Scientists jumping off the warming train

[Art]

Yes, climate is weather over a period of time.

Merriam Webster

Climate - the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate

Unless of course there is an unusual rise in temperature one year in which case it's climate change. Only decreases in temperature are classified as weather.

 

[Gokul43201]

I do agree with you that the chairman of the IPCC has no qualifications in climate science.

Please do not misrepresent my posts.

Thanks.

 

[Evo]

Please do not misrepresent my posts.

Thanks.

Then don't write confusing posts. What did you mean?

 

[LowlyPion]

Unless of course there is an unusual rise in temperature one year in which case it's climate change. Only decreases in temperature are classified as weather.

That looks like a good operating premise.

 

[NeoDevin]

Blogs are acceptable in P&WA.

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure.

 

[NeoDevin]

MattSimmons,

As I said, I'm not up to speed on all the topics covered in the blog post you linked to, but one of my friends (who is better informed on the subject than I, I only got into the debate as of this discussion, and am still learning) sent this reply (edited only to remove a name):

Anthony Watts is completely inept at data analysis; he's done things like plot different anomaly graphs (from different baselines) on the same axis, correlate time with time, and lovingly publish analyses that turn graphs upside down and claim the trend reversed. On one of his deceptions, which was supposedly "peer reviewed", I spotted the critical error within twenty seconds, and [other friend] got it within fifteen. (One of my friends at the U of T, in the social sciences, figured it out quickly too once I gave him the relevant terminology.)

As for this particular one, he's confusing weather and climate (note the lack of trendlines and how he uses only one year instead of the thirty that the WMO and IPCC use; incidentally the first dataset he uses goes back to 1850 but he only plots the last 20 years.), assuming the anthropogenic global warming theory says that CO2 is the only influence (which is dead wrong; what's missing from that graph is that late 2007 and early 2008 were a particularly strong La Nina, which shuffled heat away from the measurable surface. 1998 was a very strong El Nino, the exact opposite, and is a favorite of Watts to start his trendlines in), and lying through his teeth (what would his analysis method have said if he had done this in 1998? It could have been as high as +0.446!).

This denier meme, also sometimes known as "January 2008 wiped out a century's worth of warming!" (DailyTech and similar denialist sites) or the Very Little Ice Age (those who can understand the difference between weather and climate). The silly part is, just as predicted, the temperature rose after January (such that if January "wiped out a century's worth of warming", March could have been said to have "warmed as much as the past century!".). http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/nasa-ice-age.jpg shows what I mean. (Note that this isn't too significant on its own either; it just showed the La Nina fading and removing its masking effect from the temperature trends.)

It's ironic that you'd send this to me today, by the way: Look what the UK Met Office (where Watts plotted his first dataset from) just released. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

For more amusing stuff on Watts, here's the links to support all of my claims from the
first paragraph:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-1/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-deux/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-3/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-4-lies-damned-lies-and-anthony-watts/

 

[NeoDevin]

Evo, you've still ignored my points. Do you have any specific objections to the IPCC report (such as they were "picking and choosing" their data) with a source to back it up (that isn't taken out of context)?

 

[Evo]

Evo, you've still ignored my points. Do you have any specific objections to the IPCC report (such as they were "picking and choosing" their data) with a source to back it up (that isn't taken out of context)?

I'm working and no time to go through them yet. Did you read all of the Report I linked to showing how what was allowed was picked?

 

[NeoDevin]

I'm working and no time to go through them yet.

Fair enough, given your other responses in this thread, I assumed you were ignoring them. I apologize.

Did you read all of the Report I linked to showing how what was allowed was picked?

You mean the comments page on the first draft of chapter 1 of the report? I already explained why the comment you took out of context (out of context because you were implying that it referred to the report as a whole, rather than only the first chapter: "Historical Overview of Climate Change Science") from that page has nothing to do with picking and choosing data with a bias. That comment was about not including sufficient historical overview of the biogeochemical studies which had been done in the past, not about not taking them into account when drawing conclusions (they clearly were taken into account, chapter 7 is entirely on the subject).

 

[drankin]

This is just an article from foxnews (so many of you will disregard it out of hand) but it does discuss how hype reported as fact is not in the best interest of the scientific community.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

MattSimmons,

As I said, I'm not up to speed on all the topics covered in the blog post you linked to, but one of my friends (who is better informed on the subject than I, I only got into the debate as of this discussion, and am still learning) sent this reply (edited only to remove a name):

If you mean the wattsupwiththat article, I am actually the one who posted it (no worries on the confusion, I do it myself sometimes).

I only posted the blog since I couldn't quickly find an actual news story, only articles on right wing blogs and places like InfoWars, but I knew I had heard something of the like in the news. That one was the only I found that did not seem to have a political agenda attached. I only meant to show that Drankin's anecdotal evidence has been echoed in media lately regardless of it's accuracy.
Thank you for the criticism of the article from your friend.

 

[G01]

Interesting, but I don't think this sheds any light on the truth behind global warming.

In my opinion, both sides of the global warming debate have become so politicized that neither can be trusted.

 

[LowlyPion]

This is just an article from foxnews (so many of you will disregard it out of hand) but it does discuss how hype reported as fact is not in the best interest of the scientific community.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html"

That article is easily dismissed. It's just as dishonest as he accuses the AP of being. That's just the kind of hypocrisy that Roger Ailes traffics in. One need look no further than the past election cycle for ample evidence of slanted and biased presentation to further their causes.

For instance - note the focus on the Arctic Ice melting and their clever debunking of sea level change as if refuted by 4th grade science. The fact of the matter is that the most dangerous effects come in the Northern Hemisphere from the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet - not currently floating in the 4th Grade glass of water.

And the reports I've seen from that is that it is accelerating. (IPCC 2007 Report?). The melting of the Greenland ice may have a profound effect measured in more than mm's. Something like 7 meters is it to sea level as calculated by I think the 2001 IPCC Report?

Trivializing the issues and presenting uninformed science serves no public service that I can see but to foster some kind of skepticism with their misrepresentation to further their far right political agenda. They should be ashamed to attempt to obfuscate and retard awareness and actions to attenuate the bad outcomes for the planet.

 

[mheslep]

That article is easily dismissed. It's just as dishonest as he accuses the AP of being. That's just the kind of hypocrisy that Roger Ailes traffics in. One need look no further than the past election cycle for ample evidence of slanted and biased presentation to further their causes.

For instance - note the focus on the Arctic Ice melting and their clever debunking of sea level change as if refuted by 4th grade science. The fact of the matter is that the most dangerous effects come in the Northern Hemisphere from the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet - not currently floating in the 4th Grade glass of water.

The focus on Artic ice melt directly causing sea level rise comes from the AP science writer, not from Fox. This Fox piece quotes various scientists criticizing the AP writer specifically for saying the "...Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected..." which does indeed invite a 4th grade science lesson.

And the reports I've seen from that is that it is accelerating. (IPCC 2007 Report?). The melting of the Greenland ice may have a profound effect measured in more than mm's. Something like 7 meters is it to sea level as calculated by I think the 2001 IPCC Report?

7 meters? That's only if the entire Greenland ice mass was to be totally liquefied, which the IPCC does not predict even worst case for any time period. The IPCC 2001 sea level worst case sea level rise is ~0.9m by 2100, nominal case 0.4m.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/WG1/429.htm

Trivializing the issues and presenting uninformed science serves no public service that I can see but to foster some kind of skepticism with their misrepresentation to further their far right political agenda. They should be ashamed to attempt to obfuscate and retard awareness and actions to attenuate the bad outcomes for the planet.

Good advice here too.

 

[Proton Soup]

the world didn't come to an end the last time Greenland was Green. bring it on.

 

[drankin]

the world didn't come to an end the last time Greenland was Green. bring it on.

Unless you have at least one PhD and are part of the climate science community recognized by the IPCC, you aren't qualified to make such a statement. Here, have some koolaid.

 

[LowlyPion]

The focus on Artic ice melt directly causing sea level rise comes from the AP science writer, not from Fox. This Fox piece quotes various scientists criticizing the AP writer specifically for saying the "...Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected..." which does indeed invite a 4th grade science lesson.

I'm sorry. Where again is Greenland most substantially located? Are you suggesting that Greenland is not mostly located in the Arctic? Or is the ice in Greenland to be ignored? Perhaps instead the FSU Professor should have had a 4th Grade Geography Lesson? Now maybe the AP Reporter would have confused Arctic ice with Arctic Ocean ice, but wouldn't you have higher expectations for a professor? And just where was Fox's fact checking in criticizing AP?

7 meters? That's only if the entire Greenland ice mass was to be totally liquefied, which the IPCC does not predict even worst case for any time period. The IPCC 2001 sea level worst case sea level rise is ~0.9m by 2100, nominal case 0.4m.

I'm not beginning to suggest that the entire sheet will melt by century end. But neither am I necessarily prepared to think the end of the century is the end of melting. And there is that potential overhang for sea level impact, and in the current decades it has shown acceleration. Acceleration is a nasty business the way it adds up and all. And not having a lot of evidence with which to interpret acceleration and deceleration I would want to know more before flagging the next generation through with a full speed ahead.

So sorry I'm not prescient enough to figure where stasis may be or whether or not there are tipping points. It's enough for me to want to approach the issue with caution and not obfuscate the issues for the purpose of supporting some right wing agenda that passes the planet to the next generation and damn the consequences of the actions of this one.

 

[NeoDevin]

If you mean the wattsupwiththat article, I am actually the one who posted it (no worries on the confusion, I do it myself sometimes).

I only posted the blog since I couldn't quickly find an actual news story, only articles on right wing blogs and places like InfoWars, but I knew I had heard something of the like in the news. That one was the only I found that did not seem to have a political agenda attached. I only meant to show that Drankin's anecdotal evidence has been echoed in media lately regardless of it's accuracy.
Thank you for the criticism of the article from your friend.

Yes, sorry, my bad. In that case I reiterate my previous question (which seems to have been deleted somehow? Mentors?) that was meant for you (but I confused that one too)

do you know if there is a peer reviewed article which backs up the claims made in the blog post you linked to?

Edit: Looking back the reason for the confusion was because I responded to you, and then he responded to me. Sorry again about that.

 

[Andre]

Evo, you've still ignored my points. Do you have any specific objections to the IPCC report (such as they were "picking and choosing" their data) with a source to back it up (that isn't taken out of context)?

Let mew tell you that they were rather selective. No mentioning for instance of http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

do you know if there is a peer reviewed article which backs up the claims made in the blog post you linked to?

Ummm... I looked over the article again incase I missed something. I don't see any particular assertions being made, only data presented. Apparently the data he is showing is supposed to support other articles he has written but I have not read them. Again I just posted it to support Drankin's anecdotal evidence (that it has been colder lately) since he seemed to not be aware of actual supporting evidence or for what ever reason decided not to post any. As mentioned by your friend there have apparently been those who have cited his article claiming that "150 years of warming has been erased in one year!" Watts mentions this, and the fact that it is obviously not supported by the evidence he shows, at the bottom of the article.
Unless you mean to question whether or not the metrics he is using are proper for his purpose? That I would have no idea about or how I would go about finding a peer reviewed paper on such a minor matter as a single year of cooling. They seem useful in a general way. I don't see why they would not support his claim that the global average temperture dropped over the year 2007. Whether this is particularly meaningful is an entirely other question of course.

 

[Phrak]

Unless you have at least one PhD and are part of the climate science community recognized by the IPCC, you aren't qualified to make such a statement. Here, have some koolaid.

Science community? You mean Climate Change Ufologists Community?

(to be serious, I am trying to find tests to compare and contrast ufology and climatology, but string theory keeps turning up on the ufology column whenever climatology does.)

 

[MattSimmons]

MattSimmons,

As I said, I'm not up to speed on all the topics covered in the blog post you linked to, but one of my friends (who is better informed on the subject than I, I only got into the debate as of this discussion, and am still learning) sent this reply (edited only to remove a name):

Interesting... thanks. I wonder if your friend has done a similar critique of Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit fame?

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry. Where again is Greenland most substantially located? Are you suggesting that Greenland is not mostly located in the Arctic? Or is the ice in Greenland to be ignored? Perhaps instead the FSU Professor should have had a 4th Grade Geography Lesson? Now maybe the AP Reporter would have confused Arctic ice with Arctic Ocean ice, but wouldn't you have higher expectations for a professor? And just where was Fox's fact checking in criticizing AP?

The article doesn't mention Greenland. Are you saying that the AP reporter said ice over Greenland?

 

[MattSimmons]

I think the problem with the http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1" article is lazy language, such as

"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."

That said, while I agree with the http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html" article that blaming everything on CO2 is "silly", it is guilty of committing a similar crime when it quotes,

"Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."

I think the bottom line is, humanity impacts the Earth's environment in many complicated ways, and we are possibly entering a new geological period based on human domination. I just hope we get to keep our freedom in coming years, and I hope we can spread that freedom to the many other people around the world who desperately need it.

I think advances in neuroscience and physics will have a far more dramatic effect on "us" and the planet than climate scientists are currently considering, which is part of why I've joined this site - so if you can point me in the direction of some good discussion on quantum / string / m theories, or neuroscience, I'd be most grateful!

Matt.

 

[LowlyPion]

The article doesn't mention Greenland. Are you saying that the AP reporter said ice over Greenland?

Specifically the AP reporter talks in terms of "Arctic ice". I'm merely pointing out that the Greenland Ice sheet would qualify as Arctic ice according to the CIA World Fact Book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/reference_maps/arctic.html

I'd say it's fairly easy to confuse thinking about the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean with written material that might refer more generally to Arctic ice. Hence as far as the reporter goes I'm willing to suspect that whatever imprecision there is excusable. As to the Professor at FSU, relied upon by Fox, I would be less forgiving.

 

[mheslep]

Specifically the AP reporter talks in terms of "Arctic ice". I'm merely pointing out that the Greenland Ice sheet would qualify as Arctic ice according to the CIA World Fact Book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/reference_maps/arctic.html

I'd say it's fairly easy to confuse thinking about the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean with written material that might refer more generally to Arctic ice.

It might be confusing had the AP story not specifically referred to "summer Arctic sea ice" and again as "artic waters"
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1. Edit: Also, for even the worse case melt rate of the Greenland ice cap in the IPCC report, Greenland doesn't matter much for sea level rise. The worse case is ~0.5mm/year sea level rise (due to Greenland.) It certainly doesn't justify 'ominous' as used in the AP report.

 

[LowlyPion]

As I said I would excuse a reporter for careless references confusing Arctic ice and Arctic sea ice. The reporter may not clearly understand the distinction as evidenced by the explanation, but that doesn't invalidate the conclusion that Arctic ice melt outflows are contributing to Sea level rises. Nor is it apparently incorrect to say that this run off is accelerating.

But you'd think a Professor from FSU would be a little more careful and knowledgeable about Arctic ice and not be so rambunctious to be quoted by a partisan network like Fox, fueling partisan debate, by offering 4th grade science lessons, when his 4th grade geography is apparently so lacking. I'd think that guy would be embarrassed for offering up that explanation, and being quoted within that context.

As to the Greenland sheet I think there is an additional factor to just the run off in that its weight is compressing the land mass and the plate in the region and as its water mass flows into the oceans the upward thrust from the removed mass may also cause additional outflow from the waters around Greenland as the sea bed rises with the ground mass.

 

[Evo]

As to the Greenland sheet I think there is an additional factor to just the run off in that its weight is compressing the land mass and the plate in the region and as its water mass flows into the oceans the upward thrust from the removed mass may also cause additional outflow from the waters around Greenland as the sea bed rises with the ground mass.

But as land mass rises out of the sea, the sea level drops. DO NOT ask me what the imact is. I had discussed rising land mass in another thread having to do with the last major Ice Age. I'm sure the offset is negligible, and it also doesn't happen quickly. New York's Central Park is quite fascinating for studying the glaciers that were once there.

 

[LowlyPion]

But as land mass rises out of the sea, the sea level drops. DO NOT ask me what the imact is.

Locally to Greenland this is true. I'd think it might tend to cancel out to a small extent - maybe even a very small extent - the rise.

But keep in mind that the local rise in sea bed around Greenland - the Earth being plastic will deform non-uniformly wouldn't you think and will displace sea water to the rest of world oceans in addition to the melt water off the landmass.

 

[drankin]

Locally to Greenland this is true. I'd think it might tend to cancel out to a small extent - maybe even a very small extent - the rise.

But keep in mind that the local rise in sea bed around Greenland - the Earth being plastic will deform non-uniformly wouldn't you think and will displace sea water to the rest of world oceans in addition to the melt water off the landmass.

Using this logic, wouldn't the increased mass of the ocean force all land masses up as the sea sinks?