dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
32
share rss forum feed


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to booj

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

said by booj:

Great insight there Vue. Records are a matter of record, everyone knows they don't go back indefinitely.

More involved article here.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201···eat.html

They are mainly referring to satellite data, which actually only goes back a few decades. And while everyone knows they only go back a certain degree, caution needs to be exercised about "freaking out" over modern changes. Indicative of mankind induced global warming? Sure. Sounds plausible to me. Again not necessarily reason to suddenly panic.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

said by Ian:

suddenly panic.

OH MY GOD HOW DO WE REPACK THIS ICE!?

Is there any way we can build giant freezers and ship them to the arctic to re-freeze the ice?


Kalford
Seems To Be An Rtfm Problem.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-20
Ontario
kudos:1

said by urbanriot:

said by Ian:

suddenly panic.

OH MY GOD HOW DO WE REPACK THIS ICE!?

Is there any way we can build solar powered giant freezers and ship them to the arctic to re-freeze the ice?

now you can get a research grant to find out.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Ian

I don't think the words "panic" or "freaking out" appeared anywhere until you brought them up. The article says what it says, which is that Arctic ice is melting faster than models were projecting, and we are closer than we thought to the Arctic being completely free of summer sea ice. Since the Arctic is subject to strong feedbacks as the ice cover recedes, it's both an important bellwether and direct influence on global climate change. It has the potential to affect local and global circulation changes and create weather systems that are both more extreme and more persistent than normal. In fact unstable weather is already increasingly becoming the new normal. And, although the most accurate observations of ice extent comes from satellite observations going back a little more than 30 years, we can reconstruct the Arctic temperature record going back thousands, just as we can with the global record.

said by Hydraglass:

His quote is regarding "climate change happened a LOT when humans weren't present - so what if it's happening while we are present - it's not unexpected that climate changes happen".

And while climate scaremongers say "oh it's happening ever so fast - we've never seen anything like it" - no one really knows exactly how fast all of the shifts like these happened before

The first sentence is simplisitic and basically meaningless, and the second one is not true. The resolution of past temperature records is sufficient to give us a good picture of how the climate has behaved in the past, what the major climate drivers have been, and the magnitude of their forcings. What is happening now is entirely unprecedented since long before the evolution of the human species. The last million years of climate has been dominated by regular glaciation cycles of roughly 100Ky duration with CO2 varying between a minimum of about 180 ppm to a maximum of around 280, and never more than 300 ppm, with climate systems tracking accordingly. These regular climate swings are the signature climate behaviour of the planet to which we and our ecosystem are adapted. That climate dynamic is gone forever. Not "under threat", or "vulnerable", but gone. CO2 levels are now almost 100 ppm higher than the maximum of any interglacial, and in fact higher than at any time in probably the past 15 million years when the earth was a completely different place, virtually an alien ecosystem in which no humans existed. Both of the attached charts show the historic variability of CO2 suddenly replaced by a vertical line going straight up representing the accumulated emissions of the post-industrial era, with no end in sight. Furthermore, CO2 is only part of the contributor to anthopogenic warming -- other causes are methane and other GHG emissions, land use changes, and other consequences of human activity. We're in uncharted waters, a new climate era sometimes called the Anthropocene (which means literally "the new era of man"). The temperature and the atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems are just beginning to respond. We are nowhere even close to equilibrium for this level of CO2, and the level is increasing by some 30 billion metric tonnes every year.

How we know this definitively, and where this will take us and what we should do about it, is another discussion entirely, a discussion which might go on somewhere -- just as a random guess -- for almost three years and 2,283 posts! Or you can read the IPCC Fourth Assessment reports, particularly Working Group 1 which covers the physical science, and there are many good papers available free from the US National Academy of Sciences.






--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

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.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

said by Ian:

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
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

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"?


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply 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!
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

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 Ian:

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 Ian:

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 Ian:

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.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

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 Ian:

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.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

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."
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

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?
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

"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.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

1 recommendation

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.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

said by Ian:

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
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

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?



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply 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?
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

said by Ian:

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
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Ian

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 Ian:

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 Ian:

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.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to Wolfie00

said by Wolfie00:

said by Ian:

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.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply 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.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

said by Ian:

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.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

said by Wolfie00:

said by Ian:

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...
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

said by Ian:

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.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

Wow I can see this thread is going in the same direction of a similar one in Canpol...

Wolfie, not everyone in the world is going to agree with your point of view. Get over it, move on...



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

1 recommendation

said by vue666:

Wow I can see this thread is going in the same direction of a similar one in Canpol...

Wolfie, not everyone in the world is going to agree with your point of view. Get over it, move on...

pot, meet kettle
--
It's one thing to listen to an idiot talk. As soon as you respond, there are now 2 idiots having a conversation.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to Wolfie00

said by Wolfie00:

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.

Nope. The so-called illiterates made it an issue because they did understand what was going on. And if they didn't understand it, e-mails circulating in the CRU release helped to explain it. Specific to one of the Spaghetti graphs was the deletion of proxy data post 1960 that went in the "wrong" direction. It wasn't that the tree-ring data was collected wrongly, it was just that they didn't like it. In fact, in the e-mails it was clear why they wanted it gone. Whatever pseudo-scientific reasons were stated as cover (and dubious in their own right) for deleting the data, the "why" was actually quite clear. Mann supported removing it because to not do so would give "fodder to the skeptics" (his exact scientific words) and would cast doubt on the reliability of the science of Paleoclimatology and tree-ring reconstructions in general. Yeah. Whups. Can't have that.

The way the data was handled, any science under-grad would know was wrong. Period. The end. Rationalizations are just that.
said by Wolfie00:

I explained this at length until you gave up and decided you didn't want to talk about it.

Uh huh. Or stopped trying. If I rate the probability of changing your own, well-made-up mind at zero, there's a limit (my boredom) to how much time I want to spend trying.

Parroting Michael Mann's climate blog is hardly "explaining something". You were convinced (apparently) of certain things, I was not. In other words, you were working with your "set of facts", I with mine.
said by Wolfie00:

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....

We know Mann did nothing wrong, because we asked him, and he said he didn't. Yes, the silly Penn State "Inquiry" has been discussed to death. Nothing to see here, please ignore the actual e-mail evidence to the contrary..... Penn State had no desire to find anything wrong, and therefore did not. Does it sound like "standard investigative practice" to you, to ask the accused to provide the zip file with all the "evidence"?

Perhaps I am indeed more scientifically literate than most, but I don't need Penn State, Michale Mann or Lord Oxburgh to sort through some e-mails and tell me what I ought to think about them. And by the way, criminal charges would have been filed in the UK had the statute of limitations not expired by the time of the email release.

said by Wolfie00:

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

We're probably not at all done with it, which was my point. Because collectively the climate science community elected to white-wash and ignore misdeeds within their community. We'll be seeing this sort of thing again....and again. And it will serve to continue to lower trust, and to damage proper policy objectives. If you're ok with that I'm beginning to wonder how firm your belief is that we actually ought to be doing something about it. Since protecting and rehabilitating personal scientific reputations seems to trump that.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

said by Ian:

Yeah. Whups. Can't have that.

The way the data was handled, any science under-grad would know was wrong. Period. The end. Rationalizations are just
that.

Whooptie fucking shit Ian. Splitting hairs over the what Mann's decision to include one subset of data amongst a sea of observations doesn't change Mann's results. Even this reconstruction you are fuming about holds up whether the data is included or not. You use this one blip in reasoning on Mann's part to discount ALL his work, and anyone who's ever cited him. You don't have the mathematical justification to do so, just your hurt feelings.

Mann made a mistake, his career's work is still valid even after his hacked emails were poured over by the finest of combs. Apparantly your feelings have been hurt and you can never trust Mann again, but the scientific community still trusts him, and for good reason. His math is sound.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

said by booj:

said by Ian:

Yeah. Whups. Can't have that.

The way the data was handled, any science under-grad would know was wrong. Period. The end. Rationalizations are just
that.

Whooptie fucking shit Ian. Splitting hairs over the what Mann's decision to include one subset of data amongst a sea of observations doesn't change Mann's results. Even this reconstruction you are fuming about holds up whether the data is included or not. You use this one blip in reasoning on Mann's part to discount ALL his work, and anyone who's ever cited him. You don't have the mathematical justification to do so, just your hurt feelings.

Ummmm what? Thanks for adding that. Clears a lot up.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Ian

I'm afraid that you've descended now to a level of polemic that's become completely devoid of facts, so I see this kind of winding down. For the record, the most fundamental issues here are not even particularly complex in principle.

News flash -- the divergence of some high-latitude tree-ring proxies from the instrumental temperature record has been known for more than 20 years, and typically called the "divergence" or the "decline" problem. It's equally well known from corroborating proxies that they're accurate throughout other periods, and they are valuable because of their detailed temporal resolution. So they're used, but we have to cut off certain high-latitude datasets after about the 1960's because it's bad data, period. The statistical methodologies are a bit more complex but that's essentially it. Science -- that is, the real world -- is full of anomalies and imperfections, and we deal with it through the appropriate transparent and peer-reviewed methodologies to make the best use of the information we have. The conspiratorial interpretation is sheer fabricated nonsense with no basis in fact. It's noise in the blogosphere, not science.

Of course to denialists, any anomaly of any kind represents a smoking-gun indictment of their delusions. Recall the example of Max Planck that I gave in the other thread -- that would be the one that you never responded to. If there had been denialists around questioning his methods, they could have had a field day. Science is often creative, but most of these "controversial" metholologies, like Mann's principal component analysis, are tame and boring in comparison.

As for Mann, I find it curious that the emails he was supposed to have "deleted" were there for all to see and examine. I guess you don't. The concept of "deleted" is not hard to understand. It means "no longer there". Mann's stature in the scientific community and the fact that his results are widely used and cited is explained, according to you, by some kind of ongoing crooked conspiracy in the entire scientific community. His vindication by a total now of half a dozen different committees is explained as a "whitewash" by the same conspirators. What a strange world you inhabit -- one where a lone blogger or two alone carries the burden of scientific truth!

said by Ian:

Perhaps I am indeed more scientifically literate than most

You are, but that seems to be unfortunately offset by an extraordinary gullibility with respect to certain Internet bloggers, perhaps exacerbated by the same lack of familiarity with the subject matter as the bloggers themselves. Some of us approach this with a better grounded sense of reality and a closer familiarity with the subject which, incidentally, we don't get from blogs. Curiously, every single argument you make can be found (usually verbatim) in the blog of Steve McIntyre, a quack who's become almost comically irrelevant. When it comes to evaluating the relative credibility of a few lone quacks versus the corroborated findings of the global scientific community, I'm afraid you're not on the winning side of the argument. I have two words for you: Occam's Razor.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan