrote: "How poor!!! You mean to discuss global warming without even knowing that it predicts greater variations in temperature and more extreme weather patterns?? How sad!!! Surely you can do better than that!! LOL."
"It" (IPCC?) predicts unusual cold spells and heavy snowfall? (Can't find this in IPCC SPM 2007 anywhere.) Can you point it out to me?
What I can find is (p.7), "...long term changes in climate have been observed. These include...extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones" and (p.8), "Cold days and cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent." Did you catch that? LESS cold, more heat, NOT more cold and snow.
It turns out that there are no supporting data for the claims on extreme weather and IPCC admits in the "fine print" on table SPM-2 that these are "more likely than not" (i.e. 51% probable), with the "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed" and "Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."
To translate this from IPCC double talk to plain English these statements boil down to an admission that the claim is a "50-50 guess, not backed by any actual data". So ignore it.
The suggestion of more intense tropical cyclones has been refuted by several studies, covering both the Atlantic and the Pacific, for which I can provide you the links, if you are really interested.
So you got that one wrong, Patrick. You can't rationalize the unusually harsh winter of 2007-08 as a result of global warming. My guess is that it is due to natural causes, as yet unknown to IPCC and the "mainstream scientific community".
Even if we were to enter a new Ice Age with glaciers moving down to northern Europe and North America, some die-hards would say IPCC predicted this to happen (because of "global warming" caused by man-made CO2, of course).
This is truly moving from the ridiculous to the absurd, Patrick. Get serious.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:01 pm
08 Mar 2008
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:17 pm
08 Mar 2008
Updated: 2008-03-09 09:07
"China has completed the reconstruction of all the power-grids that were ravaged by the worst winter storm in 50 years that hit the southern part of the country in January, the State Grid Corporation announced in Beijing Saturday.
"The power grids of the whole country have resumed normal operation," the company said.
The power grids of 10 east provinces operated by the company were severely damaged in the disaster. As many as 172,000 high-voltage pylons collapsed under the weight of ice and snow..." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Enjoy your Spring silly season Patrick
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:31 pm
08 Mar 2008
(La Jolla, California) Recent scientific publications have reported either inceasing or decreasing ice volumes on the Antarctic continent, and while this would seem to suggest considerable scientific uncertainty on the issue, new research suggests that both findings might be true at the same time.
Dr. Elizabeth Frost of the Paraphysical Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has come up with a theory that might reconcile what are often considered to be contradictory results in scientific research.
"What we believe," Dr. Frost told ecoEnquirer, "is that a new paradigm is needed in scientific thought. Since mutually exclusive sets of scientific results usually are published in respected scientific publications, we suggest that they are both true. There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to:
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/antarctic-ice.htm
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:54 pm
08 Mar 2008
Yep, they've got a deep grip on reality over there.
Do you have any peer-reviewed journal articles that support your claims or just some nutcase's blog?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:02 pm
08 Mar 2008
First, the lady scientist's name is "Frost", and then she is talking about "the Yin and Yang of scientific findings", when referring to the "mutually exclusive sets of scientific results" regarding "increasing or decreasing ice volumes on the Antarctic continent". Wow!
Maybe this explains why IPCC makes claims that both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets LOST mass equivalent to a rise in sea level of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993 to 2003, when actual satellite measurements of both ice sheets showed an INCREASE in ice mass over exactly the same time period.
This definitely represents the "Yin and Yang" of "mutually exclusive" claims, as the lady said. And I would agree with her that compared to the IPCC report "there is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed".
Good stuff.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:11 pm
08 Mar 2008
Are you for real with your silly statement about "trolls lumping in the denialism"?
Gimme a break about "peer reviewed journal articles".
Wake up, Pangolin; it's a sham. The "peer reviewers" are the same guys as the writers. Haven't you gotten the picture? Don't be so naïve. Didn't you follow the story on the Mann hockey stick scam?
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:30 pm
08 Mar 2008
Have you run-out of antacid medication for your over-stressed digestive system?
According to my fairly copious very new non-Americano dictionary, I will quote the first of three meanings of the noun 'Satire':
"1, the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, etc., in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc."
This covers the situation fairly well. In case you did not understand the noun 'satirical' I thought I'd look-it-up for you.
Let me also advise that "EcoEnquirer" is a satirical website which exposes fraud in the so-called environmental debate.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:20 pm
08 Mar 2008
Why do the deniers sound so desperate? Guys, you have a problem. If like Darth, you argue that you need at least 100 years of data to be able to make meaningful statements, then how can you make your OWN statements meaningful?
Or does Darth's 100 years rule only apply to people who disagree with you?
And Max, if you disbelieve the IPCC, then why are you trying to use it as evidence to support your own point of view about climate change?
Or do you believe it when it agrees with you (you think) and disbelieve it when it disagrees with you?
Umm, sorry guy, that doesn't work.
It's like claiming in one sentence that George W. Bush is an idiot, then in the next describing him as the smartest guy around!!
When youse contradict yourownself, youse got problems.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:57 pm
08 Mar 2008
Enjoy your Spring Silly Season
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:37 am
09 Mar 2008
You asked me: " And Max, if you disbelieve the IPCC, then why are you trying to use it as evidence to support your own point of view about climate change?"
Let me explain so you can understand.
You made a suggestion that the current cold and snowy winter was somehow caused by AGW.
I pointed out to you that not even the champions for the "AGW scare", the IPCC, make such a ridiculous statement.
I also pointed out how those statements that were made by IPCC relating to severe weather events were (by their own admission) not backed by any hard data, but were just 50-50 guesses, and that those relating tropical cyclone activity with AGW have been refuted by the observed facts as reported in scientific studies, which were ignored by IPCC.
Sorry, Patrick, you lost this part of our discussion. Severe cold weather events are not caused by AGW, not even in the eyes of the greatest supporter of the disastrous AGW hypothesis, the IPCC.
Got it this time?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:03 am
09 Mar 2008
The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.
We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term "global warming" itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?"
The person who said this is Dr.Joanne Simpson. You can read about her here:
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/lookingatearth/simpso ...
And see the full letter here:
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-m ...
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:12 am
09 Mar 2008
Why don't you want to tell people this simple fact? If as you say, you have science on your side and there is this overwhelming consensus, then it shouldn't matter if people know the truth.
Why hide behind scientific authority or UN panels? Could it be that the AGW proponents know that the public would be much less willing to accept this theory if they knew it was an artifact of computer modeling?
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:33 am
09 Mar 2008
On another site Andrew Dessler linked global warming with global obesity.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/21/194839/064
Let's follow the IPCC process to define a globally averaged human weight in order to establish the global impact of a global obesity trend caused by an increase in fast food hamburger chains, such as McDonalds, Wendy's, etc.
We know these are growing exponentially and we have model studies showing that there is a direct correlation between the growth rate of these chains (expressed in numbers of ¼ pound hamburgers sold) and the globally averaged human weight.
Our raw data for weight is based on hundreds of millions of individual data points provided by each of the individuals directly involved, and we have to accept the data we are provided by these individuals as fact. We realize that some individuals are probably not being weighed regularly, so we will have to arrive at statistical adjustments to include these missing data points.
We also believe, based on statistical analyses made, that female individuals will usually tend to understate their weight, so we will add in a factor to arrive at a gender-adjusted value.
We also know that children usually weigh less than adults, so we will adjust the averages of each nation based on the average age of its population to arrive at an age-adjusted value.
We also know that the elderly population usually weighs less than those adults who are younger, so we will apply an adjustment to each nation's average weight to account for the average life expectancy in that nation in order to arrive at an elderly-adjusted value.
We also know that each nation has a different population size, so we will factor the national averages by population.
We believe that there are poorer nations where most individuals are not weighing themselves regularly, and that many of the people in these poorer regions are often suffering from malnutrition or even near starvation resulting in below-average weight, so we have to introduce an adjustment to properly account for these factors.
To give our statistic more meaning we will express it as a "weight anomaly", where we compare the globally averaged human weight of today with a statistically derived average of the globally averaged human weight during the period 1951-1980.
Our globally averaged, gender-adjusted, age-adjusted, elderly-adjusted, poverty-adjusted, population-weighted weight anomaly is not too interesting in itself. What we really want to measure is the "decadal rate of change of the globally averaged, gender-adjusted, age-adjusted, elderly-adjusted, poverty-adjusted, population-weighted weight anomaly", so that we can make projections for the future, using various model scenarios and storylines.
We will use the concept of a "weight forcing factor", which we will tie directly to the number of "standard ¼ pound hamburgers" consumed, adjusted for larger or smaller hamburger size, where appropriate. Relative "weight forcing factors" will also be established for other foods, but our primary emphasis will be on hamburgers, which we see as the principle weight-forcing factor on a global basis.
Since we know that hamburgers are frequently consumed in conjunction with other foods, such as French fries and soft drinks, we will add in "positive feedbacks" to account for these factors. These feedbacks will more than double the weight-forcing factor of hamburgers alone.
Armed with the above data, we can now project various ranges of human weight anomalies over the next 100 years as compared to our baseline average.
With these figures we can then project increased incidence of coronary diseases, strokes, diabetes, etc., and arrive at a projected increased "death rate" caused by increased hamburger consumption.
Since the restaurants that serve these hamburgers are usually reachable only by automobile, we will factor in the average "vehicle kilometers" required to reach the restaurant (and return), adding in a statistical motor vehicle fatality rate for these kilometers.
In geographical regions where winter driving conditions can be more hazardous than normal, we will add in an adjustment for weather-related motor vehicle fatalities tied to hamburger consumption.
We can then come up with a "cap and trade" system, where each nation is assigned a "hamburger quota". Those nations that have a "hamburger footprint" that exceeds its quota can buy hamburger credits from nations who are below their quota, with the cost of hamburger credits set sufficiently high enough to discourage hamburger consumption.
As an alternate we can consider imposing a flat "hamburger tax" where each individual in each country pays a tax directly related to his/her "hamburger footprint".
We'll let the UN administer this, since they have a proven track record on shuffling large sums of public funds both efficiently and effectively.
Should do the trick.
Max
Permalink
VeganCountyFan Posted 10:05 pm
09 Mar 2008
I was accused of not adding to the scientific debate - ha! Good one.
I doubt that I will in the future either.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:42 pm
09 Mar 2008
In your own post you say that the IPCC mentions "These include...extreme weather".
Now you tell me you were wrong?? That the IPCC doesn't mention "extreme weather"??
Or does that not include possible unusual cold spells?
I am not sure what you think you have won by refuting yourself, but I hope you enjoy it, whatever it is.
Or do you have a secret definition of extreme weather, known only to yourself??
Anyway, happy denying!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:52 pm
09 Mar 2008
One of the things you should consider is a course in statistics.
Statistics, simply put, are nothing more than large quantities of numbers of things we have counted.
But since our counting methods may have flaws, we tend to use mathematics to try to make up for the flaws. (These days, they involve mathematics on machines, instead of just paper, often times called "computer models" (more on that later)).
In statistics, we deal with totals, but they are often meaningless, just numbers, it is the details that matter.
For example the number 8 is a total. The number four can represent the average between 8 and 0.
The number four can also represent the average between 4 and 4.
Mathematically, these are the same. They are equivalents. 4 + 4 = 8 + 0.
From a practical standpoint, if they are temperatures, one can see that they are not the same.
4 + 4 would represent a moderate climate.
8 + 0 would represent a climate given to extreme swings (Max should pay attention to this too!).
Yet from an average point of view, they would be identical. Imagine that!
Now lets change the average to 6. We could have 6 + 6.
This would be a hotter temperature.
Or 12 + 0. Oh, oh, we can see how this would be more extreme!!! And even scary. While the average is only 2 higher than the average of 4, the extreme is much higher!!!
And there are many other possibilities.
But it is helpful to first understand a little bit about statistics.
The other thing about statistics, is to understand what they are good at doing and what they are poor at doing.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:00 am
10 Mar 2008
Imagine you are flipping a coin, and writing down the result each time.
After a couple of hundred flips, you have some totals. So many heads, and so many tails. These are statistics.
But, if you flip the coin again, you still have no idea of what the result will be.
Statistics are very bad at predicting the results of any one event. It is part of their nature. Try it yourself. You'll see.
What you can do , is use statistics to predict the results of a number of coin tosses to a fair degree of accuracy.
But you can't predict any particular coin toss.
This also applies to things like weather. You can predict trends in weather (like coin tosses) but cannot predict the weather on any particular day.
But note, that over time, as you collect large amounts of data (coin tosses), you may find that you are predicting the general trend of tosses. But still, you will never predict that next toss with any particular accuracy.
Which brings us to global warming. We can see large general trends, but predictions which focus on "one" event, don't work very well.
Don't believe me? Start tossing coins!!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:12 am
10 Mar 2008
Dear Darth,
I am not surprised you don't understand computer models. They seem to mystify most people. Maybe I can help a little bit.
There is nothing magical about computer models. They are really nothing more than long mathematical formulas written in computer code instead of on paper.
Any compute model can be written on paper. Any mathematical formula can be written on a computer and become a "model".
Here is how they work. Someone (often a number of someones) develops a formula that they believe represents what they see happening in real life.
They put it on a computer. Presto!! They have a computer model.
But is it any good??
No one can predict the future and tell if their prediction is correct before the future actually arrives.
So, what to do?
Well, the past at one time was the present, and it had a future.
So, if we feed the past into the model, it should be able to predict it's own future. If it does, we are on the right track. If it doesn't, it's back to the drawing board.
Of course, it's not that simple. We need to feed in the data from a number of pasts. And the data is not always collected in the same way, and it just isn't that simple.
But, if we feed in more and more data, and adjust our models, over time, they get better.
There are always lots of different models, and they often disagree.
But, what happens when they mostly start to show something similar?? Bells and alarms go off.
We may have something true and real. As true and real as we can find at this time.
Of course, it is possible to reject science, and to say that there is no point in trying to understand anything until we know ALL of the answers and have ALL of the data, perfectly lined up (sound familiar?). But that way means no "theories". Which is the antithesis of science, and of how progress is actually made.
But really all computer models do, is run the data. Nothing so terrible or magical.
It is worth noting that computer models are used extensively in every day life, from medicine to machine design. If you really hate them, you should log off, and consider heading for Amish country. (nothing against the Amish).
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
JCross Posted 2:38 am
10 Mar 2008
"If you have faith in the ice core record, and have actually studied the data in detail over a long time, you may be aware that many AGW alarmists initially trumpeted it as proof of CO2 initiated warming, despite that cause versus effect could NOT be described! Another problem was that it applied to the very few high latitude regions where the proxy data was determined, but nevertheless was stated to be GLOBAL data. At the same time, bizarrely, clear historic and other paeleo-data identifying a Medieval Warm Period around the world evidently warmer than today, were poo poohed as being individually out of phase and hence NOT globally average-able. (Despite that they covered a much larger area than the very few ice cores)
Based on the above, I don't think you really understand what the cores are telling us. The temperature in the cores is derived from the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the ice. This is based on the "global temperature", not local effects. So you are not correct when you say it applies to a few very high latitude areas.
You are further incorrect when you state that the other proxies cover a much larger area than the ice core records. Again, the ice core is actually one of the proxies that does give a fairly good idea of global conditions.
In regards to the individual proxies that show the MWP, some do, some don't - but as you state one of the key problems is the phase problem.
I regards to the lead / lag issue, that is an interesting topic and I would be interested in discussing it further with you. However given the timings I would say that the initiation of de-glaciation must be based on orbital mechanics, in which case, why would you not expect CO2 to initially lag?
Finally, I would like you to clarify your statement "...but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!" I am not sure I agree, but I would like you to specifically state what there is zero discussion on.
Dr. Dessler: Thank you for an interesting blog. I will be dropping by more often!
Regards,
John Cross
Permalink
JCross Posted 2:45 am
10 Mar 2008
For example in aerodynamics, we can not trace the trajectory that an individual particle will take as it passes over a wing (and don't get me started about vortexes).
However Bernoulli's equation still applies to many situations very well.
Regards,
John Cross
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:11 am
10 Mar 2008
You wrote: "In your own post you say that the IPCC mentions "These include...extreme weather".
Now you tell me you were wrong?? That the IPCC doesn't mention "extreme weather"??
Or does that not include possible unusual cold spells?
I am not sure what you think you have won by refuting yourself, but I hope you enjoy it, whatever it is.
Or do you have a secret definition of extreme weather, known only to yourself??"
Sorry, Patrick, you really should read the IPCC report if you want to quote it.
I used the IPCC statement on extreme temperature: "Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent." On extreme weather, IPCC includes "droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and intensity of tropical cyclones".
There is no mention of INCREASED extreme cold weather, bur rather a statement that cold days, cold nights and frost have become LESS FREQUENT.
Hope this clears it up for you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:27 am
10 Mar 2008
Nice try Max, but "includes" is not the same as "is limited to".
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:09 am
10 Mar 2008
But we've beaten this dog to death. If you want to believe that the cold winter of 2007-2008 was caused by global warming which was caused by human CO2 emissions, by all means do so.
It's great to have blind faith even against all odds.
I'll pass on that one, though.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:50 am
10 Mar 2008
You indicate that statistics are not good at forecasting the weather, but are better at the "broad brush approach" of forecasting overall climate changes.
Makes sense to me.
When using computer models to make forecasts (or "projections", as the modelers prefer to call them), it would seem to me to be very important to crank in the correct assumptions (or "feedbacks", "scenarios" and "storylines", in modeler-speak).
What is your take on this, and how can we be sure we are not getting GIGO forecasts?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 1:49 pm
10 Mar 2008
I have tried to obtain some of the underlying mathematical relationships for the CO2 sections of the GCM models. Once I was interested in the equations of state used in the GCMs so I asked an expert. Instead of an answer I got back hate mail.
My chemical engineering models had very good physical properties and lots of repeatable data. These models are much less complicated than the GCM models, yet we can't predict temperatures down to 1 or 2 degrees C on well defined systems.
I guess Chemical Engineers should just turn over the modeling jobs to the climate modelers. They seem to have figured out all the hard stuff we struggle with.
Of course the climate modelers can only make forecasts out 50 years with absolute certainty. Don't ask them if it will rain tomorrow, they don't have a clue.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:31 pm
11 Mar 2008
Concerning my comment that ice core temperature proxies reflect the regional temperature, not global, you responded:
"Based on the above, I don't think you really understand what the cores are telling us. The temperature in the cores is derived from the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the ice. This is based on the "global temperature", not local effects. So you are not correct when you say it applies to a few very high latitude areas."
I think John, you may be confused in the knowledge that most of the water vapour (a gas) at higher latitudes actually originates around the tropics, where it has the highest molecular mass, notably in the 18/O to 16/O isotope ratio. (But different from the water from which it evaporated). However, in brief, each time there is a phase change fractionalization in any direction from gas - water - ice (snow), the ratios change, maybe up and down in its long journey wending pole-ward. (In an INDETERMINATE way). Here is a brief concluding quote in the context of isotope ratios from an educational site, explaining what happened through different climate periods in the deposition of ice (cores):
The snow falls through the atmosphere and gets the same temperature as the atmosphere. The snow then becomes ice, and still keeps that same temperature. If it becomes somewhat warmer, the snow falling during this warmer climate reflects a higher temperature than the existing ice had. This new snow keeps the somewhat warmer temperature of the air that it fell through when it accumulates as ice. http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/isotope.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You further wrote:
"Finally, I would like you to clarify your statement "...but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!" I am not sure I agree, but I would like you to specifically state what there is zero discussion on."
The report mentions in the fine print somewhere, (under a figure?) that there is co-variability between proxy T and CO2 in the ice cores, and it may even mention the lag. But as far as I am aware there is no discussion on it. (No explanation)
In 3AR someone said concerning the lag, that it was too early to apply sign to the lag, which I thought was amusing, but again, no discussion.
Perhaps you could review your other remarks in a fresh light?
There is also of course the question of CO2 mixing, "global" versus regional which is of relevant interest, and also the ice-core to Moana Loa "correction factor" of 83 years, I think it is for Greenland. Oh, plus a couple of other thingies!
PS, I also accidently posted this on "Solar Distraction"
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:16 pm
11 Mar 2008
"I have not contributed to Gristmill in past, preferring to read the wise contributions of others. However, I read with horror the appalling and disrespectful attitude of some of the most recent 'posters' and felt compelled to say something. The visceral personal attack that resulted and the subseqent attacks on others, simply demonstrate their failure to engage in reasonable discussion.
I was accused of not adding to the scientific debate - ha! Good one.
I doubt that I will in the future either."
I totally agree, although sometimes become over-irritated by streams of non-contribution to the debate topic, and retaliate.
I think there is too much testosterone on this site, and the balling just snowballs. For instance one "contributer" said something to Max Manacker like:
"You have rocks in your head"
Followed by another "contributer" adding something like:
"That is an insult to rocks."
Quite silly really.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:25 pm
11 Mar 2008
You queried what! How dare you!
Still, at least you didn't get a death threat.
What I don't understand is that there are so many complex systems, (not just simple parameters), that should be included, which are not yet fully understood; clouds being a classic example. How do they manage to make the correct assumptions when there is inadequate data?
I'm confused.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:24 pm
11 Mar 2008
Dear Max,
I worked in a number of large corporate systems, and the amount of GIGO was impressive. It sometimes amazed me that any number in the world is reliable...
That said, there is a standard way to measure models.
Feed different sets of data through (from the past) and match them to reality. They should match pretty closely (never perfectly), which would demonstrate the reliability of the model.
Are they perfectly predictable then? Nothing is. Not even cigarette smoking and cancer. But I wouldn't advocate it.
They are the best we can do with what we have at this time. And there are always new and better ones.
Science is not about find grand "eureka" answers mostly at this point, it is a lot of little slogs forward, painfully made (with a step back once in a while).
And computer models are sometimes the same. But we can measure and test them.
Dear Darth,
Most people regard their models as proprietary, they exact mixture is like the ingredients in Coke, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. This i s after all, how they hope to make money.
Is this good for science? No, not really, but it is the nature of capitalism.
All we can do is look at data and results. Sad, really, but there it is.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
JCross Posted 1:02 am
12 Mar 2008
You are correct that the isotope precipitation process is a complex one affected by Rayleigh fractionalization and other things (i.e. the size of the ice caps). However even so we can still produce useful results from it.
I believe that you are further incorrect when you provide the concluding quote in the context of isotopes. The ratio of isotopes should be fairly insensitive to the temperature at which they are deposited (but sensitive to the path they took to get there). Anyway, the part you quote from is another method where they actually measure the borehole temperatures at different depths to build up a temperature profile (nothing to do with isotopes).
I would also disagree with your interpretation of the AR4 report. In chapter 6 on pages 444 to about 448 it discusses the idea of Milankovitch cycles forcing initial climate change and then CO2 rising as a response and then a forcing. The lag is well documented in there in several places. I will also note that in the next report, they will probably talk about Loulergue work which would imply that this lag is not as clear cut and many would like it to be. To quote from his abstract: Our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC.
Thanks for an interesting response.
Regards,
John
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 2:08 am
12 Mar 2008
The interviewer finally asked him how he could still believe there was no link between cancer and smoking. His reply? "How could I live with myself, knowing that my career and paycheck had come from a company who had caused so much sickness and death? That would violate my oath as a physician." (Paraphrased, of course).
The PR hacks who know what they are doing but are too self-absorbed and nihilistic to care are disgusting. But the "scientist" who refuses to face the truth? That's just pathetic.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:23 am
12 Mar 2008
Looks like you sort of got carried away in your analogy: "The PR hacks who know what they are doing but are too self-absorbed and nihilistic to care are disgusting. But the "scientist" who refuses to face the truth? That's just pathetic."
Comparing an MD on the Phillip Morris payroll who denies that smoking causes lung cancer (as proven in extensive clinical trials with hard data) with someone who is rationally skeptical of the "computer-generated virtual predicted future AGW disaster" is ludicrous.
There is no valid comparison. Period.
It is as absurd as the comparison made by AGW activists, which compares AGW skeptics with "holocaust deniers".
And it is not a matter of "refusing to face the truth".
The rational skeptic is actually searching for the "truth" - which is pretty hard to find among all the shaky science, ballyhoo and hype out there.
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:24 am
12 Mar 2008
There is no valid comparison. Period.
Correct, there is no valid comparison. The amount of research connecting human activity to global warming far exceeds the tobacco/cancer connection in in the sheer amount of data, independent paths of confirmation and precision and validity of analysis.
There is NO DOUBT in the peer-reviewed scientific community; human activity has led to an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and is resulting in global warming. Valid criticism with data that might contradict this conclusion is examined and incorporated in the IPCC statement to such an extent that the IPCC statement is significantly more conservative than observed warming.
There is also very little doubt that if localized climate change due to warming persists in disrupting croplands mass famine will result. Such a famine could easily engage negative feedbacks that can result in far more early deaths and lost productive-years of human life than tobacco ever will.
Tobacco kills after the productive years are largely past. Famine and resulting conflict kills the youngest first and destroys the transfer of culture and knowledge that protect local environments.
There is no apt historical comparison to global warming deniers as no other historical group had the ability to destroy the majority of the human race. Severe climate change, the kind a
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:52 am
12 Mar 2008
Climate change denial, outside of peer reviewed studies, is nothing less than than denial of the mass execution of millions at minimum and possibly billions of people.
It's reprehensible to the extreme.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:47 am
12 Mar 2008
You wrote: "Correct, there is no valid comparison. The amount of research connecting human activity to global warming far exceeds the tobacco/cancer connection in the sheer amount of data, independent paths of confirmation and precision and validity of analysis."
The first part of your statement made sense.
The second part obviously does not.
Sheer volume of paper does not reflect scientific evidence. Nor does repeating a dogmatic statement over and over make it any more true.
Show me, if you can, where there is any experimentally derived hard data (not computer models) "connecting human activity [specifically CO2 emissions] to global warming". Which physical experiments were run and what data were collected from them?
As for your doomsday statement: "Climate change denial, outside of peer reviewed studies, is nothing less than denial of the mass execution of millions at minimum and possibly billions of people.
It's reprehensible to the extreme."
"Mass execution of...possibly billions of people?"
Wow! This hyperbole is ridiculous to the extreme.
Come back down to Earth, Pangolin. Don't paint a more disastrous picture than IPCC does.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:01 am
12 Mar 2008
Hey Pangolin,
You wrote: "There is also VERY LITTLE DOUBT that IF localized climate change due to warming persists in disrupting croplands mass famine WILL result. Such a famine COULD easily engage negative feedbacks that CAN result in far more early deaths and lost productive-years of human life than tobacco ever will."
I've capitalized the key words in your statement.
"Very little doubt"? Hmmm...
There is no hard evidence to date that localized climate change due to warming has disrupted croplands, so you started off with a mighty big IF.
Then you say that your imaginary famine COULD engage hypothetical "negative feedbacks". What kind of feedbacks? Where are the physical data?
These imaginary hypothetical feedbacks can then "result in far more early deaths". Please explain, providing backup data.
By physical data I do not mean computer model studies. They don't count.
Relax. It's all hype, Pangolin. There's no disaster ahead.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:41 pm
12 Mar 2008
Global warming "deniers" are going to "destroy the majority of the human race"?
Wow!
What a bunch of unadulterated BS!
This reminds me of "Repent now - the end is near!" hysteria.
Pangolin, tell me, are you a fundamentalist "cult" preacher? What's your gig?
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:17 pm
12 Mar 2008
Hi John Cross REUR, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
thankyou for your patience.....it is such a pleasure and a change, not to be abused!
However, if you still believe that the isotope proxies (18/O to 16/O ratio) in ice cores represent a global average, rather that the local snowfall temperature through time, here follow a few snippets from four sources to show otherwise. (Go to the links for more detail)
BTW, have you been reading and believing RealClimate? (A topic in itself)
[1] ...Thus, the oxygen isotopic ratio of rain and snow is strongly related to condensation temperature. If the temperature of the air mass should continue to fall, the condensation will contain decreasing concentrations of the heavy molecules, resulting in a depletion of 18O relative to precipitation that condensed in a warmer environment...
[For brevity; Details of SMOW correction technique omitted here]
...In the context of ice cores, this technique allows scientists to estimate the actual air temperature of condensation when the snow fell... http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
[2] Ice caps keep records of isotopic effects on deuterium and oxygen 18 occurring in the atmosphere during precipitation...
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=7EiIqrRBBQgC&pg=P ... Page 396
[ 3] The isotopes of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms that make up the water molecules, which fell as snow -- maybe hundreds of thousands of years ago -- depend on the temperature at the time the snow fell that makes up a particular layer of a glacier or ice sheet. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/200 ...
[4] Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in local temperature reconstruction after certain assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is also some other web-stuff somewhere that talks about differing results in different areas on individual ice sheets and in snow-pockets, apparently from wind driven effects on snow. Also some uncertainty if there is at any time a significant summer melt of snow allowing trickle-down through the firn and thus increasing 18/O count. (as distinct from a possible summer-annual crust, like tree-rings). I also recall recent snowfall calibrations in Tibet agreeing with the local weather station T`s You could try Googling this other stuff if you are interested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you know a bit of QM, and still don't get the fractionalization stuff; try thinking about the evaporative cooling process, and why higher energy ("hot") molecules tend to escape first. Also, eg the Planck curve embracing a wide distribution of individual molecular energy levels for a given body T.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my haste to find some quick easy words for you last time describing "memory" of snowfall T, I did not realise that the author had changed from the whole subject of the article, to an alternative method.....Despite that the words were entirely appropriate isotope-wise, I'm sorry that the actual context was wrong, and thus may have confused you. (I meant well)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I checked through page 444-448 of Ch.6 AR4 WG1 as you suggested, but it discusses at length what may change the atmospheric CO2 levels, in a way somewhat like; where do the flies go in winter? (If you have flies in summer). It also discussed at length what is thought to provoke the ice age cycles. (Primarily the well known Milankovitch theory, but there also appear to be some other periodicities, and there is continued debate on the whole topic).
However, my interest was in seeing an explanation for the 800-year CO2 LAG itself, (Or a few hundred years as the IPCC put it), which I did not find. In contrast, there was great blogosphere traffic on CO2 lag, although there are only fragile hypothesese, as far as I know. One of the problems is the similarity in general slope between T and CO2, which tends to argue against any forcing feedbacks after a lag of some 800 years, that being the most popular number. (Certainly at the time of AR4, which was the topic of discussion) However, I must say that to me, intuitively, 800-years seems to be far too-big a value for ANY kind of relationship between CO2 and T. I reckon if it came back to about 100 years or less, it might make more sense for a basis of sensible debate! (Just my gut-feeling)
Permalink
JCross Posted 8:49 am
13 Mar 2008
I will add that the glacier temperature signal is supported by the coral isotopes so I suspect that it is broadly representative of the earth, but that is another argument for another time.
In regards to the lag I am surprised that you think 800 years is not reasonable. Keep in mind, we are not talking about any increase in energy from the sun when we are talking Milankovitch cycles. There are two main reservoirs of CO2, the oceans and land based. Increases in temperature would need to warm the oceans to begin off-gasing of CO2 and the land based portion was locked up under glaciers which would also require a lag time. Consequently I would expect to see a fairly slow rise in CO2.
Upon reading back through your posts I see you also stated "..... the ice-core to Moana Loa "correction factor" of 83 years, I think it is for Greenland." Do you have a reference for that.
Thanks,
John
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:55 am
14 Mar 2008
Hi John, Reur: March 13
The main problem I have with the 800-year lag of CO2 behind temperature increase is that the initiation of both events is "sudden", and that the general pattern of erratic slopes is chaotic but sort-of following a similar pattern, especially in the down-phase. To see what I mean, some useful demo. graphs here: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate ...
I cannot visualize how the T could increase for 800 years with nothing happening. Intuitively I would say that there should be an early gradual progressive response to some kind of detectable level over a much shorter period, and then possibly an exponential increase as various feedbacks cut-in. However these two things are not apparent, and my gut-feeling is simply that the data is inaccurate. The erratic mismatch of spikes are also suggestive of imprecise data, OR an unsystematic erratic response.
For example I can visualize maybe a 30-year lag in CO2 in the advancement of NH forest northwards, because the newly exposed preserved mature trees would take a while to decompose, and this would also be offset a bit by new growth. And, surely there are heaps of other things that should intuitively be progressive to some degree, and not be suddenly "switched-on" after 800 years?
Anyhow, things have got more complicated after going looking for your Loulergue paper, suggesting a much shorter lag and also finding the following, first of all:
ABSTRACT STOTT et al 2007:
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
Lowell Stott,1* Axel Timmermann,2 Robert Thunell3
Establishing what caused Earth's largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. We determined the chronology of high- and low-latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by radiocarbon dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and magnesium/calcium records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep-sea temperatures warmed by 2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical-surface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791
ABSTRACT LOULERGUE et al., 2007:
Gas is trapped in polar ice sheets at ~50-120m below the surface and is therefore younger than the surrounding ice. Firn densification models are used to evaluate this ice age-gas age difference (Delta age) in the past. However, such models need to be validated by data, in particular for periods colder than present day on the East Antarctic plateau. Here we bring new constraints to test a firn densification model
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3-timescale.txt
The Loulergue abstract above probably contradicts a few things below, but, and without reading the full paper, there are clearly some assumptions involved. I also have a problem with the assertion of how and when gas (he says gas, not air?) disperse down from the surface many metres below into the older ice, and whether all molecule species disperse at the same rate.
Concerning the 83-year "correction factor" for Greenland ice-core CO2 to align Moana Loa CO2, the quickest reference I know is at:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/web%20pages/Zbigniew%2 ...
There is also a 140-year "correction factor" for Antarctica somewhere I think. Jaworowski also gives a quick reference to Beck's study on CO2 records. I think the consensus is that the chemical data is regional and also affected by wind speed and direction, whereas, Moana Loa is what? at over 3000m I think, in the Pacific.
Permalink
JCross Posted 3:02 am
15 Mar 2008
You raised my interest enough that I downloaded the archived ice core data and had a look at it myself. I think that I tend to agree with you that it is hard to tell anything from what I could see. In which case I have to go back to the papers to read through them and see if I can come up with some better understanding.
My gut feeling is that 800 is not too long - especially with the resolution we are seeing. If the oceans are a significant source of CO2, then it would be a while before they finished out gassing. Perhaps the increase in temperatures increased plant production in the early rise which absorbed the CO2 keeping levels roughly constant. But it is just a guess on my part.
In regards to Jaworowski and the 83 year lag. I have taken an interest in his work and in fact Jim Easter and I started a series about some of his papers. The first one can be found here. Suffice it to say, I don't think he is much of a reference.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:36 am
15 Mar 2008
Sorry to cut in on your exchange with Black Wallaby, but one point caught my eye, so I did a quick check.
You cited a critique of a 2004 paper by Zbigniew Jaworowski "Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Global Climate", on the Boojums blog site.
Let's go through Boojum's critique of Z's statements, one by one.
To Z's statement "many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. Industrial carbon dioxide emissions, they say, will soon result in a runaway global warming, with disastrous consequences for the biosphere.", the "Boojums" blog responds: "If we were sticklers, we might ask for more specificity than `many climatologists', or object that no one has predicted `runaway' warming."
Boojums is apparently not well informed on this. IPCC supposedly (according to their chairman) represents 2,500 scientists, a significant number of whom are "climate scientists"; IPCC has stated that the late 20th century rate of warming is unusual, and that this period is likely to be the warmest in the past 1300 years. Now maybe that's not saying exactly "faster and higher than ever before in history", but it comes very close. So one point for Z.
"No one has predicted `runaway' warming"? Maybe not the IPCC, but how about Hansen with his "tipping point" from which the environment and human civilization are unlikely to be able to recover? And Hansen is not alone among alarmist climatologists.
Score another point for Z.
Z's second quoted statement was : "Just a few years earlier, these very same climatologists had professed that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the spiritual leader of the global warming prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that this pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C."
Boojums' first says that there were only two scientists (Schneider, Rasool), who predicted global cooling at the time. While the number was much smaller than the current "2,500" who predict warming, there were definitely some others beside just these two.
The Newsweek April 28, 1975 article named a few of these scientists and then stated "that scientists were "almost unanimous" in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that "the resulting famines could be catastrophic." In addition, Newsweek said, "the evidence in support of these predictions" - everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover - had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
Not to be out-scooped, Time, July 29, 1975, reported, "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." "Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F." Times also named some of the scientists.
Bryson, Kukla, Lamb, Emiliani, Hare, Mitchel, McQuigg are some of the names mentioned.
So there were definitely more than "only two scientists" who predicted cooling, but still a small number when compared to the hundreds who are riding on the multibillion dollar global warming industry of today.
So let's call this a tie for Boojums and Z.
Boojums then goes on to rationalize why Schneider et al were wrong in their prediction "because they had used too low a value for CO2 sensitivity" (not too relevant to the discussion here) and to add to a partial quotation, which was omitted by Z (also irrelevant to the specific discussion).
To Boojums' closing remark: "We are now three paragraphs into a twelve-page paper. Jaworowski has already presented us with four misleading statements, three errors of omission, two outright errors of fact and a misattribution in a pear tree."
I'd correct that and say that the score is 2 for Z, 0 for Boojums and 1 tie. (Couldn't find the "misattribution in a pear tree").
In summary, Z may be dead wrong on his predictions of a "solar-caused Little Ice Age" (let's hope so!), but Boojums did a pretty unconvincing job of showing that his statements were flawed.
Just my input on this.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:14 am
15 Mar 2008
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
I asked if anyone had seen a direct refutation of this paper.
So far I have received no link to any direct refutation, but have seen a February 29, 2008 paper by Arthur P. Smith, entitled "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect".
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
This paper gives a partial rebuttal of the G+T paper plus a description of the greenhouse theory, but does not refute the specific points made by G+T. It also does not provide any "proof" of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Again, if anyone has read these two papers and has seen a true scientific refutation of G+T, I would be interested in seeing this.
Thanks,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:32 am
15 Mar 2008
"Climate Scientists"
My argument is there is no well known academic "Department of Climatology" in any respectable institution. It is not a formal science in its own right (it may get there if we're taxed enough by AGW to fund it).
I've had this argument with Dessler who says "yes, but I'm an Atmospheric scientist". Sorry, not the same thing -- as the people who shout that January's drop in temperature does not represent climate.
Climate isn't even a thing -- it's a concept. It's a mathematical summary of numbers representing many many dimensions, some that are arguably disparate, coupled with a forward prediction of how those numbers will trend.
To me the real argument in all this is whether (pun intended) "climate" is linear, non-linear or chaotic. If the later, then any perturbation, even a small one, can cause profound effects. And those effects can be rapid, and their direction unpredictable. You can I could spend the next year shrinking our CO2 footprints by a factor of ten, only to discover that it changed the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit.
The Manhattan Declaration
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:59 am
15 Mar 2008
Thanks for your input Max.
I do have a bit of a problem with Z. in that he sometimes includes statements with his scientific work which are rather more political than relevant to his science. Hence they tend to be controversial and distract from his science. The background to this is that he has converted from being a CO2-anthro warming believer, to a non-believer, to a strong activist.
The consequence is that AGW activists take pot-shots at him and imply that his science is wrong. However, the scientific process is a progressive one as demonstrated by the fact that all scientific papers are expected to include citations of the work of others. Also, many papers are the subject of hypothetical arguments which may survive or may not. For instance ABSTRACT LOULERGUE et al., 2007 above, (his work was mentioned by John), appears to be based on assumptions.
Related to that very matter, I now quote an extract from a recent Z et al study, and which adds to my disbelief of the idea that (alleged) AIR bubbles trapped in ice are 83 or even thousands of years younger than the ice itself. NOTICE THAT there are many citations of the work of others. Are these citations to be condemned because they were made by Z? I think that much of Z's work is very powerfully supported, and some of it less so, or more hypothetical/incomplete, but not disproved.
5.1.6 ICE LAYERS (Page 39)
The ice layers can not only change the chemical composition of the gases in the ice, but they are also important impermeable barriers for the penetration of gases from the atmosphere into the deeper layers of firn. In Antarctica such impermeable layers were observed and extensively studied down to a depth of more than 100 m (Kotlyakov, 1961; Gow, 1968, Watanabe, 1977; Korotkevich et al.,1978; Repp, 1978; Neftel et al., 1985; Raynaud and Barnola, 1985). The processes leading to formation of ice crusts in extremely cold Antarctic ice sheets, due to absorption of solar radiation, are described by Gow (1968) and reviewed by Jaworowski et al. (1992). Raynaud and Barnola (1985)stated that air in the Antarctic firn cannot be well mixed with the atmosphere due to the existence of these impermeable layers which isolate the air in the firn from the free atmosphere even at shallower
depth. It is therefore astonishing that the assumption that air bubbles (with the same concentration of CO2 as in 1983 atmosphere) in ice from a depth of more than about 70 m, deposited in the 19th century could represent the composition of the 1983 atmosphere (Neftel et al., 1985) was so credulously accepted. In this assumption, which is based on an observation that the air pores became closed at a depth of 70 m and on porosity measurements (Berner et al., 1978; Schwander and Stauffer, 1984), the sealing effect of the impermeable layers was not taken into account, even though such layers were observed by CO2 students (e.g., Neftel et al., 1985) and extensively studied by others. The physical and chemical processes which may change the original composition of atmospheric air along its long migration route in porous material to such a depth were also neglected.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/np-m-119.pdf
John, I recommend you read the whole thing with an open mind, and take note of the huge number of citations of the work of others. (I'll respond to your other stuff maybe this evening or tomorrow, when I have time)
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 8:14 am
15 Mar 2008
"On March 11, on the gristmill 'solar distraction' site, I cited a reference to a September 2007 report..."
"...I asked if anyone had seen a direct refutation of this paper."
A paper on physics.oa-ph? From the physics.oa-ph FAQ:
"7.1 Some of the arXiv articles are nonsense!"
"If a submission is merely mediocre, speculative, or erroneous, the readers of some particular category could still find it useful."
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ifaq#moderation
manacker/black wallaby finds the physics.oa web page useful to try to waste time with specious claims. If this is really a scientific debate, manacker/black wallaby has to start using peer-reviewed science as sources.
If someone chooses not to reply to manacker/black wallaby on one post, then manacker/black wallaby should get the hint. If someone does not reply on one post, its still unlikely they will if the comment is repeated on another post.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:53 am
15 Mar 2008
You refer to "the people who shout that January's drop in temperature does not represent climate".
The key point here is obvious. Ya gotta know what the difference is between weather and climate.
If January 2008 had been the warmest January in 10 years it WOULD represent evidence of an alarming change in CLIMATE. Since it was the coldest January, it's only weather and irrelevant.
For several years in a row the Hadley Centre has given us forecasts that the next year will likely be the hottest on record, and that this is part of an alarming warming climate trend, only to have to swallow their words when the facts come in, with such statements as "200X was the sixth warmest year in this century".
They finally wised up this year, and did not make any predictions.
To your question whether "'climate' is linear, non-linear or chaotic", a good starting point would be to look at weather.
Sure, one can usually say (in the N. Hemisphere) that July will be warmer than January, but one cannot accurately predict the weather more than a few days in advance.
There are "Farmers' Almanacs", etc. out there that try to do this, but they are about as specific and accurate as the predictions made by astrologers, oracles or prophets.
If you accept that weather is chaotic, and that the concept of "climate" is sort of an integration of weather over longer periods of time, then doesn't it follow that "climate" is by definition also chaotic and therefore not predictable?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:04 am
15 Mar 2008
Welcome back. Glad you have "chosen to reply".
You wrote: "Some of the arXiv articles are nonsense".
Both the G+T and the Smith papers were arXiv articles, but that does not automatically make them "nonsense".
But with all your talk of "peer review" you have not brought any refutation of G+T, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Keep trying.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 3:31 pm
15 Mar 2008
You claim that the statements "... caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history." And "...late 20th century rate of warming is unusual, and that this period is likely to be the warmest in the past 1300 years" to be equivalent. However to consider this true you would need to equate "faster than ever" with "unusual" and "history" with "1300 years". I can not see the equivalence of these but I am prepared to listen to an argument. But I will say that Boojums wins this one!
Your second point equated "runaway warming" with "tipping points". Again this is not correct. A tipping point is a change of state with (in this case) a positive feedback. A runaway greenhouse effect is also an effect of a positive feedback, but there is an importance difference between the two. In electrical engineering terms a tipping point has a gain of less than 1 while a runaway had a gain of more than 1.
You also say "Boojums' first says that there were only two scientists (Schneider, Rasool), who predicted global cooling at the time. While the number was much smaller than the current "2,500" who predict warming, there were definitely some others beside just these two." In this case you have missed the context of the statement in that Jaworowski was talking about an ice age caused by industrial pollution. Who predicted an ice age is not relevant unless they predicted it would be caused by industrial pollution.
You also seem to be confused about who stated what. It was Jaworowski who provided two authors as "many climatologists".
The question of who predicted an ice age when is interesting. I will state that I do not know a climatologist who does not think that without AGW we will see another iceage - the key point is when (about 10,000 years from now seems to be the most recent answer). We can discuss it in more detail if you wish.
So by my count it is still Boojums 3 and Jaworowski 0.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 3:56 pm
15 Mar 2008
Boojums did an excellent job of taking apart another statement of his which covers some of his main points. It can be found here.
As perhaps you can tell, I have read a great deal of Jaworowski.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:20 am
16 Mar 2008
Hi John,
You wrote me: "Jaworowski was talking about an ice age caused by industrial pollution. Who predicted an ice age is not relevant unless they predicted it would be caused by industrial pollution."
If you check it out a bit more closely, you will see that there were others (as I admitted far fewer than those predicting AGW today) that also projected global cooling from human pollution. I named a few that were listed in Newsweek, Time, etc. And I agreed that the Joworowski/Boojums dispute on this point was tied, since there were more than two, but far fewer than today.
Jaworowski's essential point (which Boojums did not address) is that there were doomsayers back in the 1970s as there are today: " No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame always falls upon `sinful' human beings and their civilization - which is allegedly hostile and alien to the planet."
This essential point (the use of guilt and hyperbole to spread a message of hysteria to a public that is unaware of all the facts) was underscored by the quote from Stephen Schneider" "To capture the public imagination ... we have to ... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."
Boojums cherry-picked wisely in not addressing this statement in its critique of Jaworowski, since it is just as true today as it was back when Schneider made it.
Your point on the technical difference between "runaway" climate change and reaching a "tipping point of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects" (as Hansen puts it) is summarized in your statement, "In electrical engineering terms a tipping point has a gain of less than 1 while a runaway has a gain of more than 1."
This moot point will be lost on most everyone who is not an "electrical engineer" and, therefore, unaware of this technical fine point in electrical engineering terminology. (BTW Hansen's message was not given to a meeting of electrical engineers it was given to the US House of Representatives.) For them (and the general public) these two are the same.
As to the difference between "human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history" and the statements in IPCC SPM 2007 that temperature is "the highest in the past 1300 years", that the "warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years" (when temperature records only exist since the late 19th century) and "very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" is again splitting hairs.
Jaworowski made the point in fewer words with less modulating verbiage (such as "likely", "very likely" or "very high confidence") than IPCC, but they are both getting the same message across: "Human are causing it to be warm more quickly to higher temperatures than we have ever seen."
So the score is still: J = 2, B = 0, tie = 1
But this is not a fruitful discussion, John, just like the Boojums "putdown" of Jaworowski really did not contribute much either (which is the whole point I wanted to make).
This kind of blog site "putdown" to selectively pick statements out of a scientific paper to discredit and ridicule the writer and the conclusions of the paper is a standard gambit of those who want to invalidate any dissent of the so-called "consensus" view on AGW.
Next Ice Age (in 10,000 or maybe 100 years)?
Could be an interesting topic.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:32 am
16 Mar 2008
Not to beat this dog to death, but Boojums blasted Jaworowski for his lead-in claim on scientists and runaway warming.
To Jaworowski's statement that "many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. Industrial carbon dioxide emissions, they say, will soon result in a runaway global warming, with disastrous consequences for the biosphere." Boojums commented "If we were sticklers, we might ask for more specificity than `many climatologists', or object that no one has predicted `runaway' warming."
A Greenpeace poll from 1992 shows that "a worryingly high proportion of climate scientists believe it possible that continuing emissions of greenhouse gases can awaken synergistic feedbacks capable of generating a runaway greenhouse effect."
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zg ...
"Greenpeace International polled 400 climate scientists during December 1991 and January '92. The sample included all scientists involved in the 1990 study of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others who have published on issues relevant to climate change in `Science' or `Nature' during 1991. Scientists were asked whether they thought there would be a point of no return at some time in the future, if emissions continued at their present rate. By the end of January 1992, 113 had replied, in the following way: probably - 15 (13%), possibly - 36 (32%), probably not - 53 (47%). In other words, 45% believe the runaway greenhouse effect to be possible."
As I figure it, 45% of 400 equals 180 scientists who (according to the Greenpeace survey) "believe the runaway greenhouse effect to be possible". (This is an older poll, so maybe Boojums is right, and most of these "180 scientists" no longer believe this today.)
But, in any case, it sounds like this fits Jaworowski's statement pretty closely that: "many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. Industrial carbon dioxide emissions, they say, will soon result in a runaway global warming, with disastrous consequences for the biosphere."
But let's get back to the timing of the next cooling period (ice age?).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:36 am
16 Mar 2008
The number of scientists in the Greenpeace poll was actually 45% of the 113 who responded, so only 51 scientists.
A smaller "many" than I said earlier, but still many (try to get that many into a phone booth or elevator).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 12:39 pm
16 Mar 2008
You said "If you check it out a bit more closely, you will see that there were others (as I admitted far fewer than those predicting AGW today) that also projected global cooling from human pollution. " However that is not what Jaworowski said. His exact quote was that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. So the relevant point is how may of those predict that the industrial pollution would trigger an ice age.
The whole "but they predicted an iceage" argument was recently looked at by William Connolly et. al. Their results show that even back then there were 8 times as many papers talking about warming as talking about cooling.
The difference between tipping point and runaway is hardly moot by any conventional definition of moot. I used the term gain to provide clarification but I believe that most reasonable people could have understood the difference. The giveaway is that Hansen talked about tipping points (i.e. in the plural) where as there is only one runaway effect.
In regards to Jaworowski's statement that "human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history" could you please indicate where he defines that it is the instrumental temperature history he is talking about as you indicate. To me his history could have been the ice core temperature history or the geological temperature record. And that doesn't even touch his comment about rate.
You finish by saying But this is not a fruitful discussion, John, just like the Boojums "putdown" of Jaworowski really did not contribute much either (which is the whole point I wanted to make).
I disagree completely. The Boojums article showed that in this article Jaworowski had several facts wrong - just in the first three paragraphs. Does this negate the rest of his article - no, but it should put people on guard. I am somewhat surprised that you don't think that it is appropriate to select statements our of a paper that are incorrect or based on faulty logic. This is standard in the scientific method. If there are errors in a paper then they should be exposed. I don't understand the view point that scientific errors are not important.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 2:03 pm
16 Mar 2008
When we wrote the Boojums piece we based it on peer-reviewed work as much as possible. I think the relevant question is who published that in their opinion there would be a runaway greenhouse effect.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:13 pm
16 Mar 2008
You wrote: "The Boojums article showed that in this article Jaworowski had several facts wrong."
Wrong, John. In the article we are discussing, Boojums did not even discuss the "scientific facts". Instead it resorted to the "golden horseshoe" approach of attempting to ridicule Jaworowski.
The points they mentioned did not accomplish this at all.
Then you added: "If there are errors in a paper then they should be exposed. I don't understand the view point that scientific errors are not important."
Here I agree with you (I never said that scientific errors are not important, did I?).
However, Boojums did not "expose" any scientific errors in Jaworowski's paper, but rather snidely gave him a "golden horseshoe" for other statements he made.
But to your basic point: there are many scientific errors in IPCC SPM 2007. Should they also be exposed? Should we count on Boojums to take care of this? Probably not.
I am surprised at your statement that you that you are "somewhat surprised" that I do not think it is "appropriate to select statements out of a paper that are incorrect or based on faulty logic".
Do you mean by "select" what AGW proponents refer to as "cherry pick"? I thought this was what skeptics do, not what AGW proponents are supposed to support. But I agree that "cherry picking" is OK, provided it is pertinent.
But face it, John. Boojums did a lousy job of trying to discredit Jaworowski.
Now let me tell you that I am not necessarily supporting Jaworowski's predicting of an upcoming ice age.
But I also reject the IPCC projection of alarming global warming, and - even more - Hansen's prediction of an imminent global warming "tipping point" that will result in the destruction of our planet.
What is your stand on this? Do you really believe this malarkey?
Since you are a rational, technically savvy individual, I sort of doubt it.
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:25 pm
16 Mar 2008
Reur post: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
You wrote in part, concerning CO2 lagging behind T:
"My gut feeling is that 800 is not too long - especially with the resolution we are seeing. If the oceans are a significant source of CO2, then it would be a while before they finished out gassing. Perhaps the increase in temperatures increased plant production in the early rise which absorbed the CO2 keeping levels roughly constant. But it is just a guess on my part."
We have both mentioned likely increased plant growth with increasing T & CO2, but you prompt me to remember that it has been said that it is the marine element that is the greatest CO2 absorber, AND, the CO2 levels should have a rapid out-gassing response to increasing T. (In the surface layers, so what the outcome is, I think is tricky to say) Also the land-plants pose a complex picture, because among other things, their stomata or pore size in the leaves have to reach a careful balance with need to maximise CO2 up-take, whilst minimising transpiration loss of water. I seem to recall somewhere that terrestrial plants are on the verge of "real discomfort" at around 200 PPM or below and require more water to survive. And of course, for example, greenhouse tomatoes just love 1,000 PPM. Whatever the outcome is, it's complicated and speculative.
Anyhow there are many hypotheses floating around, and they can't all be correct. We can simply disagree. You think 800 years lag is OK, I think it is too long. (Unless a graded response rather than a sudden switch-on after 800 years could be shown). You also mentioned earlier that the work by Loulergue suggests a shorter lag period. Have you read the paper and rejected it?
Apart from that, I show below my "pegs in the ground" in descending order of importance;
1) Even if the ice core data is accurate WRT proxy T, CO2, and when in time relative to today, the first two parameters are for those local conditions only. Those local conditions are in extremely uninhabitable zones and comprise an extremely small sample of the Earths surface. Thus, they give no indication WRT average global conditions, or even for the regions where people live. This truth is scarcely known in the media etc.
Of significantly lesser importance:
There appears to be a consensus that CO2 lags behind T increase, by maybe 800 years
Glaciologists cannot agree on the relative age of the gas trapped in the ice, versus the age of the ice itself. There may be some logic in the argument that it is greater in Antarctica than Greenland, but the spread of hypotheses that I'm aware of; 83 to 6,000 years seems excessive. (See footnote 3)
Glaciologists argue that the air that is trapped in ice in bubbles at the instant of full closure, whatever and whenever that is, is the same as the air above the surface of the snow, at that time, at say a depth of around 90 metres. The quantum theory of gaseous diffusion seems to be their mainstay argument, but I find this to be a rather dodgy hypothesis. (See footnote 4)
Satellite observation shows ever increasing extent of surface melting in recent years in Greenland, and there must be at least annual crusting, but also percolation into the firn seems likely, altering the isotope ratios. Incidentally, recorded temperatures in Greenland were similar in the early 1900's but we don't hear much about that. Crusting has also been observed in bores in Antarctica. Some have indicated that the diffusion discussed in 4) is not possible because of the impermeable layers this creates.
The question remains as to whether the gas bubbles trapped in the ice, (some at enormous pressures and reducing size), remain identical chemically to the air from which they originated. To assert that this is so, is an assumption because not all of the processes can be understood or TESTED. Those that think the assumption is true, and have spent years or decades working on it are not likely to accept any hypotheses which contradicts their beliefs. Jawolowski is the most prominent critic, and to me, some of his hypotheses seem to be strongly supported. Others maybe less so.
The question remains as to whether the several methods of extraction of the entrapped gas in the cores, and the removal of the cores, their transport and pressure release, etc., does not result in contamination and/or chemical reactions. To assert that this is so, is an assumption....Ditto, Ditto, as in 6) and see footnote 7)
There are a variety of contradictory hypotheses in the literature. Not all of them can be true. I've just seen that you and Max are getting a bit carried away by some of Z's political rhetoric. Not much to do with his science, and even if he is totally wrong, there is something very fishy about the remainder in the literature. But why worry? The glaciologists are well funded. They will continue their work ad nauseam, just as the Dendro's do, and maybe domani domani we will get more sense. Meanwhile, all that matters really, is item 1) above.
Regards, Bob
P.S. Still have to catch-up on your other stuff
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
3) Continued:
Extract from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
Because air bubbles do not close at the surface of the ice sheet but only near the firn-ice transition (that is, at ~90 m below the surface at Vostok), the air extracted from the ice is younger than the surrounding ice (Barnola et al. 1991). Using semiempirical models of densification applied to past Vostok climate conditions, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed.
Make what you will of the following subject graphic:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
4) Continued:
Gaseous diffusion can be demonstrated as follows: Hypothetically, take two sealed containers one filled with air of "zero age", and the other with air say "1-year old", and with all other things being equal, (AOTBE), connect them with a small pipe. Because individual gas molecules are randomly moving in all directions at a speed related to their individual energy levels, EVENTUALLY the air from the two sources becomes evenly mixed even though it is apparently motionless. That is to say that the "average air-age" in both containers will become 6 months old, not 1-year and zero, as initially. The colder it is, the longer it takes. Now, instead of just two containers, make it say 1,000 with each progressively containing air "1-year older" so that the total age difference is 1,000 years. (AOTBE but none of the connecting tubes in line-of-sight of each other) Now try and figure-out how long it will take before all the containers have an average air-age of 500 years. Now consider the air cavities in a 90-metre thick layer of firn. They are probably randomly connected with micro-fissures, but mostly in the horizontal. What.... maybe 10 million + to the 90 cubic metres?.....just a guess. How would you model this? I've left out a few considerations/ complications for the sake of brevity!
7) Continued:
Extract from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
...Ice samples were cut with a bandsaw in a cold room (at about -15°C) as close as possible to the center of the core in order to avoid surface contamination (Barnola et al. 1983). Gas extraction and measurements were performed with the "Grenoble analytical setup," which involved crushing the ice sample (~40 g) under vacuum in a stainless steel container without melting it, expanding the gas released during the crushing in a pre-evacuated sampling loop, and analyzing the CO2 concentrations by gas chromatography...
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:20 am
17 Mar 2008
You wrote: "In regards to Jaworowski's statement that "human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history" could you please indicate where he defines that it is the instrumental temperature history he is talking about as you indicate. To me his history could have been the ice core temperature history or the geological temperature record. And that doesn't even touch his comment about rate."
Since you ask me to "please indicate", here goes.
Webster: History = "a systematic written account comprising a chronological record of events"
The most recent "written" "chronological record" of temperature is the instrumental temperature record. I believe Hadley is one of the oldest, going back to around 1850.
Then there are written records relating to crop growth, unusually harsh winters, advancing glaciers, sea passages, etc. from all over the civilized world at the time that go back as far as medieval times, and in rare cases, even further. These are also "historical" records from which climate data can be gleaned, although (when it comes to the Medieval Warm Period) some AGW supporters prefer to call this "anecdotal" rather than "historical" evidence.
IPCC has probably covered the period one could call "history" (when discussing records of temperature) pretty well, when it refers to the past 1300 years. And quite possibly this could be the period to which Jaworowski was referring in his statement. He did not make it a point to specify.
Ice core temperature data are scientific proxy recreations, but do not constitute "history", in the true sense of the word, since they are not based on a "written account comprising a chronological record of events".
Had Jaworowski written "geological history" it would have been more specific, and would have included all of the ice core data.
Historical data for rate of temperature increase are even harder to specify. There I would suppose that Jaworowski was probably referring to the period of the historical instrumental temperature record (from which a rate of increase could be determined), although, again, he was not specific on this point.
But hey, John, let's not drag this exchange on too long.
In other blog articles that I have seen, Boojums has done a better job of critiquing scientific papers by going after and refuting specific scientific points one by one with supporting evidence. This is the correct way to critique a scientific paper.
In this article they just did a poor job by not addressing specific scientific claims of Jaworowski but only trying to ridicule him with a "golden horseshoe" award for statements he made. This approach usually backfires, as it clearly did in this case.
Next time, John, bring a better Boojum reference. I know they are out there.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:44 am
17 Mar 2008
Might I add to Max's comments that perhaps It should be remembered that Zbigniew Jarowowski is not a native English speaker.
I have to think hard when even spelling his name! I think I got it right.
Regards, Bob
Permalink
JCross Posted 2:41 pm
17 Mar 2008
Now, I do know that this is just the first part of a multi part series and I also know that there are other errors further into the article that you might consider more scientific. But it does not make the initial ones any less.
In regards to the points in question, the only argument you seemed to present was your definition of history. I looked at the online Merriam-Webster dictionary and found the following :
1: tale, story
2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b: a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a patient's medical background d: an established record (a prisoner with a history of violence)
3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events (medieval history)
4 a: events that form the subject matter of a history b: events of the past c: one that is finished or done for (the winning streak was history) (you're history) d: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)
As you can see a number of them would actually support a longer timeframe. For example 2a just talks about a chronological record of events. 2b is even better as it talks about presenting related natural phenomena.
However I think that context plays an important part in something like this and in an article talking about ice cores, I think that a reference to history can be taken to be of a similar time frame as the ice cores represent.
Finally, if you think that pointing out errors in scientific papers is actually "cherry picking" then I can see that we have a lot more discussion in front of us. Which is probably a good thing,
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 2:46 pm
17 Mar 2008
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:34 pm
17 Mar 2008
You are beating a dead horse.
Surmising what Jaworowski meant by "history" is meaningless.
As an observer, I can only tell you that the Boojums article you cited was unconvincing.
If you think it was a great piece of scientific refutal, that's your opinion.
Let's not waste any more time on this.
Bring better arguments next time.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:41 am
18 Mar 2008
Hi John,
You wrote: "Finally, if you think that pointing out errors in scientific papers is actually "cherry picking" then I can see that we have a lot more discussion in front of us. Which is probably a good thing."
So what would be the definition of "cherry picking"?
This is a term, which I have seen frequently used by supporters of the theory that we are in a period of potentially alarming global warming caused by an anthropogenic greenhouse effect when referring to those who are skeptical of this theory.
From Webster online I see the definitions:
Intransitive verb: "to select the best or most desirable"
Transitive verb: "to select as being the best or most desirable; also: "to select the best or most desirable from"
In the context of the ongoing scientific debate surrounding the anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) theory and its implications, it has been used to indicate: "to select the scientific data points, reports, statements, etc., which are the most desirable for getting across the point one wants to make", with the implicit addition: "while ignoring, rejecting or refusing to accept as correct those data points, reports, statements, etc., which do not support or contradict the point one wants to make".
Would you agree with my interpretation on this? Or would you see a better or more precise definition?
If we can agree on a definition, then we can both get more specific, if you really feel that. "a lot more discussion" of this topic "is probably a good thing".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:27 am
18 Mar 2008
So in fact all the criticisms in the Boojums article still stand.
You may feel that the article was unconvincing but you have not made a case for such. If you really feel it is unconvincing then it should be no problem to produce better rebuttals.
Regards,
John.
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:39 am
18 Mar 2008
Supposedly Jaworowski put his best effort into this article, thus the surprising thing is that it has errors, not that it has so many errors that you can cherry pick among them.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:19 pm
18 Mar 2008
To your statement: "I can accept your definition of "cherry picking". My point was simply that pointing out errors in a paper is not cherry picking in any conventional sense."
When Boojums selects statements in an article to attack (or discredit) the author, while leaving other statements untouched, is this "cherry picking" according to your definition?
When IPCC ignores scientific papers that either do not support or directly contradict its claims, is this "cherry picking" in "any conventional sense"?
(I personally would say the first example is not really "cherry picking", while the second is.)
What do you think?
Let's get a bit more specific, so we can move on.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 9:50 pm
18 Mar 2008
I was not an author of AR4 so I can not say what their criteria they followed for including or excluding papers. If you wanted to look at this I would recommend that you review the comments sections. As you know the IPCC called for extensive comments on the AR4 and these were dealt with. So if there were unreferenced articles this would have been the place to bring it up. If they were not to be included then at least there would be a reason for it.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:06 am
19 Mar 2008
To the criteria for "cherry picking" (or selecting) reports you wrote:
"As you know the IPCC called for extensive comments on the AR4 and these were dealt with. So if there were unreferenced articles this would have been the place to bring it up. If they were not to be included then at least there would be a reason for it."
Yes, John, there are examples. One (e pluribus unum) that stands out for me is the example of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
In its 2007 SPM report IPCC claims a net mass loss of Antarctic ice 1993-2003 due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with a corresponding rise in sea level over the same period (pp.5,7).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
A report by D. Wingham et al based on 11 years of continuous actual measurements covering the same period shows no shrinking, but an increase with a corresponding lowering of sea level over the period.
http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.p ...
Wingham used the record of millions of 24/7 satellite altimetry readings to calculate a mass balance for the time period mid-April 1992 to mid-April 2003 and extended this to the whole AIS by adding estimates for those non-measurable areas near the coasts and near the pole, where satellite altimetry could not give accurate readings.
Wingham's conclusion of an overall net 27 Gt/year mass gain is clearly not compatible with the IPCC claim of 71 Gt/year mass loss over the same time period.
There have been other reports covering different time periods and showing different results, some of which were published after the Wingham report, some that are only based on spot readings, others that truncate an entire winter season or several years from the record, etc., but no studies cover the period cited by IPCC other than the Wingham study, which IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept).
Later in the IPCC report, IPCC states the future sea level "projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from ... Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003" (p.14), ignoring the fact that the Antarctica ice sheet actually grew during this period, rather than shrinking.
So a faulty past record is used to make a faulty projection for the future.
And a report that directly contradicts the IPCC claim is ignored.
You wrote: "If they were not to be included then at least there would be a reason for it."
I believe we can reasonably conclude that the "reason" for ignoring (or rejecting or refusing to accept as correct) the Wingham report is that it did not confirm the message that IPCC wanted to convey, i.e. melting Antarctic ice.
Or do you see another reason?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 12:07 pm
19 Mar 2008
"when a person with a supposedly neutral position cherry picks, that is commonly regarded as inappropriate. Examples would be journalists, scientists, and judges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
IPCC SPM Page 5
"New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM.1)."
From Table SPM.1 Page 7
"Rate of sea level rise (MM per Year)" 1993-2003 Antarctic Ice Sheet 0.21 +/- 0.35.
The IPCC states clearly the Antarctic Ice Sheet might have been a net sink. Claiming the IPCC ignored papers that conclude the Antarctic might have been a net sink ignores incontrovertible facts.
Citing the first half of the sentence on page 5 and ignoring the second half of this same sentence and then ignoring page 7 entirely is a textbook example of a cherry pick.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:06 pm
19 Mar 2008
Sorry, josullivan58.
Double talk does not count here.
The facts show an increase in Antarctic ice sheet mass from 1993 to 2003.
IPCC ignores the facts and claims a loss of mass over the same period.
Everything else is "smoke and mirrors".
IPCC has ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) data that directly contradicted its erroneous claims, and then compounded the falsification by using this incorrect claim to project even more losses for the future.
Waffle as much as you want, josullivan58, the facts are the facts. IPCC lied.
Regards,
Max
PS Maybe JCross wants to give his take on this IPCC "cherry picking", which may a bit more logical than that of confused josullivan58.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:21 pm
19 Mar 2008
Just so you don't feel bad.
I did not say that IPCC lied about everything.
Just about Antarctic ice sheet mass balance (and a few other things which we can talk about later, if you wish).
But I'm sure that there is a lot of stuff they did not lie about.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:57 pm
19 Mar 2008
On another blog-thread somewhere, I think you asked her if she might be a lawyer of some kind..... but if so, she need not feel insulted, there are some nice ones out there.
Concerning her post above:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
And, in consideration of the tenor of her many other posts, on other blogs, I think you may be right..... Perhaps she is a youngish student of law...... practicing in a developing art of manipulating the meaning of words..... maybe, I dunno..... there just seems to be a pattern; puzzling really
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:07 pm
19 Mar 2008
If a good wordsmith, a "Good" lawyer's dream is, I guess, to reduce any expert to a trembling wreck.
Dear Max, I hope you are not having a "knee-trembler" right now.
BobFJ
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:03 pm
19 Mar 2008
Just a thought.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:25 pm
19 Mar 2008
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham
Science 16 March 2007:
Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1529 - 1532
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136776
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1 ...
Permalink
JCross Posted 12:25 am
20 Mar 2008
I did not ask for examples, I was merely trying to illustrate that there is a review process where topics like that could have been raised. However since you provided an example, we can look at it.
I would say that this paper was probably not included due to the date of publication. Because there was a large volume of work to be assessed for AR4 there were specific cut off dates for the inclusion of papers. The initial cut off time was December 2005 and this paper was published on May 25, 2006 - so it missed the initial cutoff date. The deadline was extended a couple of times to eventually July 23, 2006 in order to include recent interesting papers. My guess is that no-one thought this one interesting enough to push it into the extended deadline timeframe. Of course it could have been raised in the review process it anyone felt strongly that it was important.
However lets see what the authors have done since then. The first two authors on the article you mention are D. Wingham and A. Shepherd. In fact, these authors published a paper titled Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. In the abstract they say:
However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge--surface and ocean warming, respectively-- and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.
So they appear to say that there is a loss from the Antarctic. If so, how much is it? Again to quote from the paper:
It is reasonable to conclude that, today, the EAIS is gaining some 25 Gt year−1, theWAIS is losing
about 50 Gt year−1, and the GIS is losing about 100 Gt year−1. These trends provide a sea-level contribution of about 0.35 mm year−1, a modest component of the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 mm year−1. Because 50 Gt year−1 is a very recent contribution, the ice sheets made little contribution to 20th-century sea-level rise. However, what has also emerged is that the losses are dominated by ice dynamics. Whereas past assessments (47) considered the balance between accumulation and ablation, the satellite observations reveal that glacier accelerations of 20 to 100% have occurred over the past decade. The key question today is whether these accelerations may be sustained, or even increase, in the future.
So they are saying that overall there is a loss of 25Gt per year - significantly different than the gain of 27 you reported. So why the difference? I am not sure, but I will note that the study you referred to only looked at about 60% of the surface so this could be the reason. They do refer to they article you posted in this one but mostly to talk about the uncertainity for example they say:
To give an idea of the uncertainty, Wingham et al. (14) showed that, in the absence of other data, an altimeter estimate covering 73% of the Antarctic interior could vary by 90 Gt year−1 without contradicting the observed volume change.
So in conclusion, I would say the paper was not included because it first missed the deadline, it then did not really say anything of great importance - or at lease important enough for the authors to push to have it included (an opinion which seems to be born out by their subsequent publications).
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:06 am
20 Mar 2008
In referring to the Wingham paper which showed an increase in Antarctic ice mass, you wrote: "The deadline was extended a couple of times to eventually July 23, 2006 in order to include recent interesting papers. My guess is that no-one thought this one interesting enough to push it into the extended deadline timeframe. Of course it could have been raised in the review process it anyone felt strongly that it was important."
Wow!
You are really bending over backwards to give IPCC the benefit of the doubt on this one, John.
The only paper that calculated a mass balance from data covering the same time period as the IPCC claim (1993-2003) was the Wingham paper. No others did. Period.
An earlier paper by Davis et al covered the same period and showed a net increase in ice, but did not go so far as to calculate an overall mass balance by including the marginal and polar areas.
Wingham's conclusion of 27 Gt/year mass gain is clearly not compatible with the IPCC claim of 71 Gt/year mass loss over the same time period. If you accept one you must automatically reject the other, because they cannot both be happening over the same time period.
I am well aware of the later paper by Wingham and Shepherd that came out after the IPCC 2007 SPM was published (so obviously could not have been considered by IPCC in its report). This paper shows that Antarctica is losing mass today, not due to melting, but due to the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has apparently accelerated in the past decade (with some shorter-period ups and downs) with the conclusion that over the course of the 21st century, these processes could counteract the snowfall gains.
But all of this is totally irrelevant.
IPCC made a claim of ice mass loss over the period 1993-2003 when a study covering this period showed mass gain. IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) this paper.
Your "guess" is that "no-one thought this one interesting enough".
The only paper that covers the same time frame as the IPCC claim is not "interesting enough"?
Get serious, John. You cannot be that naïve.
My "guess" (which is actually obvious to any rational observer) is that they ignored this report because it did not support the message they wanted to convey.
That is what "cherry picking" is all about, according to my definition.
How about your definition?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:10 am
20 Mar 2008
Let's see if we can now define "cherry picking" more exactly.
From Webster online I quoted the definitions:
Intransitive verb: "to select the best or most desirable"
Transitive verb: "to select as being the best or most desirable; also: "to select the best or most desirable from"
I interpreted this, for the context of the current on-going scientific debate surrounding the postulation of potentially alarming anthropogenic global warming, to: "to select the scientific data points, reports, statements, etc., which are the most desirable for getting across the point one wants to make", with the implicit addition: "while ignoring, rejecting or refusing to accept as correct those data points, reports, statements, etc., which do not support or contradict the point one wants to make".
Josullivan58 added the perspective: "cherry picking is used metaphorically to indicate the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." (This agrees pretty well with my interpretation, so we are in agreement in principle.)
Now you have brought new input and it appears that a new element is being introduced, which brings in the concept that it depends on who is doing it whether or not it is "cherry picking" or simply "ignoring, rejecting or refusing to accept as correct based on whether anyone felt strongly during the review process that it was important enough to be considered".
If a skeptic (or "climate denier") does it, it is "cherry picking".
If IPCC does it, the latter definition applies, and it is not "cherry picking".
Got it.
It's actually quite simple, once you know how the system works.
Thanks for clearing me up on this.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
frankbi Posted 5:17 am
20 Mar 2008
False.
Permalink
JCross Posted 5:38 am
20 Mar 2008
The paper that I and josullivan58 linked to (Shepherd 2007) did discuss the paper that you posted (Wingham 2006) - which you obviously read since you stated that you are very familiar with it. However for anyone who has not read the paper, let me quote some.
The problem is exacerbated because the density of snow differs from that of ice by a factor of three, and decadal fluctuations in snowfall mass are exaggerated in the observed volume fluctuations over those due to ice dynamics in the same ratio. A correction is possible if the snowfall fluctuation is independently known, but the only estimates available today are from meteorological forecast models, and a recent study (14) of Antarctica concluded that there was too little correspondence between the altimeter and meteorological data sets for this method to be reliable. Differences between estimates of mass change made from the same observations of volume change (10, 14, 18) arise largely through different approaches to the conversion of volume to mass. To give an idea of the uncertainty, Wingham et al. (14) showed that, in the absence of other data, an altimeter estimate covering 73% of the Antarctic interior could vary by 90 Gt year−1 without contradicting the observed volume change. ERS-1 and -2 radar altimetry (for which the longest records are available) has been limited to latitudes between 81.5°N and 81.5°S and to terrain of low slope. Because these regions lie in the ice sheet's interior, which is characterized by growth in Greenland in general and in Antarctica in some places, there is a tendency for these estimates to be more positive (Table 1).
To be clear Wingham 2006 is reference #14. So the points they make, using Wingham 2006 as an example are:
The altimetry method has problems which you may be able to overcome if you know the snowfall fluctuation - but go on to say that the only estimate they have for that is not reliable.
The same observations can lead to very different estimates of mass change (from a high of +42 to a low of -31).
They also say that altimeter estimates (covering 73% of the interior) of the Antarctic could vary by 90 Gt year-1 and still be within the observed volume change.
The altimetery estimates tend to be more positive.
In addition they go on to mention that Wingham (2006) only looked at 60% of the surface.
I suspect that the authors were aware of the issues with their study at the time so did not push to have it included after the deadline had passed. I will note that as you said there was another paper that did look at the same time frame (i.e. Davis 2005). Essentially Davis used the same altimeter data and they go on and report the following:
Placing these results in perspective, a sealevel change of 1 mm/year corresponds to 360 billion metric tons of water per year (21). Using a near-surface snow density of 350 kg/m3, an average elevation change of 1.8 T 0.3 cm/year over an area of 7.1 million km2 for the East Antarctic interior (table S1) corresponds to a mass gain of 45 T 7 billion metric tons of water per year and a corresponding sea-level drop of 0.12 T 0.02 mm/year. We believe that this is a conservative estimate.
So if things are as you say and the IPCC was trying to suppress information that did not agree with it, why was Davis cited extensively in the IPCC? Could it be because David was published in June of 2005 which is well before the December deadline?
Oh, and you have still avoided talking about the review process and why it would not be picked up there.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:30 am
20 Mar 2008
Thanks for your (cherry picked) quotations from Wingham 2006.
Let me return the favor.
From p.1627:
Here, we use satellite radar altimetry to measure the elevation change of 72% of the grounded ice sheet during the period 1992-2003. Depending on the density of the snow giving rise to the observed elevation fluctuations, the ice sheet mass trend falls in the range of -5 - +85 Gt/yr. We find that data from climate model reanayses are not able to characterise the contemporary snowfall fluctuation with useful accuracy and our best estimate of the overall mass trend - growth of 27 +- 29 Gt/yr - is based on an assessment of the expected snowfall variability. Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly in the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic loss from West Antarctica. The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.
From p. 1633:
Other data are needed to settle this value. In any case our data excludes 28% of the grounded ice. The change in mass of the interior (80% of the omitted area) is likely to be small. For instance, the mass balance of the least surveyed basins ... are small ... and, applying the average elevation rate (9 mm/yr) for the southernmost degree in latitude provides an estimated growth rate of 22 km³/yr for the omitted region. Assigning such a growth to the short term provides an additional 7 Gt/yr mass gain. The change in mass of unsurveyed coastal areas presents the greatest source of uncertainty. While the data themselves suggest that the unsurveyed areas of the Peninsula are sinks of ocean mass, elsewhere ice thinning is correlated with ice flow and, in turn, ice flow rates peak at the ice margin where elevation data are lacking. For the coastal regions omitted from our survey (6% of the grounded ice sheet), a straightforward extrapolation of the elevation data is likely inappropriate, since patterns of ice flow are irregular and, in any case, thinning rates are not everywhere correlated with flow. Nevertheless, applying the average elevation rate for the coastal 200 km of the surveyed ice sheet (-14 mm/yr) to the unsurveyed coastal sector (0.8 million square km) provides an estimated 10 Gt/yr source of ocean mass (assuming the change were to occur at the density of ice). Our estimate of the mass gain of the unsurveyed Antarctic interior is comparable to our estimate of the mass loss of the unsurveyed coast.
So there we have it.
Wingham's study measures 72% of the Antarctic ice sheet and concludes that grew over the study period by 27 +- 29 Gt/yr.
22% in the interior is not surveyed, since it is too close to the pole.
6% along the coastal margins is not surveyed, since the contours are too steep.
Wingham makes calculated estimates for the two unsurveyed areas, showing growth in the interior and loss on the margins, and concluding that they essentially cancel each other out.
But IPCC apparently did not accept this report as correct, because it did not fit the desired message.
Looks pretty clear to me.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:32 am
20 Mar 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:05 am
20 Mar 2008
Back again with two more quotes from your post:
"In addition they (IPCC) go on to mention that Wingham (2006) only looked at 60% of the surface".
No, John, it was 72%, with calculated estimates for the remaining 28%, as I showed you earlier.
"I suspect that the authors were aware of the issues with their study at the time so did not push to have it included after the deadline had passed."
Hmmm... I "suspect" something else.
Now to the earlier Davis study, to which you make reference. It covered the same time period as Wingham and showed similar results (both reports showed a net gain in the Antarctic ice sheet over the same period where IPCC claimed a net loss).
The key differences are that Davis did not convert elevation change to a mass balance and did not include calculated estimates for the areas that could not be measured, both of which Wingham did.
But no matter how much we talk around the issue, the pertinent point is that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) a scientific study that directly contradicted its claim of a loss of mass of the Antarctic ice sheet equivalent to a rise of sea level of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003 (I call this cherry picking), and secondly, that IPCC used its false claim of ice loss over the period 1993-2003 to project future Antarctic ice loss and corresponding sea level rise.
But we have beaten this dog to death and it is unlikely that you will be able to accept this fact, no matter how evident it is.
So maybe we should move on to something else.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 7:47 am
20 Mar 2008
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-1.html
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-2.html
Discussing climate science with black wallaby/manacker is like discussing evolutionary biology with creationists or discussing the health effects of smoking with a tobacco company spokesman.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:55 am
20 Mar 2008
Is josullivan58 a troll in disguise?
Permalink
JCross Posted 12:45 pm
20 Mar 2008
The paper in question was published 5 months after the initial deadline for inclusion in the AR4.
Less than 1 year later the authors were quoting a new number of -25 Gt year-1.
In addition two of the initial authors listed a number of areas where they thought the altimeter method was weak using the very paper that you cited as an example.
A previous paper that calculated an even larger increase which was published 6 months before the initial deadline was included in the IPCC report.
I note that absolutely nothing in your previous paragraphs refutes any of these points.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:33 pm
20 Mar 2008
Hi John,
In earlier posts, I demonstrated to you that IPCC "cherry picked" by ignoring (or rejecting or refusing to accept as correct) a report that directly contradicted its claim of loss in the Antarctic ice sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003 (equivalent to a net mass loss of 71 GT/year over this period); the report I cited (which IPCC ignored) showed a net gain over this period of 27 Gt/year.
You listed four points that were not directly relevant to my statement and then added, "I note that absolutely nothing in your previous paragraphs refutes any of these points."
Of course not, since they are irrelevant.
Turning your statement around, nothing in your statements "refutes any of the points" I made, so we can conclude that my statement as written above is correct.
Your points may partially explain (in your mind) why IPCC "cherry picked", but they do not refute the statement that they did, indeed, do so.
That's all. No side issues, subsequent reports or other obfuscations are necessary.
IPCC cherry picked, ignoring a report that did not support its message of rising sea levels from receding Antarctic ice (caused by AGW, of course).
The fact that this report (Wingham) plus the earlier report that came to the same conclusion (Davis) were the only two reports that covered the time frame of the IPCC claim is even more damning for IPCC.
So waffle and obfuscate until you're blue in the face, you cannot change the facts as they are.
Do you want to continue beating this "dead horse", or do you want to move on to something more productive?
It's your call.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:56 pm
20 Mar 2008
Let's switch from the IPCC and Antarctic ice mass balance to another timely topic regarding the testimony of James E. Hansen to the U.S. House of Representatives.
In his testimony on April 25, 2007, James E. Hansen made the following statements in invoking the specter of an imminent man-made climate disaster for the environment, human civilization and the planet itself:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education ...
"Crystallizing scientific data and analysis reveal that the Earth is close to dangerous climate change, to tipping points of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects. The information derives in part from paleoclimate data, the record of how climate changed in the past, as well as from measurements being made now by satellites and in the field.
This is a scientifically unfounded "statement of faith". Despite Hansen's claims, no scientific data are presented to support the suggestion of imminent "tipping points". Instead, the most recent temperature record shows a significant slowing down in the rate of temperature rise over the past decade as compared with the two prior decades, despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased steadily.
"The Earth's history shows that climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This has allowed the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. Huge natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak, very slow forcings and positive feedbacks."
The suggestion that "positive feedbacks predominate" is not based on any fact, i.e. there is no scientific evidence to support this postulation. In fact, the record shows that just the opposite is true. The statement about "huge climate changes" "driven by very weak, very slow forcings" is not substantiated by any hard evidence. It is pure hyperbole, based on "GISS modelE" climate model studies, which have been programmed to include these positive feedbacks and result in disaster predictions.
"Now humans are applying a much stronger, much faster forcing as we put back into the atmosphere, in a geologic heartbeat, fossil fuels that accumulated over millions of years. Positive feedbacks are beginning to occur, on a range of time scales."
The suggestion that "human forcing" is "much stronger, much faster" and the claim that "positive feedbacks are beginning to occur" are both pure hypothesis, based on computer model projections and hype. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for Hansen's statement concerning "positive feedbacks" that "are beginning to occur". Where is the hard evidence of these suggested "positive feedbacks" and what are they?
Even more importantly, why are "negative feedbacks" ignored by Hansen?
Other quotations:
"For humanity itself, the greatest threat is the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet as it is attacked from below by a warming ocean and above by increased surface melt. There is increased realization that sea level rise this century may be measured in meters if we follow business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions."
This dire prediction is not based on facts. With the exception of the relatively tiny Antarctic Peninsula, which sticks up into the Antarctic Sea toward South America and represents around 1% of the continent, the rest of Antarctica is cooling, rather than warming. Contrary to Hansen's disaster prediction, the facts on the ground show that the WAIS is not in any danger of a "likely demise".
IPCC itself usually presents a standpoint on climate that is rather more alarming than realistic, often ignoring data that do not support its claims and projections. But even IPCC does not make such ridiculous predictions regarding Antarctic ice.
"The dangerous level of CO2 is at most 450 ppm, and it is probably less."
This statement is pure, unsubstantiated hyperbole without any scientific support. Today's CO2 level, as measured at Mauna Loa, is 383 ppm by volume. The greenhouse theory tells us that an increase to 450 ppm would result in an increase of global average temperature of 0.16 degrees C. This is much less of an increase than we experience in daily temperature swings, without reaching any "tipping point". And recent temperature trends show us that, despite steadily increasing CO2 levels, temperatures have "plateaued".
Hansen then switches into policy proclamations, stating that "science" (who's that?) "provides a clear outline for what must be done". The arrogance of equating himself with "science" is mind-boggling.
It is clear that Hansen is painting a false prediction of imminent disaster to the U.S. House of Representatives in order to sell his "four point strategy":
· Phase out coal with a moratorium on coal-fired power plants
· Enforce a rising tax on carbon emissions
· Focus efforts to reduce human emissions of methane, ozone and black carbon
· Take steps to draw down atmospheric CO2 via farming/forestry and burning biofuels with CO2 sequestration
My question: What in the world is a hysterical climate scientist (and self-made environmental activist) doing, telling the U.S. Congress what policies they should pursue?
Hansen has whined about being "muzzled" for his views, but he generates articles and other doomsday rhetoric on AGW at an alarming rate.
Far from being muzzled, Hansen released his disaster predictions via ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=3 ...
In a lead-in to this article by the Inhabitat environmental site, entitled, "NASA puts global warming tipping point within 10 years" the following statement was made:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/05/31/nasa-puts-global-warm ...
"The forecast, as articulated by the study's lead author, James Hansen of NASA, sounds like the worst parts of the Bible, predicting everything from `increasingly rapid sea-level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones.' The 10-year timeframe shows other recent climate studies to have underestimated the urgency of the window."
Indeed, it does sound like the "worst parts of the Bible", with all the implications of punishment by the Almighty (in this case "Nature") for human sins and transgressions (in this case burning fossil fuels), using a clever combination of fear and guilt to motivate the public into accepting draconian measures presented as a "four point strategy". Amen, brother!
Hansen is not an elected public official responsible to his constituents for making policy recommendations. He is a U.S. Government employee, paid by taxpayer money to provide a transparent and unbiased temperature record to the U.S. public, rather than moving away from his area of expertise and getting into politics and policy issues, much less making morality statements.
In testimony to the US House of Representatives, another equally well-respected climate scientist, John Christy, directly contradicted Hansen's disaster predictions in testifying that projections of drastic climate changes in the future from global warming have not been adequately proved. In his testimony he told the lawmakers that, "scientists cannot reliably project the trajectory of climate", adding "whatever happens, we will adapt to it".
Hansen's testimony has also been debunked on:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education ...
In my opinion, the more levelheaded statements of Christy make much more sense than the shrill, headline grabbing disaster predictions of Hansen.
Hansen's "tipping point" might best be described by the analogy of a dump truck loaded with manure. As the bed of the truck is tilted, at first nothing happens. Then a critical "tipping point" is reached, and the whole load of manure comes rushing out of the truck.
We are being inundated, not by the six-meter waves from the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, but from the manure from Hansen's dump truck.
If you have a different opinion on what I have just written, I would invite you to present it by all means.
Thanks and regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:15 pm
20 Mar 2008
you wrote to Max above concerning IPCC's no-mention of Wingham's 2006 paper in WG1, Ch.4. You also discussed Shepherd's post-IPCC 2007 paper. (Pray what's that got to do with the price of cheese?)
I guess Max he probably does not think it relevant or time-cost-effective to respond, but I'd like to expand why I think that may be so, whilst I idly await for your promised responses to my posts.....and whilst you dally thereto-for and wrote;
"See what happens when Davis makes a deadline.
Hi Max: Hey, I just present the facts. If the initial deadline was in December and the [Wingham] paper did not come out until the end of May, well, that is the way it goes."
The context of the discussion is that the IPCC made certain claims of ice-melt for the whole of Greenland and Antarctica for a specific ELEVEN-YEAR period, (1992 - 2003), claiming a consequent sea-level rise. Davis pointed to contrary snow accumulation in Antarctica, but the overall treatment was deficient, so it was easily dismissed by the IPCC. Along comes Wingham later in 2006, and those deficiencies were addressed, showing that the IPCC conclusions were wrong for Antarctica for THAT whole period, (1992 -2003), within the PREVAILING knowledge. (For 1992 - 2003). However, this work was not even mentioned in WG1, Ch.4. The excuse of an initial deadline exclusion of it is not a valid reason for such very important work, of strong new evidence which contradicted the IPCC's conclusions for 1992 - 2003. In contrast to that atypical exclusion, within that chapter alone, the following nineteen (19) post-cut-off works WERE indeed included and discussed, some of them extensively, even in figures, and even after modified figures:-
(Mote, 2006) Qin et al. (2006) modified from Duguay et al., 2006; Cullen et al., 2006; Klein and Kincaid, 2006; Monaghan et al., 2006; Box et al., 2006; van de Berg et al. (2006); Zwally et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2006; Legresy et al., 2006; Velicogna and Wahr, 2006; Mitrovica et al., 2006; Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Ramillien et al. (2006), Hanna et al., 2006; van den Broeke et al (2006); Mitrovica et al., 2006 ; Dupont and Alley, 2006;
So why the cherry-picking?
Funny how the IPCC can squeeze-in 19 (nineteen) other late works in just Ch.4 alone, when it is a convenient truth for them!
Furthermore, your discussion of even later works, or any spatially and/or temporally different data, to the FULL 365/24/7 coverage of 1992 - 2003 is irrelevant to the core issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John, you also wrote to Max;
"Oh, and you have still avoided talking about the review process and why it would not be picked up there."
Your speculative suggestion that an absence of Wingham's work in the second order draft should have been picked-up in review, is rather simplistic:
For instance, when were the expert COMMENTS completed? Who was invited to comment? Who was likely to comment? For example, the NASA-centric and dependent chapter 4 authors like Box, Thomas, and colleagues, are hardly likely to openly comment on the much more sophisticated work of the European Space Agency, (ESA), which rather belittled their own papers. I notice that the IPCC's expert comments publication date was 15/June/06, which would have been some time after the review authors had appended their responses to those expert comments. Only published works could be considered therein, and presumably authors of unpublished (unmentioned) works would not be invited to comment. Thus, it would seem that Wingham would not have even sighted the scheduled 7/April/2006 2nd draft, let alone if he had any time to react to it! The final draft which follows some months later, was NOT available for external expert comment.
If you doubt the vested interests of the IPCC lead authors and their colleagues, I suggest that you read the following paper with a careful and critical eye. How this blatant gruyere assault on other more comprehensive science could pass sensible peer review, is just astonishing!
**Thomas et al 2006**.....putting-down the ESA etc; then if that is not enough for you to comprehend alone, compare with: Johannessen et al 2005 and Zwally et al 2006.
Also, as a lesser approach, I suggest you "search" second order draft expert comments by "Johannessen". That MIGHT be enough to make the issue of bias crystal clear to you.....but of course you obviously have your own bias, which is very hard to sway.
Finally, don't forget that ALL of the subject papers involve models and speculations to a degree, and that scientists will always argue amongst themselves on such UN-TESTABLE things. However, the IPCC authors and their colleagues do not embrace any of the ESA based contributors, and that these cliquey NASA-centric authors more than likely all possess "human" tendencies.
You may also possibly see a similarity with some of the scientific uncertainty and contradictions in ice-core studies that I mentioned way-above. (you said you would respond). An unbiased, (rational), scientist must weigh all the speculative stuff in the literature, and keep an open mind until something is testable or provable in some way.
Of course, RealClimate expresses such speculation as certainty in the direction that they would wish us mere mortals to believe. Do you read their stuff?
Ha Capito? Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
frankbi Posted 9:42 pm
20 Mar 2008
Why doesn't manacker and Black Wallaby mention that co2science.org was funded -- and is still funded -- by ExxonMobil?
Why?
Why?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:47 pm
20 Mar 2008
May I remind you on your unfulfilled declared intent to respond to:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
I will be away for some four days, and probably out of range of radio contact, or interest, but look forward on my return to your wisdom on these matters.
Regards, BobFJ
Oh BTW, might i add (to my above) that I think that stomata analysis is about as shakey as using bristle-cone pines to assess either T, OR water availability.
Oh and.......
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:14 pm
20 Mar 2008
11:06 AM on 20 Mar 2008, and his last post was at: 8:56 PM on 20 Mar 2008, a time-span of about ten hours. (He lives in Switzerland, I do credibly believe)
Notice that my first post this evening in Melbourne Australia was at: 2:15 AM on 21 Mar 2008 blogo-time, some five hours later, and what is it herewith, I guess maybe around 6 AM blogo-time?
Your infinite wisdom insisted that we were one and the same in the same room together?
Gee, I hope you never make it in the legal profession!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:47 pm
20 Mar 2008
"If Chapter 4 of the IPCC is "NASA-centric", then co2science.org is ExxonMobil-centric.
Why doesn't manacker and Black Wallaby mention that co2science.org was funded -- and is still funded -- by ExxonMobil?"
Well I have no idea why; totally out-of-the-blue you Frankbi mention that CO2 Science.org has a particular or important connection with this debate, but it is a fact that ALL activities such as NASA and ESA are funded in some way.
I am not disturbed if YOUR particular pariah: CO2 Science.org is partly funded by an oil company. (BTW do you have any proof of that part funding?) Are you saying that an oil compny has no right to investigate the science that affects them and the World community?
Frankbi, get real
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:13 pm
20 Mar 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:33 am
21 Mar 2008
"Why doesn't manacker and Black Wallaby mention that co2science.org was funded -- and is still funded -- by ExxonMobil?"
Believe Black Wallaby has already responded, but since you asked me as well, let me answer you with a question:
What does this irrelevant statement have to do with anything we are discussing here?
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:02 am
21 Mar 2008
Hansen has told us that the world will end precisely when atmospheric CO2 levels reach 450 ppmv.
We are now at 383 ppmv.
IPPC 2007 says CO2 increase 1995-2005 was 1.9 ppm/year.
Let's say it continues at that rate.
So the world has exactly 35 more years to go before it's all over.
Hansen is lucky.
He's old enough that he will probably not be around anymore when the time bomb explodes and the horrible end of everything occurs.
Max
PS The greenhouse theory tells us that this CO2 increase will cause temperature to increase by a whopping 0.16 degrees C. WOW! The end is near!
Permalink
frankbi Posted 4:38 am
21 Mar 2008
"Are you saying that an oil compny has no right to investigate the science that affects them and the World community?"
Well, to the same degree that NASA has no right to investigate the science... but of course, as every denialist knows,
ExxonMobil is 100% GOOD GOOD GOOD!!!!!! because it's a Shining Bastion of Galileo-Like Freedom (well, its own freedom anyway); while
NASA is 100% EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!!! because it's the Big Statist Bogeyman who's the spawn of Hitler.
* *
By the way:
ttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#F
unding
Permalink
frankbi Posted 4:39 am
21 Mar 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:49 am
21 Mar 2008
Just read your outburst about GOOD (NASA?) and EVIL (ExxonMobil?). Hitler???
Suggest you calm down and cool off.
But you still haven't answered my question about the relevance of co2science's funding to the discussion. Seems totally irrelevant to me.
Max
Permalink
frankbi Posted 4:51 am
21 Mar 2008
"All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial."
Woohoo. Global warming doesn't exist, and it's good for you! Genius argument as always.
"Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998."
Wonder what they spend it on? Oh wait, it's their earth-shattering research which shows that global warming doesn't exist and it's good for you anyway.
So before the denialists try to quote co2science.org to counter the "NASA-centric" IPCC report again, maybe they can think twice. :-B
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:08 am
21 Mar 2008
Thanks for your "genius arguments". You've really helped clear things up.
Keep up the good work.
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 3:29 pm
21 Mar 2008
Anyway, on to the meat of the discussion. You called Davis's method deficient but that Wingham addressed the deficiencies. I don't see that much improvement in Wingham's work. They both look at the same area and use the same dataset. There are some differences but, in my opinion, having looked at the methods not that much. For example they use a lot of extrapolations to produce data for their calculations.
However I think that the interesting thing is that less than a year after this was published he is publishing work that says the altimeter method he used is not a reliable method (as I outlined above). This is critical since it really shows what his thoughts were about his work. Do you think it is reasonable for a scientist to think that his work is - as you put it - . ... such very important work, of strong new evidence one year and then less than a year later to highlight 4 problems with it? To me it seems much more likely that he was well aware of the potential problems with the altimeter method and thus did not push to get it in.
To go on, I will give you credit that you at least mentioned my comments about the review process (which Max studiously ignored). However, there are some facts that you either missed or didn't think important enough to include. In regards to the timing, the specific wording about input from external reviewers is Second order draft - including draft TS and SPM - made available to external reviewers and Government reviewers for an 8-week review period by April 7. If you do the math it turns out that the cutoff date for submissions is about a week after Wingham 2006 came out (more if you count that they also take inpress articles). So there was time for it to be raised in the review process.
As to who could have raised the point, well pretty much anyone could be an expert reviewer provided you sign an agreement to not talk publicly about it. So Dr. Wingham or in fact anyone else could have brought it up.
So to summarize my argument Wingham (2006) was published after the deadline to be included in the AR4. However if anyone felt strongly that it was an important work they could have brought it up in the review process. No one did and the fact that the authors seem to be aware of the problems with the methods involved would indicate that they did not think it was that strong a paper. Add to this that Davis (which was published before the deadline) was included and the argument the this shows the IPCC cherry picks turns from weak to non-existent.
Regards
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:36 pm
21 Mar 2008
Hey John,
You'll have to pardon me again for cutting into your exchange with Black Wallaby, but since he wrote he would be out of pocket for a few days, I thought I would respond.
You wrote: "I don't see that much improvement in Wingham's work. They both look at the same area and use the same dataset. There are some differences but, in my opinion, having looked at the methods not that much. For example they use a lot of extrapolations to produce data for their calculations."
Well, John, if you don't WANT to see the difference between the Davis and Wingham reports, I guess it's easy to miss the significant differences. But I'll list them for you anyway.
They are both obviously looking "at the same area" (it's called Antarctica). And yes, they are using the same dataset (the only meaningful dataset that covers the entire time period in question).
Wingham carried the very extensive 11-year 24/7 satellite altimetry data from Davis a couple of steps further, as both Black Wallaby and I pointed out to you earlier:
· He used this very extensive information on elevation changes to calculate a mass balance over this entire time period (something that none of the other studies have done)
· He then made calculated estimates for the remainder of the Antarctic ice sheet, which could not be accurately measured by satellite altimetry (6% marginal coastal areas and 22% area near the pole), to arrive at an overall net mass balance for the entire AIS over the entire 1992-2003 time period.
IPCC "cherry picked" by ignoring this very significant and important study, which showed a significant overall mass gain, when it made its erroneous claim of ice mass loss over this same time period.
IPCC did this despite the fact that Davis/Wingham were the only studies that gave continuous coverage of the entire time frame (1992-2003), which coincided with the time frame of their directly opposing claim of net ice mass loss.
That's the essence of what happened here, John.
If you are in "denial" of the facts, so be it, but those are the pure and unadulterated facts, no matter how much you waffle and squirm.
But hey, cheer up. Nobody is saying that IPCC is always wrong. I am just pointing out to you that they are not always right, as in this case when they "cherry picked" to prove their point. It happens to everyone, not only "deniers", but even IPCC.
Maybe Black Wallaby will have some more comments to add when he returns.
And maybe we can move on to another topic where you may have better arguments.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:00 pm
21 Mar 2008
We have truly beaten the issue of IPCC "cherry picking" on Antarctica to death. There is no question that that is what happened.
Black Wallaby may have some further "nails for the coffin", but he is apparently away for now.
I believe IPCC did exactly the same "cherry picking" on Greenland, and I think I can show you conclusive evidence that this is the case.
Are you interested in following up on this, or would you rather fold?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
frankbi Posted 6:01 pm
21 Mar 2008
No, all you did was to simply scream "Cherry pick! Cherry pick! Cherry pick!" at the top of your lungs. Classic case of argumentum ad nauseam.
And why are the denialists still defending their use of the ExxonMobil-centric co2science.org, even as they trash the "NASA-centric" IPCC report? And right after they quote co2science.org, when I point out that co2science.org is funded by ExxonMobil and it makes moronic arguments, suddenly co2science.org is "irrelevant"!
Dodging and weaving, that's the denialist way.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 11:47 pm
21 Mar 2008
The lengths he goes to deny this are funny.
black wallaby
"I will be away for some four days, and probably out of range of radio contact"
As soon he does this manacker mysteriously appears
"Maybe Black Wallaby will have some more comments to add when he returns"
black wallaby spends an entire comment on this. manacker (who is named max and from Switzerland) made some comments then black wallaby (who is named bob and is from Austrailia) made comments eight hours later, so they must be different people.
Oh yes, I'm sure.
I get annoyed at times and at times laugh at manacker/black wallaby. There are other times I almost feel sorry for him. All the the time he spends making comments on gristmill that are the length of War and Peace defending positions that have no basis in reality and inventing false identities to do it is sad.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:33 am
22 Mar 2008
Another immature, emotional outburst by frankbi, who is apparently a disgruntled teenager and unable to join in a rational debate.
Tsk, tsk.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:35 am
22 Mar 2008
Max
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:40 am
22 Mar 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:58 am
22 Mar 2008
Well, lets take a step back and look at the information available.
FACTS
Wingham 2006 missed the cutoff date for inclusion into the AR4.
It was published before the end of the review time for the experts, so it could have been included (not just by the authors, but by anyone).
A similar paper that used the same data and came to a similar result but was published 6 months before the deadline was used in the AR4.
Any one of these facts is sufficient to challenge the idea of cherry picking. In addition there are other points that are not facts but a reasonable interpretation of the known information.
INTERPRETATION:
Wingham 2006 realized the problem with using the ECMWF and tried to address this, but were only able to do so through the use of a great deal of extrapolating and assuming averages.
Some of this was done in the area of most interest.
Again let me state that these are not facts but reasonable conclusions that can be drawn if you read the papers. However there is further speculation that can be made on a reasonable construing of the informatino available.
SPECULATION
Based on what the authors of Wingham 2006 wrote in 2007 there is sufficient reason to think that they were very well aware of the limitation to the altimeter method that are now accepted as legitimate criticisms.
Dr. Wingham was an author of the IPCC TAR so he was very familiar with the procedure for including information and would have been well aware of deadlines and cutoff dates.
I think the above make a fairly strong case that this is not an example of cherry picking. I would encourage you to challenge any of the facts that I have presented. But please do so with logic and analysis - and leave the rhetoric aside.
In light of the above, let me ask you: are you ready to admit that you are dead wrong in regards to your example of cherry picking? If not, why not? In Canada - to put it bluntly - we call this "put up or shut up".
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:42 am
22 Mar 2008
After making several statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue here, you ask: "are you ready to admit that you are dead wrong in regards to your example of cherry picking? If not, why not? In Canada - to put it bluntly - we call this `put up or shut up'."
I'm not too interested in what anything is called in Canada, but I have demonstrated to you that:
IPCC made a claim that the Antarctic Ice Sheet lost mass equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003. This rate of sea level rise equates to a ice mass loss of 71 GT/year.
You have not been able to disprove my statement that this is true.
Studies by Davis and Wingham were made. These both concluded that Antarctica was gaining mass rather than losing mass, as IPCC claimed. Both reports were based on millions of satellite altimetry readings taken 24/7 over the entire time period 1992-2003.
Wingham's study went two steps further than that of Davis by converting elevation change to mass balance and calculating estimated values for the regions that were not measurable by satellite altimetry.
The conclusion reached was that the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet gained 27 Gt/year on average over the entire time period of the study, 1992-2003.
You have not been able to disprove my statement that this is true.
So it is clear that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) scientific reports that directly contradicted its claim of Antarctic ice loss equivalent to 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
Again, you have not been able to disprove my statement that this is true.
So it is actually time for you to "put up or shut up", as you so eloquently state it. Waffling won't do.
Whether you choose to call this "cherry picking" or not, is irrelevant. Rationalizing WHY IPCC chose to ignore these reports that contradicted its claims is also irrelevant.
The fact that out of all the many studies considered by IPCC ONLY these two studies covered the exact same time period as the contradicting IPCC claim, makes this whole episode even more damning for IPCC, whether they did this intentionally or just due to a monumental "screw up" on their part.
So it is actually time for you to "put up or shut up". Waffling won't do.
Either demonstrate to me that my statements are incorrect or admit that they are correct.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 7:35 am
22 Mar 2008
Yes, Davis and Wingham did both show a gain in mass. I have stated this many times above.
You are not correct when you say that "Wingham's study went two steps further than that of Davis by converting elevation change to mass balance ..." Davis did convert elevation to mass by using a density value of 350 kg/m3 for snow which is the exact value that Wingham used for his elevation conversions.
Yes, the IPCC did claim that the Antarctic did contribute to sealevel rise by an amount of 0.21 +/- 0.35 mm/year (interesting to see the range isn't it).
I believe that these are the only facts in your post. Everything else seems to be speculation.
Now, could you please return the courtesy of addressing my facts - preferable with facts.
Was Wingham's paper published before the December 2005 deadline for inclusion into the AR4?
Was Wingham's paper published before the closing date for comments from the Expert Reviewers?
Did the IPCC discuss the Davis report?
Remember, just the facts - try to avoid the speculation.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:36 am
22 Mar 2008
Hi John,
So you have now agreed that IPCC made a claim that was directly opposite to published reports that covered exactly the same time period as the IPCC claim?
Good. We're making progress.
This is exactly what I have been saying all along.
You have raised some interesting sideline questions, which may help explain WHY IPCC chose to ignore (reject or refuse to accept as correct) these reports that directly contradicted the IPCC claim of net ice mass loss. To your questions:
1. "Was Wingham's paper published before the December 2005 deadline for inclusion into the AR4?"
No, just like several other reports that were considered by IPCC, it was published after this initial deadline. The following papers covering Antarctica , which also did not meet this deadline, are cited:
· Velicogna and Wahr
· Ramillen et al
· Zwally et al
Unlike these other reports, Wingham's study was ignored by IPCC. And it (plus Davis' earlier report) was the only report based on data that covered exactly the same entire time period as the IPCC claim. The others cited above do not.
So the "deadline" falls out as an excuse for ignoring the study and its conclusions of net mass gain (which had already been hinted at by the Davis study).
2. "Was Wingham's paper published before the closing date for comments from the Expert Reviewers?"
Tell me, when was this "closing date" and what is the relevance of this question?
3. "Did the IPCC discuss the Davis report?"
"Discuss", possibly. "Ignore (or reject or refuse to accept as correct)", definitely (since they made a directly opposing claim covering exactly the same time period).
Whether this was all part of a plan to intentionally "cherry pick" data that fit the desired story or just a monumental screw up by IPCC is sort of a moot point.
But it does not change the irrefutable or "unequivocal" (as IPCC likes to put it) fact that "IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) scientific studies that directly contradicted its claim of mass loss in the Antarctic ice sheet equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003".
And that was my whole point.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:33 am
22 Mar 2008
Let's see if we can wind up this discussion.
I mentioned 3 papers on Antarctica that did not meet the December 2005 deadline but that, despite this fact, were cited in IPCC AR4 WG1: ·
· Velicogna and Wahr
· Ramillen et al
· Zwally et al
In reading back through the IPCC report, I see that there were 3 others, which I failed to mention:
· Van de Berg
· Van den Broeke
· Monaghan
None of these papers cover the time period 1993-2003, so are sort of "good background information" but significantly less pertinent to the IPCC claim of net mass loss over this time period than are the two by Davis and Wingham, which both showed exactly the opposite of the IPCC claim (i.e. mass gain) over exactly the same time period. One (Davis) was "mentioned", but its conclusion was "ignored (or rejected or not accepted as correct)", while the other (Wingham) was not even mentioned.
Would you agree that the above statement is correct, and, if not, which parts do you feel are in error?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 11:32 am
22 Mar 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:40 pm
22 Mar 2008
LegumeSam says, "I await the appearance of the skeptics' definitive disproof of the IPCC reports (as seen here) in peer-reviewed climate science journals."
And I say, "I await the appearance of the AGW supporters' definitive proof of the IPCC reports (as seen here) in peer-reviewed climate science journals."
We are both waiting patiently.
So far, no proof either way.
But stay tuned in, folks...
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 3:13 pm
22 Mar 2008
So - sticking to the facts.
You agree that Wingham 2006 was published after the deadline for accepting submissions.
I quoted the IPCC above on deadlines so I don't know why you are asking for it again. The fact is that if anyone had thought it should have been included they could have raised it in the expert review. It also could have been raised in the Government Review but that is a different point.
They include published work that (using your words) "contradicts" them.
As far as I can see, those are the only facts in your post - the rest is pure speculation. Which was my point all along.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 3:28 pm
22 Mar 2008
You have made a number of comments that state that the IPCC have "ignored (or rejected or not accepted as correct)" the paper by Davis and did not even mention the paper by Wingham. It has been shown that the paper by Wingham was not prepared in time to meet the IPCC deadline so that is a non issue.
However I would like to see why you feel that you can state that the IPCC ""ignored (or rejected or not accepted as correct)" the Davis work. To quote from the IPCC:
Assessment of the data and techniques suggests overall Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance ranging from growth of 50 Gt yr-1 to shrinkage of 200 Gt yr-1 from 1993 to 2003. As in the case of Greenland, the small number of measurements, lack of agreement between techniques, and existence of systematic errors that cannot be estimated accurately preclude formal error analyses and confidence limits. There is no implication that the midpoint of the range given provides the best estimate.
So they say that there is a lack of agreement between techniques and a fair amount of uncertainty. However the mass increase produced by Davis (and for that matter Wingham) is within the limits they post. In fact, I would say that the upper limit was influenced by the work of Davis so he did have extremely significant input into the process - but that is speculation of course.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 3:31 pm
22 Mar 2008
However please don't hesitate to comment in the future if you see me going over old territory.
Thanks,
John
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 9:17 pm
22 Mar 2008
Why wait when you can publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:30 am
23 Mar 2008
You quote IPCC: "As in the case of Greenland, the small number of measurements, lack of agreement between techniques, and existence of systematic errors that cannot be estimated accurately preclude formal error analyses and confidence limits."
What you (and IPCC) have failed to mention is that
· For the period 1993-2003 there is only one LARGE "number of measurements", and those are the millions of ESA satellite altimetry readings for Antarctica and the hundreds of thousands for Greenland
· All the other studies are either outside the 1993-2003 time frame, or only cover a portion of this time frame or are spot studies that do indeed meet the IPCC statement of having only "a small number of measurements".
So IPCC has ignored the conclusions of the only studies that do indeed have a large number of measurements.
Zwally 2006 gives a good recapitulation of the studies made. Thomas 2006 shows on page 3 the extent of time coverage of all these studies: the spot ATM studies, the model calculations, the GRACE studies, etc. It is very apparent that the only set of continuous data over the entire time period is provided by the ESA satrellites, and these are the data that IPCC chose to ignore.
End of discussion.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 11:52 am
23 Mar 2008
Of course that still does not change the facts I have presented which are:
Wingham 2006 was published after the IPCC deadline for literature to be cited.
Wingham 2006 was published before the close of the review period for Expert Reviewers.
The IPCC has published work in the past that (using your words) contradicts them such as Davis 2005 which was published before the deadline for citation.
The range of values given by the IPCC for mass change in the Antarctic incorporated both the values from Davis and Wingham.
And I note that you have not offered anything to rebut them. If you won't respond anymore that is fine. But it won't change the facts.
Regards,
John
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:00 pm
23 Mar 2008
a) I pointed out to other-bloggers before you on this thread that ice core proxies only indicate local conditions in several hostile locations, being but a tiny coverage of the world`s surface area, whereas a much greater coverage of historic and paeleo-data during the MWP was dismissed (cancelled) by the IPCC. (Or something like that)
b) You picked-up and contested this, saying that ice core proxies had global average temperatures somehow built-in. (?) So, rather surprised, I cited to you an educational site that explained the theory of what happens to isotope ratios during phase changes and precipitations etc. (whilst admittedly my brief word-quote there-from was not properly embracing, there should have been enough info there for you to understand, given that you appear to have a scientific background.....oh and BTW you mentioned something relatively trivial in aerodynamics as being very complicated within your expertise, compared with what you hereabouts speak so "authoritatively" on, which is much-much more complicated, and UN-TESTABLE!)
c) BTW, might I add at this point that I had not EVER previously looked-up the isotope theory, since it was obvious to me that most (not all) of the water vapour comes from the tropics, and that in its long journey to higher latitudes it has a chaotic life-style, and cannot possibly have any memory of its many twists and turns including phase reversals etc. However, "the obvious" demanded proof for YOU.
d) I now paste part of your courteous response to b):
"Hi Black Wallaby: Thanks for your response - I appreciate you taking the time to explain your point. However I am afraid that I still disagree with you.
You are correct that the isotope precipitation process is a complex one affected by Rayleigh fractionalization and other things (i.e. the size of the ice caps). However even so we can still produce useful results from it."
e) I'm sorry John, but your d) was pure waffle, which I politely passed-on. You did actually say:....."However even so we can still produce useful results from it"....Pray; such as John? Thus, rather than YOU check-it-out, but simply rely on YOUR own dogma, (Or possibly B-S), I had to do another Google for YOU, and gave you secondly four (4) more citations.
f) You responded to e) with:
f1) Black Wallaby: Thanks for the links! You are correct and now I am somewhat better informed. As I said - thanks.
f2) I will add that the glacier temperature signal is supported by the coral isotopes so I suspect that it is broadly representative of the earth, but that is another argument for another time.
g) Concerning f1), I notice that there is no recognition from YOU that this surprising TO-YOU revelation may paint a different picture on quite a few other things that YOU hold dear in your belief system.
h) Concerning f2), this is either pure obfuscation or astonishingly unthinking on your part! You mention another purely REGIONAL proxy-thing that is not even indicative of the atmosphere, but of coral depth warm oceans, wherever they may be in a temporal and spatial aspect. There is not even the remotest connection with ice cores pertinent for a few remote hostile atmospheric locations at high latitudes. I politely let this pass also, because conflict can hinder sensible debate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(B) If I can intrude on your "debate" with Max, I think you seem to be unobservant of certain important facts. For instance, your latest blast going-for-ridicule: MORE IS BETTER?....is a clear case of you not understanding the vital inter-dependence of trend-versus-time relationships.....please read-on to comprehend better:
May I ask you to concentrate very, VERY, hard on the following INCLUSIVE dates: 1 9 9 2 to 2 0 0 3 (NINETEEN NINETY TWO through to TWO THOUSAND and THREE, inclusive 365/24/7)......repeat, 1 9 9 2 - 2 0 0 3. That is; a specific ELEVEN-YEAR (11-year) period when the ESA (not NASA or anyone else) had dedicated satellite altimetry observations continuously going for Antarctica and Greenland. (With appropriately developed algorithms for radar penetration into sloping snow-firn surfaces) This is the same eleven-year period that the IPCC chose to comment on. (1992 - 2003 inclusive). Any other sources prescribing data or scientific opinions etc, OUTSIDE of that period are totally irrelevant to that period as couched by the IPCC. Even desultory NASA funded spot-checks like very scant fair-weather summer aircraft topographic mapping within that time-frame are almost meaningless given the observed high inter-annual variability, let alone the decadal and seasonal considerations.
I have only studied the Greenland data in detail, (Max apparently knows more than me on Antarctica), but Johannessen et al reached a very-very important conclusion, which was that the inter-annual variability was so high during that eleven years, that even that continuous period was inadequate to show a meaningful trend. Zwally followed-up with additional modelling for the fringe areas, not measurable by satellite, and also showed net growth, but inexplicably excluded the last half year of heavy snowfall data. (!?) Also, if you study the literature, you should come to understand that none of the methods deployed up until 2003 at least, can be considered reliable, and because of the high inter-annual variability, desultory summer spot checks are especially fraught so. You may also be surprised to learn just how deceptively spotty some of those checks were, if you choose to study it. (During the IPCC period; 1992 -2003)
Gravitational stuff may get better decadally since 2003, but that is irrelevant to the IPCC report period for 1992 - 2003 inclusive!
I have to start abbreviating here because it is starting to get latish.
Unless as I recommended before, as a starting point, you are prepared to read Thomas et al 2006, and Johannessen's expert comments to second order draft carefully and without prejudice, there does not seem much chance of intelligent debate on this topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(C) You also have an argument, based on speculation as to why Wingham 2006 did not make-it after the initial cut-off date. You say that although he was happy to have it published outside of the IPCC, he was not interested in having it used by the IPCC at about the same time. Que?
Well I could also speculate that Thomas and Box et al (Lead-NASA-centric authors and their colleagues), in particular, would not like to see ESA-centric Wingham 2006 included, but that too, is not provable. (probably)
So which speculation is best? Yours or mine?
However, as I pointed-out, when it suit's the IPCC, they managed to squeeze-in 19 (nineteen) other 2006 papers into Chapter 4, which were post-cut-off. (But not Wingham's)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(D) Also, please concentrate really hard on these three letters: SPM.......Crease thy brow!
This is the IPCC report that really matters politically! I have some comments on this to follow probably tomorrow evening my time, if Max does not beat me to it!
Max seems to prefer to study the SPM
I prefer to study the WG1 report
However, out of curiosity, I looked at the SPM and noted some things that Lovely Jo quoted in part, that merit some expansions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(E) Previously I complemented you on your good manners, (That's very rare on Gristmill), but since then I return to find that you are becoming not only obfuscatory, but also a tad abusive, quote:
"Hi Bob [Black Wallaby]: You wrote "whilst I idly await for your promised responses to my posts.....and whilst you dally thereto-for and wrote;"...
Just a note aside, you should watch your snark since it can come back to haunt you. For example at 5 am on March 17 you said P.S. Still have to catch-up on your other stuff which you have not addressed yet. During this time I have been involved in a couple of extremely useful discussions with Max - what is your excuse?"
I'm truly surprised at this comment! Normally you have had a 1-day turn-around on my posts, (And Max's), or infrequently 2-days, but on the particular one of mine that you imply I "snarked", (?) on March 17, there has been a disproportionate delay from you. It is very true that Max has been keeping you busy, but should you not respond generally in the order of the post-dates?
It is also true that I wrote, AFTER signing-off:
P.S. Still have to catch-up on your other stuff .....But, however:
May I point out my use of that oh BTW thingy: P.S.
May I also point out my use of the commonly used word: OTHER.
Would you now like to be tiresome and obfuscate into potentially obscure dictionary definitions of; P.S. and OTHER?
There is no sensible EXCUSE for you to not respond to my March 17, even if you prefer to see if I MAY comment on something else (OTHER) at some later date. Debate should go; one step at a time side to side; back and forth, in a sensible ordered sequence!
You also asked me: "what is my excuse". Que?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards, but would it not be better if we got back-on-track to a rational scientific debate?
Disappointed, BobFJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. (BTW), you also wrote WRT (E), specifically:
Black Wallaby: Thanks for the post. I am going to consider what you wrote and post again later. Regards, John
So what's your excuse John?.......I'm still waiting!
And Oh! BTW:
Quote/paste; you to me: "You should watch your snark since it can come back to haunt you." ....Que?
I'm just guessing per gist what "snark" actually means.....I rather like it as an expressive word, but it is not in my copious Australian/English dictionary.
Oh and moreover and further trivially BTW, I spent maybe 18 months cumulatively in Windsor, Ontario, and more time over the river in Detroit during the 80's. Are you from that area John?
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:05 am
24 Mar 2008
Your part A (with subsections a to h) amounted on a (slightly rewritten) review of some of our discussions.
Your part B Looks at my discussion with Max.
Your part C is a brief look at the specific reference that Max brought up i.e. Wingham 2006.
Your part D is a comment on the SPM.
Your part E is a comment apparently on my lack of comment.
Anyway, in regards to Part A. I will note that this is a somewhat biased look at events since you do not specifically mention that the first reference you gave me was not on isotopes but on borehole temperatures. However when you posted something that was correct I was happy to be better informed. I will also note that as far as I can tell, I am the only one on this thread who has done so in spite of several other errors that have been pointed out.
I am not able to see much of a point in the rest of this part, except you seem to object to the example I used with air flowing over a foil. This is not the place for the discussion, I would be happy to discuss on another board if you wish. But it allows me to point out that this is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect - and I might add that we probably all suffer from this since I doubt any of us are professional climatologists (except Dr. Dessler).
In regards to Part B - my discussion with Max. I disagree that the main criteria for the validity of scientific reports is the timeframe of the study (and I notice that you wisely did not defend Max's millions of measurements idea). Whatever information is available during the time frame should be used and it was.
In regards to Part C - Max's example. Let me post again the facts that we know:
Wingham 2006 was published after the IPCC deadline for literature to be cited.
Wingham 2006 was published before the close of the review period for Expert Reviewers.
The IPCC has published work in the past that (using Max's words) contradicts them such as Davis 2005 which was published before the deadline for citation.
The range of values given by the IPCC for mass change in the Antarctic incorporated both the values from Davis and Wingham.
I have asked Max to list issues with them that he does not agree with. I am still waiting. However, which of these do you not agree with?
In regards to Part D - I have no idea where this came from. You are free to post on any topic (just like I am free to ignore any topic) but I have not made any comments in regards to the SPM and I don't really have an interest in it.
In regards to Part E - you claim that I am becoming abusive - perhaps and I will try to keep from getting carried away. But I would like to point out that in fact your comments can be construed as being abusive as well (and I certainly took them to be so). I will also note that in this post you have continued to be abusive and have call me "astonishingly unthinking", claim that I have a belief system, calling my comments "pure waffle", used the term "YOUR own dogma, (Or possibly B-S)", etc. and that all just from Part A.
I post here in my spare time on things that I find interesting. I did say I would respond, I did not say when and right now your post makes me if anything less inclined to respond. In the future if we discuss anything I suggest we watch what we write and stick to facts. If you took my comments as abusive then I apologize. Can I expect the same courtesy?
Regards,
John
PS I worked in a place called Sarnia (just up the River from Windsor) in the early 80's for a while (yes, I worked for an oil company but in a job related to transportation, not producing or refining).
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:30 pm
24 Mar 2008
Sorry for any inconvenience:
(A) With some dismay, I've just read through your debilitating exchange with Max! Why am I dismayed?: because once again, you appear to have a personal fixation on some things, but refuse to check-out the relevance of the more important or definitive issues that are offered to you by the other side in the debate. Your approach seems to be to straight-forward disagree by obfuscation, rather than to actually consider or INVESTIGATE information which may be NEW TO YOU. Let me demonstrate what I mean from OUR earlier less political exchange:
a) I pointed out to other-bloggers before you on this thread that ice core proxies only indicate local conditions in several hostile locations, being but a tiny coverage of the world`s surface area, whereas a much greater coverage of historic and paeleo-data during the MWP was dismissed (cancelled) by the IPCC. (Or something like that)
b) You picked-up and contested this, saying that ice core proxies had global average temperatures somehow built-in. (?) So, rather surprised, I cited to you an educational site that explained the theory of what happens to isotope ratios during phase changes and precipitations etc. The behavior of isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen @:
http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/isotope.htm It is apparent from d) below that you had read and commented on the main part of the article. It is true that a short addendum also discussed bore-hole data, and I apologised over that. Elsewhere you commented on some aerodynamics which indicated that you have a scientific background so I would have thought you could grasp it OK
... Without demeaning your expertise, what would seem to be relatively simple airflow over a wing, (compared with the topic of ice-sheet dynamics), is you implied surprisingly complicated. However, you reach conclusions and make assertions on paeleo-science which are much-much more complicated, and UN-TESTABLE!
c) BTW, might I add at this point that I had not EVER previously looked-up the isotope theory, since it was obvious to me that most (not all) of the water vapour comes from the tropics, and that in its long journey to higher latitudes it has a chaotic life-style, and cannot possibly have any memory of its many twists and turns including phase reversals etc. However, "the obvious" demanded proof for YOU.
d) I now paste part of your courteous response to b):
"Hi Black Wallaby: Thanks for your response - I appreciate you taking the time to explain your point. However I am afraid that I still disagree with you.
You are correct that the isotope precipitation process is a complex one affected by Rayleigh fractionalization and other things (i.e. the size of the ice caps). However even so we can still produce useful results from it."
e) I'm sorry John, but the latter part of your d) was pure waffle, which I politely passed-on. You did actually say:....."However even so we can still produce useful results from it"....Pray; such as John? Thus, rather than YOU check-it-out, you apparently simply relied on YOUR own dogma, ... I had to do another Google for YOU, and gave you secondly four (4) more citations.
f) You responded to e) with:
f1) Black Wallaby: Thanks for the links! You are correct and now I am somewhat better informed. As I said - thanks.
f2) I will add that the glacier temperature signal is supported by the coral isotopes so I suspect that it is broadly representative of the earth, but that is another argument for another time.
g) Concerning f1), I notice that there is no recognition from YOU that this surprising TO-YOU revelation may paint a different picture on quite a few other things that YOU hold dear in your belief system.
h) Concerning f2), this is either pure obfuscation or astonishingly unthinking on your part! You mention another purely REGIONAL proxy-thing that is not even indicative of the atmosphere, but of coral depth warm oceans, wherever they may be in a temporal and spatial aspect. There is not even the remotest connection with ice cores pertinent for a few remote hostile atmospheric locations at high latitudes. I politely let this pass also, because conflict can hinder sensible debate.
Let's see if you understand part A) better this time, before investing more time in it
Regards BobFJ
Permalink
leebert Posted 12:33 am
25 Mar 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/24/03319/6577#6
It might mean that climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than had been modeled to meet observed warming. It doesn't exculpate CO2, but it does lend credence to climate critics like Richard Lindzen & Bob Carter who are not CO2 deniers but haven't accepted the popular theories that CO2-water vapor feedbacks are as intense as had been modeled to reflect current warming.
See also:
http://news.google.com/news?q=soot+climate+change&ie= ...
http://www.scientificblogging.com/the_soot_files
Permalink
JCross Posted 5:35 am
25 Mar 2008
For example, you appear to feel that instead of being abusive your comments were ambiguous and instead of apologizing for the personal attack in your comments you apologize for the "inconvenience" (you think that being called "astonishingly unthinking" is an inconvenience?).
Further more I let pass a number of suppositions that you made in the hopes of getting that discussion back on proper footing. Well, since you keep repeating them I think we should look at them.
For example in relation to isotopes in the ice cores; back in your post at 11:31 PM on 11 Mar 2008 you said Here is a brief concluding quote in the context of isotope ratios from an educational site, explaining what happened through different climate periods in the deposition of ice (cores):
You then quoted from it and gave a link to it. What I did was to go to your link and go straight through to the place you referenced (the conclusion) and figured that this was what you were supplying as evidence in support of your argument. So it is not as you said that "a short addendum also discussed bore-hole data" but that in fact this is what you quoted from and specifically referred me to. Isn't that a much more accurate report of the incident? If not then please correct me.
You go on and make a supposition that I had read the rest of the page since I knew about Rayleigh fractionalization without ever considering that I knew about Rayleigh fractionalization from before.
Again related to the incorrect reference you later posted the statement "Thus, rather than YOU check-it-out, you apparently simply relied on YOUR own dogma". I did check out your quote and reference and saw that it did not support your argument. So although you posted about an incorrect process you somehow expect me to read minds and realize that it was not what you meant? And from this you somehow gather that I am stuck in dogma? I am very interested to see how you can justify that statement.
There are a number of other statements that I can dissect if you wish to proceed like this (including dropped discussions about the 83 year lag and whether compressible flow in vortices at the end of a foil is simple or not).
Personally I would like to try to salvage something out of this conversation but I will only do it if there can be a return to posting in good faith. Leave out the editorializing and telling me what is new to me and what is not.
John
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:46 pm
25 Mar 2008
Something I'd like to establish firstly, is that the context of my posts to you has been in the belief from your comments on fluids that you have a scientific background, I suspect as an engineer, but if you are in research whatever, no matter. On the other hand, if I were talking to Lovely Jo, or Pangolin et al, my comments would have been accordingly far less technical.
I was actually on the point of retiring from the debate, but because you concluded by saying you would like to salvage it; if we exchange courtesies, then I'm listening. However, I need to grind through a few things to maybe clarify why I became irritated. Incidentally, Max seems to have gone quiet, I SPECULATE for possibly similar reasons.
I'm accepting your explanation of why you did not pick-up on my first citation of the isotope story in ice cores. It is indeed plausible, but I remain surprised that alarm bells did not ring for you as a SCIENTIST, to not read through the bulk of the article, including its unavoidable topic related diagrams concerning isotope fractionalization etc. (or fractionation)
Will you concede that there is absolutely no correlation between warm ocean coral proxy data and ice core proxy atmospheric data?
Will you concede that a CONTINUOUS (365/24/7) dedicated 2X satellites observation over a period of eleven years can detect inter-annual VARIABILITY, even if there is some undefinable calibration error, (most likely/predominantly a zero error), whereas IPCC (lead author personally vested) preferred spot-checks amounting to I guess less than 1% both temporally and spatially during those 11 years, clearly, cannot?.
If you doubt the algorithms developed by the ESA for sloping snow-firn, do you also doubt the precision of the sea level data translations which must account for ocean surface variations, from chop, to slow-swell, to calm, to storms?
Will you concede that if the said continuous snow-firn study does indeed show high inter-annual variability, and a statement of need to extend the test period in order to make sense of decadal trends, then desultory spot checks, even if they MIGHT be more accurate individually, do not amount to much? (they cannot possibly indicate decadal TRENDS.....by pure definition!)
Will you concede that when it comes to melt-run-off from the obvious popular glacier outlets from the ice-sheets, and additionally from the vast thousands of kilometres of convoluted coastlines of Greenland and Antarctica, that it is all calculated from periodic highly localised observations, plus modelling and the like?
Will you concede that NONE of the various methods of determining net ice gain or loss on the two big ice sheets can be considered to be accurate, and that even their declared margins of error are in themselves ESTIMATES.
Will you concede that your SPECULATIONS concerning cut-off dates for IPCC second order draft considerations in WG1, as they MIGHT have affected Wingham 2006, are voided by the fact that in chapter 4 alone, there were nineteen other 2006 post-cut-off papers that were favoured by the IPCC? And of course there is the FINAL draft in its various phases/presentations, months after that.
Eight examples is a nice number to end on.
Let's see how you go on that.
I shall probably be out of radio range for the next three days, whilst I take another break.
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:09 pm
25 Mar 2008
Confusing isn't it?
The AGW alarmists quite recently claimed that the pronounced cooling in the 40's was a blip caused by human caused nasty particulates in the atmosphere. (other than CO2).
A few years ago NASA proposed to evalute aerosols with a satellite programme because they thought their negative effect could exceed the positive "forcing" of CO2.
Hey look, if carbon black IS a big problem, it should be easier to scrub-out than CO2, so look on the bright side!
But, why not increase those other aerosols that promote cloud neuclii, and cooling by reflection?
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 11:35 pm
25 Mar 2008
Its a waste of time trying to engage in a scientific debate with manacker/black wallaby. This thread started with manacker/black wallaby misrepresenting a statement in the IPCC, either due to his misunderstanding of the way scientific research is published or due to his idealogical conflicts that make it impossible for him to accept scientific facts.
Nearly all of manacker/ black wallaby's assertions are scientific sounding hand-waving. This combined with his lack of civility and his parroting anti-environmentalist talking points it isn't worth the effort to reply to him.
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:58 am
26 Mar 2008
To begin with I do not find your comments too technical at all, so feel free to fire away. But I am disappointed that you appear to miss my whole point above. I do think that you have a technical background, but your comments appear to be much more aimed at "scoring debating points" or promoting political rhetoric than advancing an argument.
I really think that this example is - in Max's terms - a dead horse, but you keep bringing up the example where you quoted from and posted the wrong reference. In the overall discussion it was no issue. Your next post linked to better references and I was happy to accept your view. But for you to keep insinuating that it was my fault to think that you meant what you posted is absurd.
What I objected to in your early post was your attempt to rewrite the history of the event instead of just listing the facts. This is what I mean when I say you are more interested in "scoring debating points". Changing how something happened to fit into rhetoric is not science.
And it is unfortunate that to a certain extent you still keep this up and continue to imply that it is my fault for not reading the whole reference. I did read enough to see that what you posted was a reference to the borehole method but really, what more do you seriously expect me to consider.
So we are right away stuck on your very first of 8 points (and I note that you still have not apologized for your abusive comments).
Regards,
John
PS: In regards to Max going silent. I suspect he has gone silent because he can not respond to the four facts that I posted. And I note that there is nothing in your post that challenges them in the least which means that the Wingham paper is not an example of cherry picking. The sooner that Max admits it the better for all of us.
Permalink
JCross Posted 5:02 am
26 Mar 2008
I also tend to put a fair amount of faith in whether people can admit they are wrong and I must say that Max does not seem able to do so.
Interesting posting going on here. I look forward to more.
Best,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:04 am
26 Mar 2008
I have been away for three days and can just now respond to your post of March 23, where you wrote: "I have come across some very strange arguments when discussing global warming, however you have come up with a new and unique one. You are now saying that scientific quality is based on the time frame of the study and the number of measurements taken. I always thought scientific quality was judged on things like a sound methodology, repeatability of results, merging of theory and observations and other things."
Actually neither of these arguments is new or unique (I capitalize to make it easier for you to follow). Nor were they "strange arguments" that were introduced by me.
IPCC brought up the "time frame of the study" when it specifically stated that during the TIME FRAME 1993 to 2003 the Antarctic Ice Sheet lost mass equivalent to a rise in sea level of 0.21 mm/year; this equates to a mass loss of 71 Gt/year over this TIME FRAME.
This is IPCC's TIME FRAME, not mine. Do you get that?
It also happens to be the TIME FRAME of both the Wingham and Davis studies, both of which showed an increase in mass of the Antarctic Ice Sheet over this TIME FRAME.
Do you now understand the importance of the TIME FRAME here? Please let me know that you now understand the concept of TIME FRAME as it relates to the context of both the IPCC claim and the reports that contradict the IPCC claim..
The "number of measurements" was also brought into the discussion by IPCC via you (not by me) in the quote you posted on March 22: "As in the case of Greenland, the small number of measurements, lack of agreement between techniques, and existence of systematic errors that cannot be estimated accurately preclude formal error analyses and confidence limits."
To this quote I pointed out to you that the only studies that had a LARGE (not "small") "NUMBER OF MEASUREMENTS were the Davis/Wingham studies, that were based on millions of continuous ESA satellite altimetry readings over the entire TIME FRAME used by IPCC. (BTW, Black Wallaby has gone into this into more detail with you in point B of his post of March 24.)
Davis/Wingham are the ONLY studies with a LARGE (not "small") number of measurements covering the entire TIME PERIOD of the IPCC claim.
So, again, please confirm that you now understand what I and IPCC both wrote about the relevance of the "number of measurements".
As far as your statement about hearing "strange arguments", I cannot see what you find strange. Please elaborate.
John, it is pretty obvious that you have been unsuccessful in attempting to refute my statement that "IPCC ignored published studies (Davis/Wingham) when it made its directly contradicting claim of loss of mass in the AIS equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003."
I will respond to your points 1 to 4 separately.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:47 am
26 Mar 2008
It turns out that I have already responded completely to your earlier 3 points (see posts of March 22), which you repeated, but I will respond to them once more.
1. To your query about closing date I responded that six reports covering the AIS were published after the initial IPCC deadline and were not ignored by IPCC despite this fact; none of these six reports cover the 1993-2003 time frame of the IPCC claim A seventh report (Wingham) was ignored, despite the fact that this report does cover the entire time frame of the IPCC report with continuous measurements taken over the entire period. As I pointed out to you, the six papers that were considered by IPCC provide "good background information" but are obviously significantly less pertinent to the IPCC claim of net mass loss over the 1993-2003 time period than are the two by Davis and Wingham, which both showed exactly the opposite of the IPCC claim (i.e. mass gain) over exactly the same time period. One (Davis) was "mentioned", but its conclusion was "ignored (or rejected or not accepted as correct)", while the other (Wingham) was not even mentioned. Please advise if this has answered your query.
2. To your query "Was Wingham's paper published before the closing date for comments from the Expert Reviewers?", I responded: Tell me, when was this "closing date" and what is the relevance of this question? I have not heard an answer from you yet.
3. To your query ""Did the IPCC discuss the Davis report?", I responded: "Discuss", possibly. "Ignore (or reject or refuse to accept as correct)", definitely (since they made a directly opposing claim covering exactly the same time period). Whether this was all part of a plan to intentionally "cherry pick" data that fit the desired story or just a monumental screw up by IPCC is sort of a moot point.
The fourth point about ranges was not in your earlier post, but my answer to that is when a report (Wingham) shows an overall mass GAIN of 27 Gt/year (even including an error range of ±29 Gt/year) this conclusion is clearly not compatible with the IPCC claim of an overall LOSS of 71 Gt/year (even including an error range of ±121 Gt/year).
This has now covered (again) all of your points and the conclusion remains unrefuted that:
IPCC ignored published data that directly contradicted its claim of mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:58 am
26 Mar 2008
To your rather snide but inaccurate remark made to Black Wallaby:
"I also tend to put a fair amount of faith in whether people can admit they are wrong and I must say that Max does not seem able to do so."
I can only answer that it is you, not me, who have been unable (or unwilling) to admit that you were wrong.
I have shown you that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) scientific data bthat directly contradicted its claim of net mass loss in the Antarctic Ice Sheet equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003.
So far, you have been unable to refute this statement. Yet you have been unwilling to admit it.
But maybe I expected too much from you, John.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:04 pm
26 Mar 2008
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/dessler-20-eli-spent-s ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:26 pm
26 Mar 2008
Please explain.
Regardes,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:32 pm
26 Mar 2008
If so, please explain.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:44 pm
26 Mar 2008
In the link you provided, Eli Rabett makes the statement: "Why no Landsea, Pielke, etc., well while they are no fans of the IPCC their positions on whether people are changing the climate are equivocal."
Can you explain what this is supposed to mean? Did he really mean "equivocal" (which my Webster tells me means "ambiguous, inconclusive, uncertain")?
Landsea has shown that AGW has not caused any increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes as compared to earlier periods.
Certainly Eli Rabett is not going to claim he is more qualified than Dr. Landsea to discuss this topic.
Dr. Pielke has questioned many IPCC claims regarding global warming. Is Eli Rabett claiming that he is more qualified to discuss climate change than Dr. Pielke?
Please explain Eli Rabett's superior qualifications than those of these two scientists.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 12:55 pm
26 Mar 2008
In regards to the IPCC comment about few measurements, I am afraid you are going to have to go back to your dictionary because I think we are going to get into a discussion about what measurement means. I say that in the context of that section of the IPCC report, measurement means a rate of increase or loss of mass of the Antarctic. The IPCC does not use measurement to mean a satellite reading.
Of course this is probably moot since the result of Wingham and Davis both fall within the range of the values given for the change in ice mass by the IPCC.
I look forward to your analysis of the 4 facts I present.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:01 pm
26 Mar 2008
Have gone through the Eli Rabett link you provided.
So far I have found 4 errors.
Do not believe it is worthwhile going through the rest of his writeup.
As I figured it, there are 150 qualified individuals on Inhofe's list (not 400 and not two dozen). Around one-third of these are meteorologists, the other two-thirds are scientists in a climate related field).
So Inhofe exaggerated when he said "400".
And Eli Rabett exaggerated (in the other direction) when he said "two dozen".
This doesn't make either Sen. Inhofe or Eli Rabett out and out liars, just exaggerators, that's all.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:16 pm
26 Mar 2008
I am afraid you are waffling here.
It does not make any sense for us to get into a discussion of what measurement means. Millions of ESA satellite altimetry data points taken continuously over an 11-year period constitute a large set of measurement data points.
Your time frame argument is totally absurd. If I claim something happened over a specific time frame when the data show that just exactly the opposite happened over that same time frame, then how can you claim that the time frame is irrelevant?
Sorry, John, you lost this discussion.
You could not bring any evidence to refute my statement that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) scientific data that directly contradicted its claim of net mass loss in the AIS equal to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003.
Call it an oversight. Call it a "cherry pick". Call it a "monumental screw up". It really doesn't matter much to me what you call it.
But one thing is for sure. I call it a fact, because that is what it is.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:41 pm
26 Mar 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:25 pm
26 Mar 2008
To your query: "BTW, Are you still calling Energy&Environment a peer reviewed physical science journal?"
Don't now. Never did. Don't think it means a thing.
Does this answer your question?
Do you call Eli Rabett's blog a "peer reviewed physical science journal?"
Please advise.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:32 pm
26 Mar 2008
(S.E Australia- Melbourne). It's a more than a tad unusual to experience snow some 3 months ahead of schedule, and I'm baby-sitting a tender 12-week old Jack Russell puppy!
Hey, Grey(?)bird-of-prey, you might be interested in details of the obstruction that Steve McIntyre experienced in his dealings with Nature journal.... you know.... that fine upstanding journal that published MBH98 and a few other frauds.
Do you seriously think that the "establishment" journals favour "non-establishment" (non-concensus)science?
Do you not know that heaps of the scientific literature is not peer reviewed by Nature or Science? GRL is relatively broad-minded, but then it embarassingly published MBH99....groan!
Do you know that there is NO (Zilch, Nada) observable or testable evidence that CO2 is a significant cause of global warming? There is instead a reliance on computer models based on assumptions, (assumptions = tunable guesswork to achieve desired results), on matters for which the IPCC admits that there is a low level of understanding?
Are you aware of any such models which have been made available for review of their coding and/or assumptions? Have any been peer reviewed by a "respectable" independent authority ??????????????
I eagerly await your advice and understanding on what the IPCC uses to guesstimate the future of our Planet.
BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:14 pm
26 Mar 2008
Elsewhere you wrote and I responded:
"3. There is no correlation between low clouds and GCR.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cos ... ... ..."
Well [Said I] of course there is no correlation according to "RealClimate"..... this is what they do.
On the other hand, CERN, an international cooperation has sufficient confidence in Svensmark's findings in his cellar, (where CGR's penetrate) to make a huge investment planned over 5 years. What would be the sense of that if it is all crap?
I suggest you study my post which yours seemingly crossed "Hardcore Porn"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hardcore Porn'
Dr Dessler; I'm rather surprised for several reasons, that in your lead article, you wrote:
"For more on the problem of the upper troposphere, see this RealClimate post. (See also Ray Pierrehumbert's dissection of Courtillot's theory here and here)."
REASON 1) As a scientist, you should be aware that Michael Mann and his supporters were the instigators of the RealClimate website. You should also be aware that Mann et al were the inventors of the infamous hockey-stick, which being manna to the IPCC was clarioned in every nook and cranny of the various 2001 report sections, and at podia etc.
However, as you know, the hockey-stick has since been shown to be either scientific fraud or grossly incompetent or both, despite Mann et al's vigorous and long defence of it on said website. The long sad story of denial was closed by the IPCC expunging that 2001 warhorse for their 2007 report, for obvious reasons.
So these are the guys together with extremist colleagues such as Ray Pierrehumbert that run that fountain of wisdom that you recommend.
For another position statement from a mainstream "believer" perspective, here is what Jeff McIntyre Strasburg, the editor in chief of Green Options website has had to say:
"...RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents..."
Do you get the word hardcore?
REASON 2) The references you make show a bunch of scientists in open disagreement. What were you saying earlier about everyone agreeing on the science?
REASON 3) Carrying on from 2) You fail to mention the 5 year programme under-way at CERN, where over 50 scientists apparently do not share your views. CERN, an international organisation that has actually agreed on something, is making a big investment to confirm Svensmark's indicative results from his cellar concerning cosmic rays which are indirectly regulated on Earth by one of the activities of the Sun.
Quote CERN: The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"
Oh dear, I can hear the collective sigh; we don't want to hear any good news from CERN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GreyFalcon, As far as I am aware, you did not respond with your usual infinite wisdoms to either of the two posts repeated above!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:27 pm
26 Mar 2008
It is my prime interest for the next several hours!
Might talk to you tomorrow, if I'm in a good mood.
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:38 pm
26 Mar 2008
Not to belabor a point "ad nauseum", but when I wrote: "This doesn't make either Sen. Inhofe or Eli Rabett out and out liars, just exaggerators, that's all", I also include our revered "climate scientist", Andrew Dessler, who started off this whole blog site with his ridiculous "Four hundred skeptics? Try 19" myth.
Forget 19. Try 150, greyfalcon (and Andrew).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:05 pm
26 Mar 2008
Sorry to hear you are having unusually early snow on Mount Baw Baw near Melbourne.
It is still much too cold here in Switzerland, as well.
The latest "global" records tell us that this is the case everywhere.
But we can (hopefully) cheer up, because IPCC tells us it is going to warm up soon (maybe). Can we count on these "climate experts" and their models being right? I hope so.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 10:04 pm
26 Mar 2008
And then, of course, there's the comments section at Gristmill, certainly a peer-reviewed publication...
Sorry to hear you are having unusually early snow on Mount Baw Baw near Melbourne.
It is still much too cold here in Switzerland, as well.
Tell the governments!
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
JCross Posted 10:20 pm
26 Mar 2008
Thanks for supplying your answers, however I would advise you not to try them outside of this community where apparently the posters tend to indulge you.
A For example your whole defense against the fact that it missed the deadline is that "well others did as well". If you are ever in court, I would encourage you to try this defense. Your statement to the judge would be something like "Yes, I was drunk driving but there might have been other people drunk driving (but I don't really know)." Let me know how far you get.
B And of course your whole line of argument is moot since it doesn't even begin to address the fact that the cutoff time was December and Wingham was published in May.
The cut off date is as I posted on this thread (on March 22, 1:29) and already referred you to. The relevance is that any one of the expert reviewers could have included it and then it would have been addressed.
You admit that they discuss. You also state that they definitely "ignored (or reject or refuse to accept as correct". Please supply your supporting evidence on this. Keep in mind your choice of words "definitely". Thus please do not include any suppositions or waffling in your answer. Just state how they refused to accept it as correct.
I am going to take it that your occupation is not in technology since you do not understand what it means when the IPCC says: Estimates for the overall mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet range from +100 to -200 Gt yr-1 (-0.28 to 0.55 mm yr-1 SLE) for 1961 to 2003, and from +50 to -200 Gt yr-1 (-0.14 to 0.55 mm yr-1 SLE) for 1993 to 2003. The fact that the range given encompasses the results of Davis means that they were not ignoring him and there is no way that this can be avoided.
Max, each one of these facts that I have presented is enough to cause serious doubt on your accusation of cherry-picking, overlooking, ignoring etc. However taken altogether they are absolute and rigid in showing that there was no cherry-picking in regards to Wingham.
So in your next post, please address the facts. As a lawyer once told me - "tell me what you can prove, what you suppose and what you feel - then forget everything except what you can prove".
I look forward to a stronger argument from you in your next post.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:31 am
27 Mar 2008
You wrote: "I look forward to a stronger argument from you in your next post."
Sorry, John. I do not need a stronger argument because the facts, as I presented them, speak for themselves.
You can waffle until you are blue in the face.
And I know that it is too painful for you to admit the truth as stated below:
IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) published data that directly contradicted its claim of net mass loss in the AIS equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period 1993-2003.
The specific data that IPCC ignored is the report by Wingham, which showed a net overall mass gain of 27 GT/year over the same time period, based on an 11-year record of continuous ESA satellite altimetry readings over this entire period.
An earlier report by Davis using the same ESA readings also showed a gain of mass, but did not cover the entire AIS due to the inability of getting satellite altimetry readings in the 6% marginal area along the coast with steep contours and the 22% area near the pole; Wingham included calculated estimates for both of these areas.
None of the various spot studies, etc. (which IPCC apparently preferred to the Wingham study) covered the entire time period plus the entire AIS.
As I told you, I am not saying that this proves that IPCC intentionally "cherry picked" reports that agreed with their desired message, although it might appear that way to the unbiased observer. It could well have been that they just made an honest mistake when they ignored the Wingham report.
But the fact remains that that is exactly what they did and you have been unable to demonstrate that this is not the case.
So I am now ending this part of our discussion.
Since it has become apparent to me that you are unwilling to admit that you have lost this part of our discussion even when it is obviously the case, I believe it is probably a waste of time discussing the many other points of IPCC errors, omissions and exaggerations with you.
It is sort of like discussing Darwinism with a religious fundamentalist who knows that the Bible says the world is 6,000 years old and that everything in the Bible is true by definition.
But it has been interesting for me anyway to see how an IPCC fundamentalist weaves and waffles in defending his religious belief against rational skepticism.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 6:24 am
27 Mar 2008
If you are finished, fine. But let me recap this discussion (and then we can go back to Jaworowski if you like ;-) )
To begin with it was you that first brought up the idea of cherry picking and got me to agree to your definition of cherry picking. I suspect that you thought you had set a trap and then you sprung it by bringing in what you must think is your best evidence of cherry picking by the IPCC which is Wingham 2006. Now 100 posts later the facts are very clear and unchallenged.
Wingham 2006 was published after the IPCC deadline for literature to be cited in the AR4. That is a clear fact and you can not change it.
Wingham 2006 was published before the close of the review period for Expert Reviewers. Again that is just a statement of fact and you can not change it.
The IPCC has published work in the past that (using your words) contradicts them such as Davis 2005 study. This study was based on the same data set as Wingham and used the same density factor for snow which Wingham did. The difference was that they published before the deadline instead of after.
The range of values given by the IPCC for mass change in the Antarctic incorporated both the values from Davis and Wingham. The IPCC value was +50 to -200 Gt yr-1 (-0.14 to 0.55 mm yr-1 SLE) for 1993 to 2003 and the value that Davis came up with was 45 Gt yr-1 and the value that Wingham came up with was 27 Gt yr-1. (Hint - it is pretty hard to get a charge of cherry picking to stick when the number that you claim was rejected is within the range of values given).
If you are finished that is fine, but if you respond, please do not bother telling me I am waffling or that you are right or that I am a creationist or any of your other rhetoric. Just stick to the facts and tell me which ones you don't agree with and why. Until you do, I am afraid your creditability is not very high.
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:10 am
27 Mar 2008
Look who is talking about "credibility". Amazing!
I have answered all your points.
But your "recap" fails to mention the key points of my argument.
First (and this is the most important point), you have not been able to show me that my statement was incorrect that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) the only two studies that covered the entire time frame of their directly contradicting claim of loss of mass in the AIS over the period 1993-2003.
Second, your "deadline" rationalization is weak, since IPCC chose to mention several studies that were published after this deadline but chose not to mention the Wingham report (which provided a direct refutation of their claim). So you can forget this excuse. Your "DUI comparison" is blatantly ridiculous.
Third, you failed to respond to my point that NONE of the studies accepted by IPCC covered the entire time period of the IPCC claim, with the only exception of the Davis and Wingham studies, both of which showed net ice mass gain over this entire time period. These are by definition the only studies that can be directly compared with the IPCC claim, since they both also cover the same time period as the IPCC claim (i.e. they enable a direct comparison of "apples" with "apples").
Just to refresh your memory on this, let's go through these other reports:
· Zwally et al. covers the entire AIS but only covers the period 1992 to 2001, so is not directly comparable with the IPCC claim; Zwally's conclusion of a net loss of mass of 31 Gt/year is interesting "background information", but significantly less relevant than Davis' and Wingham's conclusions of 45 and 27 Gt/year of mass gain, respectively, because it does not cover the entire time period of the IPCC claim (comparing "apples" with "oranges")
· Velicogna et al using the GRACE method only started measuring in 2002, so is not of much help in corroborating the IPCC claim (no direct "apple to apple" comparison possible).
· Ramillien et al. also only started in 2002, so is also not relevant (again, no "apple to apple")
In the light of the above facts, your statement below is absurd:
"The range of values given by the IPCC for mass change in the Antarctic incorporated both the values from Davis and Wingham. The IPCC value was +50 to -200 Gt yr-1 (-0.14 to 0.55 mm yr-1 SLE) for 1993 to 2003 and the value that Davis came up with was 45 Gt yr-1 and the value that Wingham came up with was 27 Gt yr-1. (Hint - it is pretty hard to get a charge of cherry picking to stick when the number that you claim was rejected is within the range of values given)."
Davis shows a gain of 42 Gt/year but leaves out areas not measurable by ESA satellites; Wingham calculates estimates for these areas and arrives at 27 Gt/year. Both cover the entire time period of the IPCC claim.
In other words, the only studies that cover the same time period as the IPCC claim are the two studies that both show a mass gain rather than the mass loss claimed by IPCC over this time period.
A "hint" for you: Tossing in some "non-apple-to-apple" numbers that do not even cover the same time period in order to come up with a fictitious "range of values" and thereby neutralize the conclusion of the ones you don't like would be out and out cheating. I hope this is not what IPCC did.
John, you have not provided any good arguments. Upon closer examination they all have gaping holes, as I have demonstrated.
So, whether you are man enough to admit it or not, you lost this point of our discussion.
Adios!
Max
P.S. And yes, you WERE waffling.
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:27 am
27 Mar 2008
Since (I believe) you are Canadian, this may interest you.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id= ...
Looks like the "debate" on AGW is far from over in your country and that there is no "consensus" that the science is settled.
But, cheer up, you are not alone. Recent input from your "neighbor to the south" shows similar results.
What was that old adage of "you can fool part of the people all of the time, all of the people part of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time"? Looks like it holds for Canada.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:41 am
27 Mar 2008
Another adage (this one's from Mark Twain):
"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big enough majority in any town?"
Maybe Oreskes should have read "Huckleberry Finn" before writing her "consensus" op-ed.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 2:13 pm
27 Mar 2008
You're back again? Good enough! Lets go through your points.
You are correct I have not been able to show you. What I have shown any person - either reasonable or unreasonable - is that there are certain facts in this discussion which are clear and established. Your comment about the studies contradicting the claim of the IPCC is, again, ludicrous. As I have pointed out the IPCC claim is that the mass change was +50 to -200 Gt yr-1. Is 45 within this range?
The facts state that Wingham (2006) was published in May 2006 and the deadline for papers to be cited was in December 2005. If you can show that May 2006 is before December 2005 then you can make an argument. If you can't the fact stands. What else was or was not published is totally irrelevant. If you didn't like my last example, here is another one. In Canada we have laws where taxes must be filled by a certain time and I suspect that Switzerland have similar ones. If you file after the deadline, you will face legal charges. I would encourage you to try the defense "well other people did it to" and report back to us and see if it works. However in regards to the other publications please see the next point.
As you have mentioned there are papers published after the deadline that have been included. This is because the report went through an expert reviewer process. At this stage reviewers could raise any issue that they thought was significant. If papers are included that were published in 2006, it is possible that people raised these papers in this part of the process. Wingham 2006 was published before the end of this review period.
You then go through a number of papers that have all produced results that are included in the time frame. Since they are all in the timeframe they should be included in the IPCC evaluation. The specific studies that we are talking about are Davis (2005) which shows a gain of 45 and Wingham (2006) which shows a gain of 27. As I mentioned above the IPCC give a range of values from -200 to +50. Is 45 less than 50 and greater than -200? Is 27 less than 50 and greater than -200? If the answer is yes, then great - game over. If the answer is no, please show your math.
The above speaks for itself, but I am looking forward to the next installment, especially your math workings.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 2:19 pm
27 Mar 2008
Oreskes? What did he publish?
J.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:34 pm
27 Mar 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
Outlined certain facts and counter speculations to yours, that I would have thought should have rung alarm bells, and sent you off checking them out, or thinking more deeply as to whether the conclusions that you had reached were verifiable. Additionally, Max has tried to indicate to you that your arguments on deadlines are not relevant, but it has been like pouring water onto a duck's back.
If I understand you correctly, your ASSUMPTION is that if nobody requests a post-cut-off work to be considered during the second order draft EXTERNAL review process, then it will not be considered. The fact that there is a so-called final draft, compiled after that internally, where the authors can do more-or-less what they like, seems to be irrelevant to YOU.
In my post #125, I listed the following post-cut-off works which WERE included just in chapter 4 of WG1:
Mote, 2006; Qin et al. (2006); modified from Duguay et al., 2006; Cullen et al., 2006; Klein and Kincaid, 2006; Monaghan et al., 2006; Box et al., 2006; van de Berg et al. (2006); Zwally et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2006; Legresy et al., 2006; Velicogna and Wahr, 2006; Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Ramillien et al. (2006), Hanna et al., 2006; van den Broeke et al (2006); Mitrovica et al., 2006 ; Dupont and Alley, 2006;
A digital search of the prime names revealed that NONE of the (2006) papers have any mention in the second order draft expert (external) review comments. (Although some of these authors were mentioned for their earlier works) Thus, according to your rules, none of them should appear in the final report.
Thus the external review process was irrelevant to the inclusion of these works in the final report.
Will you now concede that you have yet again failed to check the facts, and made an incorrect assumption?
If you concede this one, it might be worth spending time on some OTHER assumptions of yours. For example, do you understand how limits of accuracy were established statistically a) individually; and b) for a bunch of quite different things???
Permalink
JCross Posted 5:20 am
28 Mar 2008
You start by saying: "If I understand you correctly, your ASSUMPTION is that ..."
No, you did not understand me correctly. I did not make any assumptions - I only pointed out one possible mechanism for how the 2006 papers were included in the AR4 and I can happily point out a half dozen more. The reason it seems irrelevant to me is simple - it is irrelevant. The issue is not how papers get in but whether the IPCC cherry picked by not including Wingham 2006.
I will also comment that your statement "The fact that there is a so-called final draft, compiled after that internally, where the authors can do more-or-less what they like," is very telling. To support your claim of cherry picking you claim it is a fact that the authors cherry-pick.
You further say: Thus, according to your rules, none of them should appear in the final report. Please quote your reference for this. I never listed any rules and never said anything about what should or should not appear in the report. What I have pointed out again and again is that Wingham 2006 missed the initial cutoff date so there was a good reason for it not to be included in the initial draft. However these was an opportunity for it to be included in the report through the expert review process. I will also note that Dr. Wingham is not new to the IPCC process since he was an author of the TAR.
Thus the external review process was irrelevant to the inclusion of these works in the final report. Possible. But again it is not the least bit relevant.
So my comments to you are the same as to Max. Please try to argue with something to back up your argument, not rehtoric, not circular arguments, not ad-homs - just simple facts.
You end by saying "it might be worth spending time on some OTHER assumptions of yours." Unfortunately given your rather disappointing attempt to rewrite history to prove your last point I am not really sure it would be worthwhile. But as I always say "live like an optimist (and plan like a pessimist).
Regards,
John
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:21 am
28 Mar 2008
Hi John,
Let's say that I (the United Nations) want to tell the world that we are in danger of drowning from rising sea levels caused by massive melting of both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, linking this, of course, to the human emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
My political interest in doing this is to convince the world that we should all agree to pay draconian taxes or set carbon footprint caps with a trading system for carbon permits, etc. with hundreds of billions of dollars being shuffled around by my organization and other bureaucrats and politicians worldwide. A bonanza!
I have some totally inconclusive data on sea level that show me that these have been rising since the mid 19th century, with multidecadal up and down swings, a somewhat higher average rate during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half and an overall linear trend of deceleration over the entire 20th century.
There is no accelerating trend here at all, but I need to find one to sell my story. Let's see if I can pick a recent 10-year period within this entire record that looks like it is larger than an earlier period. Voila! The period 1993-2003 just happens to fit. It shows an average decadal rate of rise of around 3.1 mm per year, compared to around 1.7 mm per year for the entire 20th century. I can't pick the period 1996-2006, because the average rate over this period is only 1.0 mm per year, lower than the 20th century average, but 1993-2003 works just fine.
So I write in my report for "policymakers" (i.e. politicians and bureaucrats):
"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. There is high confidence the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century. The total 20th-century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m."
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
This is very cleverly written. Even with the caveat concerning decadal variability, it sounds like (1) sea level is rising (which no one disputes), (2) the rate of sea level rise is accelerating (not supported by the record) and (3) the rate toward the end of the 20th century is significantly higher than before (also not supported by the record).
Now for folks that have trouble with numbers (after all, this write-up is for politicians, not mathematicians), let's put in a picture with a "hockey stick" ending. (We like these, because you can make them look real scary!) Hmmm... If we put in a graph showing the rate of sea level rise this will show a lot of fluctuations with a slight decelerating trend over the entire 20th century. No hockey stick at all. Not so good. But wait! Let's not show the rate of sea level rise, but let's show the "globally averaged sea level anomaly" (ya gotta love those globally averaged anomalies, because they are real hard for anyone to check). We can fudge this graph a bit so that it appears to show an accelerating trend toward the end of the 20th century. Then we'll stick it just below a temperature "hockey stick" curve (for sort of an unstated but implied visual "cause and effect" diagram). Great!
Now that we've sold these "policymakers" on the story that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, let's see what's causing it. Oh-oh! Not good. It's coming primarily from thermal expansion of the ocean plus a bit from some melting of non-polar glaciers, but not from melting of the polar ice sheets (which, as every high school graduate knows, is where all the ice is). We can't frighten too many people with "thermal expansion" (most of our audience is not familiar with this concept, and there is not much potential for any major sea level increases here). The little bit of non-polar glacial ice is also not significant, so we've got to find a way to show that the major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting. And we have to use the period 1993-2003, which we picked to show sea levels.
But here we've got a real problem.
Both in Greenland and Antarctica we have a detailed record of what has happened to the ice sheets, based on millions of ESA satellite altimetry readings taken continuously over exactly our time period. The bad news (for getting our message across) is that both records show that on average the two ice sheets actually GREW during our time period, rather than shrinking. This is because there was more mass buildup due to snowfall (in the interior) that there was due to melting or dynamic ice flow at the coasts.
We can't let these facts screw up our message.
Wait! All is not lost. We can cobble together the results of a bunch of other "friendlier" reports, even if they do not exactly cover our time period and even if they are just spot studies or model calculations rather than a continuous set of measured data over the entire period.
We can then "add up, average and adjust" the overall numbers so that they show a net loss in both ice sheets. We can also add an "error range" (remember, our audience here is not a bunch of statistics experts). And even if somebody asks, "Hey, I saw these two reports that showed that Antarctica grew by 27 Gt or even 45 Gt of ice per year over the period for which you show a net loss of 71 Gt per year, what happened here?" We can always tell them, yeah, your number (+45) is "within our range of values from -200 to +50". Only a guy that remembers his high school math will say, "Yeah, but the report I read had a range of from -5 to +85; what happened to the +85?" (It's only a "little white lie" and most of these guys don't remember their high school math, anyway.)
So we only had to lie a "teensy weensy bit", but we can use our "record" for 1993-2003 to project even more melting in the future and get our message across: "get out your hip boots and life boats!"
And for a real effect we can add in the sentence: "If negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m". The prediction of a 7 meter rise will alarm most readers who also saw Al Gore's waves swallowing New York City, but very few will figure out that the IPCC's projection of "millennia" actually calculates to be 30+ millenia or more than 30,000 years (like I said, these guys are politicians not mathematicians)
OK, let's put some "lipstick on this pig" and go to press!
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:44 am
28 Mar 2008
Hi John,
In an earlier post, you asked me, "Oreskes? What did he publish?"
In December 2004 history professor Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego wrote an essay entitled "Beyond the Ivory Tower, the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change".
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
This paper posed the question, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, `most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'?"
It examined all research studies on climate change published on the ISI Web of Science database over the period 1993 through 2003.
It concluded: "The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Since its publication Oreskes' paper has been repeatedly cited as evidence of a scientific consensus on global warming.
In August 2007 medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte of King's College in London updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published after the Oreskes study, from January 2004 to February 2007.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
This study concluded that of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, "the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, which neither accept nor reject the hypothesis."
While Schulte's report had not yet been published, sections of an early draft were leaked by the media.
Schulte and his study were immediately criticized by Oreskes.
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_res ...
Instead of addressing the specifics of Schulte's study, the author was accused of being a "contrarian" and was written off as a medical researcher and therefore not as qualified as Oreskes to make a study of scientific papers on climate science.
Oreskes also stated that the Schulte study "misrepresented" the question posed as well as the results obtained in her earlier study.
Oreskes did not point out any specific errors in the Schulte study but referred to an earlier report by Prof. Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University, which had critiqued her original essay.
On September 3, 2007 Schulte wrote an open letter of rebuttal to Oreskes' criticism to the University of California at San Diego.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/r ...
Schulte stated that he had not, in any way, questioned Oreskes' findings regarding research studies published during the period 1993 through 2003, but that he had just carried this study further to cover the period 2004-2007.
He did point out, though, that a subsequent look at papers published in the earlier period revealed that there were at least five papers during this period that did not support the scientific consensus, as she had claimed.
Now, I think we can see where the key difference lies between the two studies.
Oreske has taken the stand that those reports that do not explicitly state support of the consensus position are, de facto, implicitly in support of this position, because they have not explicitly stated that they do not support it since "these things are now taken for granted".
Schulte, on the other hand, takes the stand that if the report has not explicitly stated support of the consensus position it cannot be counted among the reports that either support or do not support this position, in other words it is a "neutral paper, which neither accepts nor rejects the hypothesis".
Which position is correct? Hard to tell.
At any rate, it is clear that however one answers this question, the debate on "scientific consensus" is far from settled.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:54 am
28 Mar 2008
For a good critique of IPCC AR4 and SPM 2007 check:
http://sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:12 pm
28 Mar 2008
However it has nothing to do with Wingham 2006.
Regards,
John
Permalink
JCross Posted 4:19 pm
28 Mar 2008
Regards,
John
Permalink