Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

[ghotib]

This link is to a longish article about the IPCC 4th report "glaciers disappearing by 2035" error and to media reporting both before and after it. As a former technical writer and sometime freelance journalist, I found the article an interesting and painfully realistic look at Murphy's law applied to writing about very complicated subjects.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/

I think climate science is probably unique in the speed with which cutting edge work gets from specialists to politics. It happens with medical research too, but we've all got some experience with doctors and bodies to work with. Climate is different. Weather is the closest experience most of get to climate. They're different things, but weather records are one of the sources of climate science as it's come to be understood and personally I've had a hard time understanding why and how they differ. If I'd still been in a full-time job when Wayne posted the link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I probably wouldn't have been able to get as far as I have.

A very helpful source for the history of climate science, including the relationship between weather and climate, is Spencer Weart's "History of Global Warming" site http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html There's an awful lot of material there and I keep going back to it.

One thing I've realised is that nobody started out with a hypothesis that humans were warming the planet. Scientists from many different disciplines were trying to understand climate, and the role of human activities only became apparent as the understanding grew. There's a blog entry from Michael Tobis that crystallised this for me at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html

I don't understand why so much emotion and money is going into trashing the fundamentals of climate science, or why so much of the noise comes from people who manifestly don't know what climate scientists are saying. The experts have been working on this for about 50 years; it's a bit rich to claim that they haven't thought of such obvious issues as the role of the sun or of water vapour, even if they don't know all the answers.

In this and other threads Smurf has shared his genuine expertise to point out some of the massive and expensive changes that a low- or no- carbon emission civilisation will mean. That's a discussion we can usefully have as electors and citizens. I think we'd better get on with it because it's a very hard - you might even say diabolical - problem.

Ghoti

 

[spooly74]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html
Was there a reason you chose the Monckton approach?

The trend for Arctic sea ice is dire.

Monckton approach, wtf is that?

I posted a response to your statement that northern sea ice is contracting markedly. Presumably you meant the Artic regions. The graph I posted shows satellite data since 02 and there has been no significant contraction.
But, in response, you provide an image of global sea ice along with a petty ad hom.

What should we call that approach?

 

[SmellyTerror]

In April 1980 the total sea ice was over 1 million sqkm less than the 30 year average from 1979-2008. Right now the total sea ice is about 1 million sqkm less than the average from 1979-2008, so yes I would say it is exactly the same.

But seeing as you guys want to look in more detail, lets compare April 1980 with April 2008, or maybe April 2009, nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.

What the graph really shows is that there is no real change over 30 years. If it was a graph of some trading vehicle/contract, you would be a fool to put your money on anything based on it. Basically you would be guessing.

brty

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

So you're looking at a few of the outliers to make your argument? Seriously? Cherry picking is usually a misused term on the intertubes, but this, sir, is cherry picking. It's like looking at a successful trader, picking out some losing trades, and saying that proves he's crap. The whole picture is what matters.

This is a trend in nature. Climate and weather has notoriously noisy data, but this is not trading. There is no-one selling at +2 million. There is no-one buying at -1 million. The trend only changes because something is forcing it to change. Prices aren't going to spring back on a piece good of news.

AGW theory does NOT say there were no hot years in the past, or that there were no mild winters. It says that we can expect more hot summers and mild winters, and that they'll be a bit hotter and a bit more mild respectively (globally anyway: some places are expected to get colder, and extreme weather events of all kinds (including cold) are expected to increase).

And this is what we're seeing. MORE of the lower outliers, FEWER of the high outliers. The low points getting lower on average. The high points getting lower on average. The sea ice change here is especially dramatic given that we've experienced only a small part of what we can expect in the long term (only about 0.3 of a degree in the period shown).

Honestly, if you can't see that the red line is spending more time below the line in the last part than it is the the earlier part, then you're blind. If you can't see that the blue line is touching lower lows and failing to reach old highs*, then I really don't see how there's any arguing with you.

(*Though it might reach them occasionally in future - they'll just reach them far less often).

Julia et al, please do look at that graph in this light. This is data that flim-flam artists like Monckton show as proof that climate change isn't happening. He was on tv just yesterday saying "ice is recovering right now" (because it's WINTER, you gigantic wind bag). The figures in the graph are not contested (to the best of my knowledge). Look at the graph in light of the discussion above. Please.

Thank about how much has been made of the errors that mainstream scientists have made (all of which were corrected by mainstream scientists). Now consider how the ice area figures have been misused by the "sceptic" experts. Why do they have to lie and cherry-pick to back up their case?

This is with a change of a piddling 0.3 degrees. This is the sort of thing predicted decades ago, based on AGW theory, by the same people who are saying it's caused by CO2 and that it's not natural and there's more to come. If this isn't vindication (one proxy among MANY that show similar effects), well, I guess you just need to wait.

 

[Trembling Hand]

I think a mistake a lot of people make is assuming that *any* scientist is qualified to comment. I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no-one on the anti-GW side who's qualified to comment, but there are a LOT of scientists out there who know nothing about climate science and are not qualified to comment.

If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?

Ha thats funny. There is a know problem in medicine call specialisation bias.

It refers to the fact that a specialist is more likely to see the cause/fix or solution to any problem one that they specialise in whether or not its is the best solution to any problem.

Too funny. Maybe only priests should comment on religion??

 

[Smurf1976]

Look at Rudd. Look at the little sleaze trying DESPERATELY to look like he's doing something about climate change, while doing as little as he can possibly get away with. Look at most of the governments on earth doing the same. And then getting the crap kicked out of them electorally whenever they do a damn thing, since anything effectual will be painful for their voters.

Do you seriously think that if ANY of them had evidence that all of this was a crock that they'd hold back for a SECOND?

TERRIBLE news everyone - everything's fine! PROSPERITY FOR EVERYONE!

There are not and never have been any easy options with energy. It's either polluting, too resource intensive (ie expensive) to the point of being largely useless, or it just doesn't work.

Coal, oil, gas, uranium, hydro, wind, wet geothermal, biomass - they supply virtually all world energy (excluding sunlight outside during the day etc) and they all have problems of one form or another. Likewise solar, tidal etc have more than enough problems too.

Politically, just having problems that voters can't see (CO2) has always been easier than trying to convince them to put up with another set of problems instead. Witness the great debates in Australia and abroad over the past 40 years - the masses almost always favoured fossil fuels over anything else.

 

[sneak'n]

Monckton approach, wtf is that?

I posted a response to your statement that northern sea ice is contracting markedly. Presumably you meant the Artic regions. The graph I posted shows satellite data since 02 and there has been no significant contraction.
But, in response, you provide an image of global sea ice along with a petty ad hom.

What should we call that approach?

I provided an explanation of the approaches Monckton takes in mischievously using data.
I also provided a reference on sea ice thickness that you requested.
Long term averaged data is preferential if we are to look at trends and your time series chart was somewhat brief.
However, as you hold to your point, if Arctic sea ice area has barely changed, but the volume has - through reduced ice thickness - would it be reasonable to consider explaining this change?

Let's put the above aside for the moment and look at the latest report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

February 3, 2010
Despite cool temperatures, ice extent remains low

Despite cool temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean in January, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below normal. By the end of January, ice extent dropped below the extent observed in January 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, the one major area of the Arctic where temperatures remained warmer than normal.

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This was 1.08 million square kilometers (417,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for January, but 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in January 2006.

Link as follows: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[brty]

Sneak'n,

Climate science tries, wherever possible, to use 30-year averaged data as it overcomes a range of multi-decadal cyclical anomalies.

SmellyT,

So you're looking at a few of the outliers to make your argument? Seriously? Cherry picking is usually a misused term on the intertubes, but this, sir, is cherry picking.

Perhaps you missed this??

brty .....nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.

The low points getting lower on average. The high points getting lower on average. The sea ice change here is especially dramatic given that we've experienced only a small part of what we can expect in the long term (only about 0.3 of a degree in the period shown).

Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

It shows an increase in Antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, very clearly. The IPCC report states that Antarctic sea ice is growing at 1% per decade. Yet ALL the climate models have Antarctic sea ice as either stable at present and then declining, or if created ~10 years ago as declining, and continuing declination into the future (which means they are just wrong).

None of the input parameters into the climate models include Antarctic sea ice increasing, yet the sets of figures you both want to force down everyones throat, clearly show an increase in Antarctic sea ice.

What I can really see happening is that all changes must be due to man-made global warming according to the alarmists. Warmer here, PROOF. Colder there, PROOF. Less ice here, PROOF. More ice there, PROOF.

brty

 

[sneak'n]

Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

It shows an increase in Antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, very clearly.
brty

Unfortunately the anomaly in your chart shows a statistically insignificant decrease on the longer term trend at this point in time.
I did, however, raise the issue in previous posts about the marked climatic differences being experienced at opposite Poles, especially with regard to sea ice extent.
I am not sure that you have given us anything more or different from positions explained elsewhere.

 

[wayneL]

I provided an explanation of the approaches Monckton takes in mischievously using data.

Although I think said approach is counter-productive, it's a bit rich that the AGW cultists criticize the approach, as it is part of their own stock in trade.

Sceptics need only state the unfettered truth to torpedo the "co2" based AGW hypothesis and much of the purported "empirical" (pffffft) evidence of runaway global warming.

 

[SmellyTerror]

What I can really see happening is that all changes must be due to man-made global warming according to the alarmists. Warmer here, PROOF. Colder there, PROOF. Less ice here, PROOF. More ice there, PROOF.

It's almost as if, when looking at global climate change, we should look at the whole world. Who would have thought of this concept without we forum-goers?

I've been saying over and over and over and over and over and over again that some local areas are supposed to get colder. It is expected. It has been expected for decades. Global means GLOBAL.

If there is an increase in Antarctic sea ice, but a decline in ice globally, what does that tell you about the ice that isn't antarctic sea ice? That's right: it's declining at a higher rate than the overall trend. The sea, as I'm sure you know, resists temperature change (compare temperature ranges near the coast to areas just inland). Sea ice has ALWAYS been expected to take longer to show any change from warming.

Here's a nice simple explanation from someone who knows more than us:

"There's been a change in atmospheric circulation around Antarctica related to the stratospheric ozone depletion and this actually causes stronger winds, which then pushes the ice away from the coast in some regions of Antarctica, which actually then causes more new ice formation and increases the overall sea ice in that region," she said.

"In other parts of Antarctica the temperatures have been decreasing and this is again sort of what we've expected to see, at least according to what the climate models tell us should be happening".
...
"This recent paper shows you know a change in the annual mean ice extent of Antarctica of only 0.97 per cent per decade which is really close to zero," she added.

"In contrast if you look at the Arctic, you see statistically significantly trends of about 4 per cent per decade in the opposite direction right now if you look at the annual mean. Certainly it's a very small change for the Antarctic.

"The Antarctic is very different than the Arctic and what we're noticing is that you'll see negative trends in some areas of the Antarctic and positive trends elsewhere."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550456.htm

NOTE WELL: the data about increasing antarctic sea ice comes from the same global conspiracy of scientists apparently dedicated to the cause of hiding conflicting data to push their agenda of world domination and phat paychecks.

Strange they didn't try to hide this one, isn't it? Sure is a pretty inept conspiracy that has nevertheless managed to stop any proof getting out that it exists, despite the thousands of people involved who would profit from exposing it all...

PS (again): for anyone interested in a fairly readable summary of the sea ice issue, please see here: http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

 

[sneak'n]

Although I think said approach is counter-productive, it's a bit rich that the AGW cultists criticize the approach, as it is part of their own stock in trade.

We are agreed that the approach is counter-productive. That so, it cuts both ways.

Sceptics need only state the unfettered truth to torpedo the "co2" based AGW hypothesis and much of the purported "empirical" (pffffft) evidence of runaway global warming.

I am at a loss to find this "unfettered truth", so your help would be appreciated. It is definitely not apparent in this thread.

 

[So_Cynical]

Seeing as you both think these statistics are so reliable a guide then can either of you explain this graph, from the same set of statistics.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

It shows an increase in Antarctic sea ice over the last 30 years, very clearly. The IPCC report states that Antarctic sea ice is growing at 1% per decade. Yet ALL the climate models have Antarctic sea ice as either stable at present and then declining, or if created ~10 years ago as declining, and continuing declination into the future (which means they are just wrong).

Yet from the same site http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg clearly shows a reduction in overall sea ice over the last 50 years.

 

[wayneL]

We are agreed that the approach is counter-productive. That so, it cuts both ways.

Isn't that what I just said?

I am at a loss to find this "unfettered truth", so your help would be appreciated. It is definitely not apparent in this thread.

One must venture outside of the confines of their own biases... and this thread.

 

[brty]

SmellyT,

I've been saying over and over and over and over and over and over again that some local areas are supposed to get colder.

You and every other true believer, every bit of change is PROOF of global warming, not just proof of constant change, as has always happened in the past.

The "insignificant" change in Antarctic sea ice of 100,000 sq km was the level included in the IPCC report 2007, based on figures up to the end of 2005. This is in the IPCC report chapter 4.4.2. The same source also says....

(equivalent to approximately –2.7% per decade)

...when referring to the decrease in Arctic sea ice. I suppose that is nearly 4%.

Have a really good look at the Antarctic sea ice rate of change since the end of 2005, it shows the area of sea ice increasing at a faster rate than before, yet ignored in the models, ignored by the IPCC, ignored by the climate change religious zealots.

All I want the true believers to do is have an open mind, look at the evidence in an unbiased way, look at the raw data themselves, the unaltered data that is. Everywhere I look the data on climate has been adjusted. I am open to all evidence, not a 'true non-believer', if someone can show me data that has not been adjusted and then offer proof that it is not a normal natural change then i will reserve the right to change my opinion.

brty

 

[brty]

So_Cynical,

clearly shows a reduction in overall sea ice over the last 50 years.

Sure it does... even though it shows only 30 years of records.

Do you work for the IPCC with a use of data like that??

brty

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

We had some nice gentle follow up rain in Townsville over the weekend. Not enough to sit in and read boring reports on Weather Change, but nice enough.

The Climate Changers are in more and more strife with dodgy data " on the Aussie Street". I haven't checked any other "streets"

We need more convincing and I personally feel that all the so-called experts who wasted so much avgas on trips and conventions and tried to foist a tax on us for a non existent scare, should be prosecuted, so that it doesn't happen again.

And I do not have to be a scientist to demand this. Arguments need to be in ordinary language with easy to understand proofs. This summer in N.Queensland is no different from many before.

Avgas does not grow on trees.

gg

 

[basilio]

And I do not have to be a scientist to demand this. Arguments need to be in ordinary language with easy to understand proofs. This summer in N.Queensland is no different from many before.

You know GG if you ever chose to pick up a simple primary school science book or perhaps a secondary school science book you would have all the clear, simple arguments regarding global warming that are required.

And just to reiterate 101 of climate change

Climate ain't weather

The reality that you never seem to have gone past this fact perhaps underpins your inability/unwillingness to come to terms with the big picture.

 

[sneak'n]

Sure it does... even though it shows only 30 years of records.

Do you work for the IPCC with a use of data like that??

brty

His reference was to data available at the "site".
The site has data sets that go back over 100 years, with varying degrees of accuracy the further back it goes.
Is it the custom at ASF to read selectively and remark rudely?

 

[SmellyTerror]

You and every other true believer, every bit of change is PROOF of global warming, not just proof of constant change, as has always happened in the past.

...despite me (and the scientists) saying over and over that every bit of change is NOT proof. In fact, your quote above is in direct response to me saying it AGAIN.

Are you just trolling?

The "insignificant" change in Antarctic sea ice of 100,000 sq km...

1. Please look up the concept of statistical significance. It's usually taught in first year uni. It's not that hard. Go. Look. I'll wait.

For the people who aren't pretending to know what they're talking about, here's the figure from the report he's quoting: "the antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km² yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade)". Note that the error margin is larger than the actual reading. That's why it's not significant: although our best figure shows it's probably happening to some extent, the error margin inlcudes a very real possiblity that there's no effect at all.

Compare this with “a significant decreasing trend in arctic sea ice extent of –33 ± 7.4 × 103 km² yr–1 (equivalent to –2.7 ± 0.6% per decade)”. See how that’s different?

2. You apparently sneer at 100,000 km^2 being "insignificant", but you think a million or more of negative change overall is "EXACTLY the same".

...when referring to the decrease in Arctic sea ice. I suppose that is nearly 4%.

Have a really good look at the Antarctic sea ice rate of change since the end of 2005, it shows the area of sea ice increasing at a faster rate than before, yet ignored in the models, ignored by the IPCC, ignored by the climate change religious zealots.

In the more than two years since the report, scientists have been working. What do you think they do all day? Sit around holding “We’re So Right!” parties? They’ve never said they knew everything there was to know.

So they’ve found out more. And they’re reporting it as they get it. So yes, it looks like the Antarctic increase is more than thought (so instead of insignificant, it’s “really close to zero”, now being only barely above the error margin). At the same time, though, and despite this region’s increase in ice, ice overall has declined much FASTER than was reported in the IPCC report.

…and this supports your case, how exactly?

And the reason you know about the Antarctic ice increase is BECAUSE it was reported by the “climate change religious zealots”. THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW. So in what way are they ignoring it? What do you want them to do? Go back in time and amend the 2007 report?

All I want the true believers to do is have an open mind, look at the evidence in an unbiased way, look at the raw data themselves, the unaltered data that is. Everywhere I look the data on climate has been adjusted. I am open to all evidence, not a 'true non-believer', if someone can show me data that has not been adjusted and then offer proof that it is not a normal natural change then i will reserve the right to change my opinion.

Look, this stuff is complicated. This is cutting edge science dealing with a notoriously complex system. You simply cannot expect the science to be understandable by everyone who reads a forum. At some point you just have to trust that the people who spend their entire careers working on this stuff know what they’re talking about. It’s not a cabal: anyone who wants to put in the years of effort can become a climate scientist, too. Feel free.

You’ve shown over and over that you haven’t the slightest idea how to interpret the data. Here you are flailing about with the sea ice data – is that “altered”? If so, I wonder why you’re using it to back up your case.

Your arguments basically come down to ignorance. YOU don’t understand what the big heads are saying, therefore they’re lyin’ and tryin’ to steal yer money and yer wimmins.

If only the raw data was released! Then the sceptics of the world could pore over it and expose this big lie for what it is. Oh, if only they’d release the DATA!!! Everywhere you look, ALTERED DATA. Where are the raw feeds? Locked away, I’m sure. Hidden by the conspiracy. Can anyone breach that kind of security? Can anyone step up? With this last, mighty weapon, it’d all be over for the warministas.


…well here you go:

GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.2)
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Italian Meterological Society IMS
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
AERONET Aerosol information

Satellite feeds:
AMSU
SORCE (Solar irradiance)
NASA A-train

More links to paleo and other data here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

Let us know how you get on.

 

[brty]

Sneak'n,

Looking at the longer term data we get......

Because most of the direct observations of sea ice (1870-1971 period) are from ships at sea, they are generally the most complete near the ice edge. The conditions north of the ice edge are often assumed to be 100% covered during this period.

followed by this........

The satellite era has shown otherwise with concentrations between 70-90% frequently occurring well north of the ice edge in the post-1972 data.

You don't see anything wrong here do you?? Like a discrepancy of between 10%-30% of actual sea ice coverage. Now the good scientists have applied all sorts of wonderful statistical chicanery to smooth the data. The problem being that by doing this you can get any answer you want by changing the assumptions, like this.....

15% is commonly used

Which comes back to one of my original points, that there is no clean data set, that has not been adjusted, that shows climate change of any significance, in a world where the climate does change all the time. This is even before we get to any discussion on weather it is man made, or if it is possibly a good thing (like keeping us from having an ice age).

brty