dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1975

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to AndrewW

Premium Member

to AndrewW

Re: [Weather] Arctic sea ice melts to record low

said by AndrewW:

While the Arctic ice cover is shrinking, the Antarctic ice cover is actually increasing.

Absolutely false. The claim that Antarctic ice is increasing is based on observations of sea ice, not the all-important ice sheets. Sea ice is mostly seasonal and has shown some growth because of factors like increased precipitation and freshwater from melting of the ice sheets, and stratospheric cooling in part from ozone losses. The loss of Antarctic ice sheet surface mass balance has actually been accelerating at the rate of more than 14.5 Gt/yr**2 and is now losing on the order of as much as 300 Gt/year in some years. Greenland and the Antarctic together, in fact, are major contributors to sea level rise because of the ice loss.

There are dozens of papers on the subject... this is one:
»ps.uci.edu/scholar/velic ··· 2011.pdf




Your comment on the Holocene Maximum is irrelevant as it was not associated with any of the factors happening today. It disproportionately affected the Arctic probably due to a phase of Milankovitch cycles, and globally was cooler than today overall. Nor were the temperature gradients anywhere even remotely like what we are experiencing today -- the total temperature excursion during the entire HTM was less than the warming we've caused in just last 100 years.

I never claimed that an ice-free Arctic summer was unprecedented. I said that the current CO2 levels were totally unprecedented -- certainly during the entire period of regular 100Ky glaciation, and probably in some 15 million years. Nothing like this has happened since the dawn of humanity. This is indeed uncharted territory.
AndrewW
join:2009-03-07
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

AndrewW

Member

Wow, I say Antarctic ice cover is actually increasing and you say Antarctic sea ice “has shown some growth” yet my statement is totally false.

As for my comment on the Holocene, I think it is totally relevant as I was responding not to you but to the OP and his take on the CBC story that Arctic ice was at a record low and I was showing otherwise.

Your assertion that “globally was cooler than today overall” is unproven, despite what some models and Milankovitch cycle theory adherents claim.

As for temperature excursions some sites in Siberia show average temperatures about 4 degrees higher then today during the HTM and one site in Greenland a temperature increase of 7 degrees in 50 years.

As for CO2 levels they may be unprecedented for humans but not for the planet nor its ecosystem. Your earlier claim that we had an “alien ecosystem” 15 million years ago is sheer rubbish. Many species living and flourishing today predate that period.

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

1 edit

Wolfie00

Premium Member

Wow, indeed. Apparently you don't understand the difference between seasonal sea ice and the vast continental ice sheets that are the dominant form of Antarctic ice. The evidence of accelerating Antarctic ice melt is in the graph right in front of you. Instead of continuing to misrepresent the facts, read the paper I linked. There are many others.

Maybe some basic factual exposition would be conducive to a better understanding of the subject matter here.

Fact #1: Antarctic sea ice is unimportant either as a bellweather of climate change (or of sea level rise, obviously), because the sea ice is almost entirely seasonal -- it forms in the winter and floats off northward and pretty much all melts every summer. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean where the sea ice is extremely mobile. This is the exact opposite of the Arctic which is largely ocean surrounded by land.

The important indicator of Antarctic trends is the massive continental ice sheets which are losing mass at a huge and accelerating rate. The Antarctic is also more insulated from overall planetary warming and less sensitive to climate change but that's beside the point. The Antarctic overall is losing ice mass, period. And losing it fast, at rates that are quite well quantified. Any other claim reflects either lack of knowledge or intentional deception.

Fact #2: Whether the HTM was warmer than today or not is an irrelevant red herring. If you take the average of eight major 12Ky reconstructions, it wasn't, but if you pick one you like better, you can show otherwise, with no greater or less credibility. It's ultimately completely irrelevant because the causes were completely unrelated to anything going on today and mainly based on orbitally-induced insolation changes. It also mainly affected high latitudes and had a much different distribution than contemporary warming being driven by GHG's. Some info on that here. In fact bringing up the HTM at all is just about as pointless as bringing up the Medieval Warm Period, another denialist favourite.

When articles like the one in the OP talk about Arctic devastation from global warming being "unprecedented", I think the term could be fairly interpreted to mean "unprecedented in recorded history", and that something that happened 10,000 years ago for entirely different reasons doesn't change the validity of the statement.

Fact #3: Local and regional climate is not global climate. The fact that high-latitude insolation caused some point in Siberia to be 4 deg. warmer than today during the HTM (other Arctic areas were even warmer) or that some isolated site had a rapid temperature increase says nothing at all about the global climate. The importance of the fact that the present temperature increase is both extremely rapid and globally synchronous cannot be understated. That, and its relation to the unprecedented increases in post-industrial atmospheric CO2 is what this is all about.

Fact #4: The risks posed by anthropogenic global warming are entirely related to the stresses imposed by the extremely rapid rate of change, and little to do with long-term equilibrium points. First there are ecosystem stresses. Everything living today is adapted to its local climate, and the destabilization of ecosystem balances and adaptations can have catastrophic results and even lead to ecosystem tipping points. Second there are physical climate system stresses. Rapid changes in atmosphere and ocean circulation systems lead to weather extremes, powerful storms, long-term changes to regional climate, and general destabilization. And there, too, there is strong evidence that the earth's climate systems operate in terms of tipping points that create sudden and severe changes to large geographic areas.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to Wolfie00

Premium Member

to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

The article says what it says, which is that Arctic ice is melting faster than models were projecting, ....

Whoah!!! Someone made a computer model and it turned out to have something predicted wrong? Wow, my head is exploding! Truly amazing, that is! Hope we're not say....relying on these models to accurately predict conditions really far out or anything.
said by Wolfie00:


...and we are closer than we thought to the Arctic being completely free of summer sea ice.

Much as it was 1,000 years ago during the MWP, and 9,000 years ago? Sure. Arctic sea ice is not something that is perfectly understood.

Very pretty graph that shows the CO2 levels back a few hundred thousand years. What was Stone Age Man and our Primate ancestors using to power their electricity plants and cars?

We're all well aware that the results of a modern technological society have no earlier precedent on the planet. Unless, that is, you're a believer in the theories proposed in the "Ancient Aliens" series on the History Channel.
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

booj

Member

said by Ian1:

said by Wolfie00:

The article says what it says, which is that Arctic ice is melting faster than models were projecting, ....

Whoah!!! Someone made a computer model and it turned out to have something predicted wrong? Wow, my head is exploding! Truly amazing, that is! Hope we're not say....relying on these models to accurately predict conditions really far out or anything.

One day you might realize that climate scientists model things conservatively. Usually in order not to sound alarmist. Sadly it lets quacks like you turn around and say the model was wrong.
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned)

Member

quote:
Sadly it lets quacks like you turn around and say the model was wrong.
Why must threads like these always degrade into name calling and insulting?

People simply have differing opinions on this topic... Why can't we respect not everyone agrees or disagrees or is skeptical of "the science"?

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to booj

Premium Member

to booj
said by booj:

One day you might realize that climate scientists model things conservatively. Usually in order not to sound alarmist. Sadly it lets quacks like you turn around and say the model was wrong.

Uh huh. All Climate Scientists? Or just some? And which models? I was more or less joking. But there is an over-reliance on "modeling" in the field. And a necessary over-reliance at that. Turns out we only have the one planet to experiment on at the moment for realz. So we don't actually know what the conditions would be like on the one we have under any given hypothetical conditions. So we make educated guesses at it. To what extent these educated guesses are themselves conservative or alarmist, I couldn't say.

In any case, this wasn't me, a "quack", pointing out that certain models were "wrong". It was the cited article, and scientists quoted therein. Thanks for playing though!

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

Whoah!!! Someone made a computer model and it turned out to have something predicted wrong? Wow, my head is exploding! Truly amazing, that is! Hope we're not say....relying on these models to accurately predict conditions really far out or anything.

So the expectation is that to be useful, a model must always be exactly correct not only in all of its primary predictions, but all the second-order and third-order effects as well?

The only thing of interest here is that we have yet another example of that alleged bastion of "alarmism", the IPCC, being overly conservative in its estimations. It's a wonder that your head isn't exploding!
said by Ian1:

said by Wolfie00:


...and we are closer than we thought to the Arctic being completely free of summer sea ice.

Much as it was 1,000 years ago during the MWP

A ridiculously unsupportable claim, particularly since the MWP was neither globally synchronous nor was it nearly as warm as today in most of the regions affected. Many parts of the Arctic were significantly cooler than today.
said by Ian1:

Very pretty graph that shows the CO2 levels back a few hundred thousand years. What was Stone Age Man and our Primate ancestors using to power their electricity plants and cars?

One of your less lucid comments and I'm not even sure what it means. The main point of that graph is to show the cyclic and remarkably well-bounded nature of CO2 fluctuations during glacial cycles, reflecting a systematic and consistent transfer between carbon sinks and the atmosphere. Which leads nicely to the following...
said by Ian1:

We're all well aware that the results of a modern technological society have no earlier precedent on the planet.

Are we? "Modern technological society" is not the point here. The point is the rapid transfer into the atmosphere of very ancient and essentially permanent carbon stores that have been locked away for hundreds of millions of years, and suddenly re-introducing them into the planet's active carbon cycle at the rate of some 30 billion metric tons per year. Which is a terrific strategy if the plan is to recreate the climate of the Mesozoic, and to do so with all the careful diligence of performing brain surgery with a sledgehammer.
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned) to lugnut

Member

to lugnut
Well IF the Arctic ice is indeed going to diminish why not look at the positives that are to be gained instead of the negatives?

Surely it will help shipping lanes and open up new areas for mineral exploration just to name a few...

So instead of dwelling on all the negative stuff lets look at what maybe gained...

Robert4
Premium Member
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL

1 recommendation

Robert4

Premium Member

Ken I love how the world is so simplistic and very black and white to you.

By your logic, let's look at the positives to my neighbors car getting broken into: new permanent hole where the side window use to be. Constant fresh air!!
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned)

Member

That's a silly comparison and has no merit.

There are things that can be done to stop car break-ins. But if the Arctic ice is going to decline as it has done so in the past, what can we do to stop it?

However opening up shipping lanes and allowing for mineral exploration and mining is a positive, is it not?

Kalford
Seems To Be An Rtfm Problem.
MVM
join:2001-03-20
Ontario

4 edits

Kalford to lugnut

MVM

to lugnut
said by New Science Magazine - March 2036 :


New studies from Global Cooling Scientists have shown the most significant cause of the rapid Arctic ice melt from 1980-2015 was due to the shoddy methods of "climate science" researchers. In their overzealous attempts to play world saviours, they first caused irreparable damage as they broke up thinner ice sheets with their RVIB's, on their way to the research stations. Additional damage to our fragile historic glaciers was caused by the big-ass drills which they used to bore down into the 10's of thousands of years old crystalline structures. Dubious methods of mitigating damage by their over-abundant government funded activities resulted in massive hairlines fractures forming around and spreading out from the numerous core sample locations.

The deathknell tipping point was reached in 2008 when Russians conducted nuclear tests in the arctic sending out shockwave activity that resonated up through the fractures resulting in accelerated structural failure throughout the arctic region.

In 2012, glacier break-up saw an iceburg the size of Manhattan tearing off the Petermann glacier. Post Break-off studies traced the origin of the critical fracture back to an old core sampling site on Petermann. It was found that tipping point for structural failure came about when seismic activity from a 2010 earthquake in Baffin Bay rippled across the Petermann glacier.

The IPCC World Government is now looking the feasibility of replicating the primitive methods used at the turn of the century, under controlled conditions, as a way to help to mitigate the global cooling threat now facing the world.


Robert4
Premium Member
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL

Robert4 to vue666

Premium Member

to vue666
Bahahahaha, I love that your own comment helps my argument.

Cheers ken, keep on living the dream.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to Wolfie00

Premium Member

to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

One of your less lucid comments and I'm not even sure what it means.

I'll take that as a compliment. We've been burning fossil fuels. This is putting more CO2 into the air than prehistoric man did. I thought that was absurdly obvious. And thus a graph showing, that we were in fact, doing so, was restating the again, absurdly obvious. I'm not "surprised" that we're changing the planet. How bad is this? Guess we'll see. As you know, I think we should have our impact as small as possible for a variety of reasons.

One of the theories of detecting extra-terrestrial intelligent life from light years away is tell-tale atmospheric gases that only a technological society could produce. Obviously CO2 not one of those, but it's certainly assumed that a technological society will have some detritus here and there.
said by Wolfie00:

said by Ian1:

We're all well aware that the results of a modern technological society have no earlier precedent on the planet.

The point is the rapid transfer into the atmosphere of very ancient and essentially permanent carbon stores that have been locked away for hundreds of millions of years, and suddenly re-introducing them into the planet's active carbon cycle at the rate of some 30 billion metric tons per year. Which is a terrific strategy if the plan is to recreate the climate of the Mesozoic, and to do so with all the careful diligence of performing brain surgery with a sledgehammer.

Spiffy. Again, I'm not surprised that some think it's a bad idea. I do too. I'm sure you're doing your part, by cycling a stationary bike to power your PC, walking or cycling everywhere, and sharing a 3-room energy efficient apartment, rather than an inefficiently heated, wasteful detached house....in Canada.
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned) to lugnut

Member

to lugnut
Another positive is Ice Road Truckers maybe pulled from History Television?

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
Terrific. Let me see if I can summarize. You're not surprised that since the beginning of industrialization, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has taken off straight up like a skyrocket. From a pre-industrial level, I might add, that was precisely where it has always been in an interglacial every single time in the last million years -- and is now so highly elevated that it actually represents the historic differential between an ice age and an interglacial.

And you're not surprised that this is the inevitable result of releasing into the atmosphere long-term carbon deposits that have been safely locked in for hundreds of millions of years, mostly since the Mesozoic. And which have not only hugely elevated the CO2 in the atmosphere, but are now beginning to saturate the earth's active carbon sinks, like the oceans.

Then maybe this won't surprise you either. Or this. Perhaps you won't even be surprised by this, whose title is appropriately ironic in this context: "Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises."

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

said by Wolfie00:

Terrific. Let me see if I can summarize. You're not surprised that since the beginning of industrialization, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has taken off straight up like a skyrocket. From a pre-industrial level, I might add, that was precisely where it has always been in an interglacial every single time in the last million years -- and is now so highly elevated that it actually represents the historic differential between an ice age and an interglacial.

Nope. I have an awareness of how much oil, coal and gas has been burned, and know that the combustion products have to go someplace.

If I put a stopper in the sink, and turn on the faucet, I have a similar lack of "surprise" when the water level fills up. If you'll forgive the immodesty, I guess I must be some kind of "genius".
said by Wolfie00:

Then maybe this won't surprise you either. Or this. Perhaps you won't even be surprised by this, whose title is appropriately ironic in this context: "Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises."

You're correct. Not surprised at all that you would cut and paste things from the IPCC and NAP for some unknown reason. Perhaps the reason would surprise me?

From the last..... "The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected."

errr.... OK

"Agreement between proxy and instrumental records and between different proxy records lends confidence to paleoclimatic reconstructions and allows scientists to be very confident that abrupt climate change is a real, recurrent phenomenon."

So abrupt climate change happened in the past (before a significant anthropogenic influence is the unsaid, obvious inference), and can therefore happen in the future. Check. I'll get right on that.

"Furthermore, the paleoclimatic record demonstrates that the most dramatic shifts in climate have occurred when factors controlling the climate system were changing."

So dramatic shifts occurred when there were reasons for it, i.e. something to cause them. I hope the taxpayers who paid for this load of bullshit don't get wind of it.

and so on and so forth....

If you've been looking for a new drinking game, try Wolfie00 See Profile's third link and take one every time you come across a stupidly obvious statement. It will be a short game before an alcohol induced coma.

So what is it they were after?

Recommendation 1 :"Give us more money to look at it." And fair enough. They've already said they don't know, so that's not unreasonable on the face of it.

Recommendation 2 : "Make better climate models." Sure. Why not? See above.

Recommendation 3 : "Improve statistical approaches." Given that the statistical approaches within the climate science community have been ham-handed at best, also on board with that one.

Oddly lacking was a recommendation to "burn less oil". *shrug* Afraid to kill the goose laying the golden egg? Don't want the reason for all the new research funding and new 'puters to go away abruptly?

worstest
@videotron.ca

worstest to vue666

Anon

to vue666
said by vue666:

Another positive is Ice Road Truckers maybe pulled from History Television?

Is that the worse show on TV or what?

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00 to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
"NAP" is the publication arm of the US National Academies, which includes the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council. I take it from your comment that the publications of the National Academy of Sciences, just like those of the IPCC which are drawn from a wide range of peer-reviewed literature, must be dismissed if you personally don't like them. Apparently we should just stick with "reputable" sources like the denialist website of a former TV weatherman and make vapid analogies with your kitchen sink. That's cool with me. Not very realistic perhaps, or aligned with reality, but what can I do.

The scenario around abrupt climate change can be summarized fairly simply. Abrupt, non-linear transitions are fundamentally how the earth's climate system works, period. That is so well established in paleoclimatology that it's become incontrovertible. We don't (yet) know what the thresholds are in the current scenario. That's it, for better or worse. Actionable at this time? No, but dismissing it as irrelevant seems less than rational or wise.

It's merely an additional issue that compounds the problem. The impacts of climate change summarized in the first two publications I linked are a good summary of the extensive current state of knowledge and are based on predictable continuous effects of GHG forcings and known feedbacks. The possibility of abrupt discontinuous changes on top of those impacts is an ever-present additional threat.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

1 recommendation

Ian1

Premium Member

said by Wolfie00:

I take it from your comment that the publications of the National Academy of Sciences, just like those of the IPCC which are drawn from a wide range of peer-reviewed literature, must be dismissed if you personally don't like them.

Did I dismiss or say I didn't like them? No. My criticism was based on the work in question being remarkably generic in tone, often stating the obvious.
said by Wolfie00:

Actionable at this time? No, but dismissing it as irrelevant seems less than rational or wise.

Also not dismissed. In fact I said "got it". The earth's climate may change abruptly at any time. Yep. Good to know. Still not much I can do about it beyond worrying, which isn't particularly helpful. Although some seem to think enough worry and hand-wringing are worth brownie-points of some kind or or what-not. Enough and some cereal box tops and you get a junior eco-warrior decoder ring or something.
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

booj

Member

said by Ian1:

said by Wolfie00:

I take it from your comment that the publications of the National Academy of Sciences, just like those of the IPCC which are drawn from a wide range of peer-reviewed literature, must be dismissed if you personally don't like them.

Did I dismiss or say I didn't like them? No. My criticism was based on the work in question being remarkably generic in tone, often stating the obvious.

You vapidly dismissed the entire sum of their research findings because some of their statements are obvious. Wolfie's right to call you out on it. I know you don't lose much sleep when you are dead wrong on an issue, but it deserves to be pointed out.
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned)

Member

Why is it right?

They have differing opinions on this topic...however if we go by your logic then anyone who disagrees with you should be allowed to call you out on it... and you them...

AND then this thread will simply spin out of control and perhaps result in name calling, insults and intimidation/embarrassment posts...

Would it not be better to simply acknowledge and respect the fact people have differing opinions on this topic? And would it not be better to debate these differences?

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to booj

Premium Member

to booj
said by booj:

You vapidly dismissed the entire sum of their research findings ..

Nope. Not here, or ever. Do I misremember you saying that you worked in some kind of technical field?

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

said by booj:

You vapidly dismissed the entire sum of their research findings ..

Nope. Not here, or ever.

I could have sworn I saw nothing but a litany of dismissals in your reply. Maybe I misinterpreted it -- tell me, what exactly does "I hope the taxpayers who paid for this load of bullshit don't get wind of it" mean?
Wolfie00

Wolfie00 to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
To relate this to the other discussion in the Epic Thread on this subject, one of the very few things that we can agree on, at least in principle, is that we should be reducing GHG emissions and mitigating climate change, and your complaint there is, why aren't we doing anything? Hence the relevance of this:
said by Ian1:

Although some seem to think enough worry and hand-wringing are worth brownie-points of some kind or or what-not.

It's not the "worry and hang-wringing" that is the objective of those who translate the science into terms that can inform the public. The objective is to get our politicians on side with it, by helping to educate the public. And the constant agenda-driven undermining of the science is directly and intentionally obstructive to that goal. And, sad to say, you participate in that far too often. For instance, right in that same post:
said by Ian1:

Given that the statistical approaches within the climate science community have been ham-handed at best...

What is the point of that incorrect and grossly misleading generalization? I mean really, think about it -- as extensively discussed in that thread in almost painful detail, it is (a) completely untrue, and (b) wouldn't make the slightest damn bit of difference even if it WAS true, because the end results of the particular methodologies in question remain the same and are now universally accepted. So what the hell is the point of bringing it up, except to try to undermine the science in the public perception?

You claim that you believe that continuing the present rate of emissions is a "bad idea", yet you constantly try to undermine all the evidentiary basis for it. In an area that the public incorrectly perceives as "controversial", that is a public disservice.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to Wolfie00

Premium Member

to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

said by Ian1:

said by booj:

You vapidly dismissed the entire sum of their research findings ..

Nope. Not here, or ever.

I could have sworn I saw nothing but a litany of dismissals in your reply. Maybe I misinterpreted it -- tell me, what exactly does "I hope the taxpayers who paid for this load of bullshit don't get wind of it" mean?

In proximity to a quoted sentence of taxpayer funded bullshit? I give you three guesses. That's not the same of dismissing the "entire sum" of a group of scientists' research efforts, and you know that. Or I would hope so.....

I looked, but couldn't actually tell who wrote the report. It's attributed to various committees. That would be a logical place to start in reviewing the "entire sum" if I were interested in doing so. I'm not.
Ian1

Ian1 to Wolfie00

Premium Member

to Wolfie00
said by Wolfie00:

It's not the "worry and hang-wringing" that is the objective of those who translate the science into terms that can inform the public. The objective is to get our politicians on side with it, by helping to educate the public. And the constant agenda-driven undermining of the science is directly and intentionally obstructive to that goal.

Does the fossil fuel industry have an interest in protecting their business, and would they engage in manipulation and such to do so? Sure. Never denied that. I'm not surprised when businesses do so, by whatever means. Doesn't make it right. It's just the way things are. Similarly, there is exaggeration, and misinformation coming from sectors in the global warming lobby. The reasons range from the purely financial (i.e. alternative energy schemes and 3rd world nations) to the political, but only the truly naive think that there is no undue influence from that quarter as well.

So, the task is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to indeed influence people and policy. I'm fine with that, depending on what those policies are, and the costs, etc.
said by Wolfie00:

You claim that you believe that continuing the present rate of emissions is a "bad idea", yet you constantly try to undermine all the evidentiary basis for it. In an area that the public incorrectly perceives as "controversial", that is a public disservice.

No. I don't. That's you mis characterizing my position, and quite often, indeed my words. I'm selective in what I criticise and what I believe. I don't believe "any damned thing the IPCC trots out" sure. But I also don't disbelieve everything either.

Take for example, Climategate and the Michael Mann shenanigans. To you, this was me "attacking scientists". To me, the opposite. I believe such things did far more harm to the legitimate cause of actual CO2 reduction or mitigation efforts as Exxon Mobil has ever done, or will ever do. Why? Because it's like politics. It's not the people at the extremes of the distribution that are important, it's the ones somewhere in the middle. And it's a lot in the middle that were soured on the CRU, IPCC, and other institutions. So that when they DO publish some sound work (and they do), the initial skepticism will be at a (rightfully) elevated level.

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

Take for example, Climategate and the Michael Mann shenanigans. To you, this was me "attacking scientists".

What shenanigans?

This is an excellent example of just what I meant. We're not going to repeat here the very extensive discussion from the Epic Thread, but let me quickly summarize. It's obvious now that Mann's main offense was to be the first to publish evidence of the reality and the extent of anthropogenic global warming that was of such stunning clarity even to the average non-technical reader that the denialists had no option but to attack him. Since the underlying science was necessarily complex, there was no lack of opportunity to trump up all kinds of reasons why his results were allegedly wrong.

Unfortunately for denialists, it's now clear that his results were not wrong. As usual, it's the denialists who were wrong. It's now more than a decade later and his results have been replicated by many others and remain among the most important and widely cited temperature reconstructions, while Mann himself has risen to the stature of one of the preeminent scientists in his field. And his chief critic, Steve McIntyre, a rank amateur who by his own admission was just a hobbyist dabbling in climate science because he was opposed to Canada participating in Kyoto, and who tried to make a career out of attacking Mann, is now pretty much in disrepute. I can tell you first-hand that no serious climate scientist pays any attention to him any more -- he mainly runs his disreputable website, continues to make fatuous claims, and has a hard time getting published in anything outside vanity journals.

So while it's wonderful to be appropriately selective in what one reads and accepts, that fact is that "attacking scientists" is precisely what you were doing, with essentially zero justification, and the problem with "being selective" is that you're selective with an extreme bias that seems unable to distinguish good science from bad. Which is why, when the rubber hit the road and we've delved into the facts, you've never been able to substantiate your attacks against Mann. I refer you once again to my current sig.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

said by Wolfie00:

said by Ian1:

Take for example, Climategate and the Michael Mann shenanigans. To you, this was me "attacking scientists".

What shenanigans?

This is an excellent example of just what I meant. We're not going to repeat here the very extensive discussion from the Epic Thread, but let me quickly summarize. It's obvious now that Mann's main offense was to be the first to publish evidence of the reality and the extent of anthropogenic global warming that was of such stunning clarity even to the average non-technical reader that the denialists had no option but to attack him. Since the underlying science was necessarily complex, there was no lack of opportunity to trump up all kinds of reasons why his results were allegedly wrong.

Unfortunately for denialists, it's now clear that his results were not wrong. As usual, it's the denialists who were wrong. It's now more than a decade later and his results have been replicated by many others and remain among the most important and widely cited temperature reconstructions, while Mann himself has risen to the stature of one of the preeminent scientists in his field. And his chief critic, Steve McIntyre, a rank amateur who by his own admission was just a hobbyist dabbling in climate science because he was opposed to Canada participating in Kyoto, and who tried to make a career out of attacking Mann, is now pretty much in disrepute. I can tell you first-hand that no serious climate scientist pays any attention to him any more -- he mainly runs his disreputable website, continues to make fatuous claims, and has a hard time getting published in anything outside vanity journals.

So while it's wonderful to be appropriately selective in what one reads and accepts, that fact is that "attacking scientists" is precisely what you were doing, with essentially zero justification, and the problem with "being selective" is that you're selective with an extreme bias that seems unable to distinguish good science from bad. Which is why, when the rubber hit the road and we've delved into the facts, you've never been able to substantiate your attacks against Mann. I refer you once again to my current sig.

I was mainly referring to his complicity in e-mail destruction and "hide the decline" in omitting inconvenient tree-ring data. And I know you disagree. Apparently you're entitled to your own set of facts...

Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium Member
join:2005-03-12

Wolfie00

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

I was mainly referring to his complicity in e-mail destruction and "hide the decline" in omitting inconvenient tree-ring data. And I know you disagree. Apparently you're entitled to your own set of facts...

More excuses and falsehoods. That certainly wasn't the main thrust of your very long -- and ultimately futile -- arguments about Mann in the other thread, which tried to allege that his conclusions were basically questionable. Good to see that you've given up trying to peddle that nonsense.

Next, the tree-ring data. Also discussed at length before, also shown to be routine science, and despite your claims that the IPCC dropped the late-20th-century tree-ring proxies "without explanation", I in fact showed you where they devoted several detailed paragraphs -- in both the 2001 TAR and the 2007 AR4 -- explaining how and why the different proxies were used. This is routine science in merging temperature records from different sources and ONLY became an issue when scientific illiterates started going through the stolen emails and thought they had "found something" just because they didn't understand it. I explained this at length until you gave up and decided you didn't want to talk about it. Let's keep it that way, OK?

Finally, the alleged "email destruction." The kind of nonsense that I don't pay a lot of attention to, but this was one of the allegations that the Penn State inquiry looked into so I can just quote from the final report. Specifically, the Final investigation report of the Penn State Investigatory Committee, composed of a number of distinguished outside members as well as Penn State academics and officers, issued June 4, 2010:
quote:
On January 15, 2010, Dr. Foley conveyed via email on behalf of the Inquiry Committee an additional request to Dr. Mann. Dr. Mann was asked to produce all emails related to the fourth IPCC report ("AR4"), the same emails that Dr. Phil Jones had suggested that he delete. On January 18, 2010, Dr. Mann provided a zip-archive of these emails and an explanation of their content. In addition, Dr. Mann provided a ten page supplemental written response to the matters discussed during his interview.

On January 26, 2010 ... the Inquiry Committee found as follows ...

"Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal, or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?"

Decision: The Inquiry Committee determined there was no substance to this allegation and further investigation of this allegation was not warranted.

Amazing, eh? He's accused of nefariously deleting secret incriminating emails, and there they are in a goddam ZIP file, provided to the committee complete with a handy guide explaining what they're about -- why, it's almost as if Michael Mann had been an ordinary scientist of the non-evil kind with no monsters in his basement and the whole allegation had been a smear tactic by an assortment of denialist lunatics!

BTW, the Committee of Inquiry, and the secondary Investigative Committee on scientific practices, cleared Mann of all other allegations, without exception, as did the two other committees that were convened overseas to look at the similarly bogus allegations against the UEA Climate Research Unit.

I hope we're done with this crap once and for all.