Sceptic Links Discussion

[Iceberg]

I will reply but am too busy atm.

[jethro]

HP, from all that I've read, it would appear that the direct correlation between AGW and retreating ice is far from clear. The AGW stance is, I understand, a definate, the polar ice caps are melting, sea levels will rise due to warming. There are alternative views that the natural variations like the PDO, Arctic oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation have more of an impact than anything else. These have been shown to be cylical in nature, with both positive and negative dominant phases. Also the perturbation cycle of El Nino/La Nina are thought to effect ice extent too. Here are a few links for you to read and decide for yourself.

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

http://mediasfrance.org/Reseau/Lettre/13/en/nao.pdf

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-ao.shtml

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...-ice-expansion/

[Devonian]

I am not a scientist so I simple ask whether the following article is right or wrong? Other reading seems to suggest that the IPCC were very selective in the Ice data they chose to include in their report. Please don't have a go at me or just discredit the sources as part of my learning process I would like to the Pro response?

I wish people would please link not 'cutnpaste' or at least if they cut and paste then please give a link. There is no context to your cutnpaste, no source, nothing :unsure:

[Admiral_Bobski]

I wish people would please link not 'cutnpaste' or at least if they cut and paste then please give a link. There is no context to your cutnpaste, no source, nothing :unsure:

But is it right or wrong?

CB

[Devonian]

But is it right or wrong?

CB

Dunno, it's like asking me to look at part of a picture (not knowing how big a part it is) and then sum it up.

But, from what I see it rather typical of the kind of cherry picked refs and dismissive wording you get in these kinds of things. Note, not a single ref to the IPCC. I mean, you don't think everything the IPCC say about ice is wrong do you, CB? Everything?

Edited June 26, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Dunno, it's like asking me to look at part of a picture (not knowing how big a part it is) and then sum it up.

But, from what I see it rather typical of the kind of cherry picked refs and dismissive wording you get in these kinds of things. Note, not a single ref to the IPCC. I mean, you don't think everything the IPCC say about ice is wrong do you, CB? Everything?

Why should there be any reference to the IPCC? I'm sure I've had it pointed out to me in the past that the IPCC don't do any science themselves, but just collate the information from previous scientific papers. Why not cut out the middleman and refer directly to the papers themselves?

By doing some digging I have managed to find where the article is from - the article as presented by HP has been trimmed slightly at the beginning and end to remove irrelevancies (EDIT - that is to say parts of the article with no reference to that which has been presented), but the text is self-contextual - that is to say that there is nothing in it that can be misinterpreted due to omitted context.

So...

Is the article right or wrong?

CB

Edited June 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Ok, I've done the search I think it's from a internet political magazine call 'Free republic'.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635077/posts

Frankly for science I'd much rather go to the Met O. at Exeter.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Ok, I've done the search I think it's from a internet political magazine call 'Free republic'.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635077/posts

Wrong!

They just quoted the article.

CB

(EDIT - It's actually from a different political magazine!)

(EDIT #2 - Ironically, there's a link to the original article at the very top of the page you found...)

Edited June 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Why should there be any reference to the IPCC? I'm sure I've had it pointed out to me in the past that the IPCC don't do any science themselves, but just collate the information from previous scientific papers.

Right. So why wouldn't they refer to that collated science? Why are the four letters 'IPCC' unsayable let alone unlinkable?

Why not cut out the middleman and refer directly to the papers themselves?

Or why not ref to the IPCC so people can read the collated information and make their own minds up?

By doing some digging I have managed to find where the article is from - the article as presented by HP has been trimmed slightly at the beginning and end to remove irrelevancies (EDIT - that is to say parts of the article with no reference to that which has been presented), but the text is self-contextual - that is to say that there is nothing in it that can be misinterpreted due to omitted context.

Yes, I've done this.

So...

Is the article right or wrong?

CB

It's as I say selective in order to make a case. But, you wont believe me when I say that will you?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Right. So why wouldn't they refer to that collated science? Why are the four letters 'IPCC' unsayable let alone unlinkable?

Why refer to the whole report, or even a page in the midst of hundreds of others, when one can refer to the specific relevant article?

Or why not ref to the IPCC so people can read the collated information and make their own minds up?

Why not refer to the original paper so others can make their minds up, rather than giving them the opportunity to avoid having to make their own minds up by just reading the IPCC's conclusions?

Yes, I've done this.

Well done.

It's as I say selective in order to make a case. But, you wont believe me when I say that will you?

The same could demonstrably be said for the IPCC reports.

So....

Is the article right or wrong?

CB

PS - So you found the article in National Review Online then...

[jethro]

Right. So why wouldn't they refer to that collated science? Why are the four letters 'IPCC' unsayable let alone unlinkable?

Or why not ref to the IPCC so people can read the collated information and make their own minds up?

Yes, I've done this.

It's as I say selective in order to make a case. But, you wont believe me when I say that will you?

Leaving the debate of the IPCC to one side for a minute; I don't understand what you mean from them being selective. I may be having a thicko moment here but can you tell me what they have omitted/added in order to make their case?

[Devonian]

Right. So why wouldn't they refer to that collated science? Why are the four letters 'IPCC' unsayable let alone unlinkable?

Or why not ref to the IPCC so people can read the collated information and make their own minds up?

Yes, I've done this.

It's as I say selective in order to make a case. But, you wont believe me when I say that will you?

I really think, having checked, that chapter 4 of the most recent IPCC report is the place to start when looking for information about ice, snow, permafrost.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I really think, having checked, that chapter 4 of the most recent IPCC report is the place to start when looking for information about ice, snow, permafrost.

But is the article right or wrong?

CB

[Devonian]

Leaving the debate of the IPCC to one side for a minute; I don't understand what you mean from them being selective. I may be having a thicko moment here but can you tell me what they have omitted/added in order to make their case?

I just think for a better overview we need to read the IPCC chapter I've just linked too. For a start it's more up to date.

[jethro]

I really think, having checked, that chapter 4 of the most recent IPCC report is the place to start when looking for information about ice, snow, permafrost.

To be honest Dev the IPCC report is proving to be so contentious on here I'd rather draw references from the original papers, that way I know I'm reading the scientific data that hasn't been subjected to anyones' interpretation. I haven't digested a great deal on this subject, from reading your posts re: the information is cherry picked in order to make their case, I assume from that, that you have. Can you please tell me what they have cherry picked or avoided in order to validate their case?

[Devonian]

But is the article right or wrong?

CB

CB, it is as I said selective, neither right nor wrong, selective. Even in 2007 I could (if I were lucky enough) film huge swathes of pristine rainforest and say 'what's the problem' - some might even believe me. I wouldn't be wrong, or right just selective.

Again, for more up to date science read the chapter of the AR4 I've linked to. It really is much better.

To be honest Dev the IPCC report is proving to be so contentious on here I'd rather draw references from the original papers, that way I know I'm reading the scientific data that hasn't been subjected to anyones' interpretation.

This is the knub - trust. I'd rather trust the IPCC than National Review. I go to the IPCC for my science, not a politcal magazine. Others clear wouldn't. ATM this is clearly an unbridgable gap.

I haven't digested a great deal on this subject, from reading your posts re: the information is cherry picked in order to make their case, I assume from that, that you have. Can you please tell me what they have cherry picked or avoided in order to validate their case?

Don't assume, I just don't automatically mistrust what the IPCC put out, for the reason above.

So, and sorry, read the IPCC report for it all.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

CB, it is as I said selective, neither right nor wrong, selective. Even in 2007 I could (if I were lucky enough) film huge swathes of pristine rainforest and say 'what's the problem' - some might even believe me. I wouldn't be wrong, or right just selective.

Again, for more up to date science read the chapter of the AR4 I've linked to. It really is much better.

This is the knub - trust. I'd rather trust the IPCC than National Review. I go to the IPCC for my science, not a politcal magazine. Others clear wouldn't. ATM this is clearly an unbridgable gap.

Yup, and sorry, but read the IPCC report for it all.

But it isn't a matter of trust, I thought we were supposed to be discussing the science. My reluctance to refer to anything other than the science papers is to try and breach this impasse that keeps recurring. I have read the IPCC report but to be honest it doesn't give me the answer. I thought from reading your posts you knew a great deal about this and could perhaps explain what you meant by "cherry picking". Any report is only a moment in time when referred to in the terms you used but it doesn't really apply here. If that context is applied, then by definition all reports are invalid surely? What have they missed out/cherry picked in order to make their case?

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, it is as I said selective, neither right nor wrong, selective. Even in 2007 I could (if I were lucky enough) film huge swathes of pristine rainforest and say 'what's the problem' - some might even believe me. I wouldn't be wrong, or right just selective.

Okay, it's time to bring up a Pertinent Point.

The whole point of this article, and other articles that skeptics have been linking to, is that...

...they don't agree with what the IPCC has said!

It's not (necessarily) that the scientists don't agree - it's that the actual science doesn't agree with the IPCC's conclusions.*

This being the case, and forgive me for being so brash, stuff the IPCC and their conclusions, let's look at the scientific papers!

And not just the "skeptical" papers!

ALL papers!

Even Those used by the IPCC!

So can you answer Jethro's question, since you have no intention of answering mine properly - what has been cherry-picked in the article, and what has been omitted?

CB

*With regards to the point above, here's an example of a fundamental contradiction (bold highlights for emphasis of relevant portions), and hence the point of the article:

IPCC:

Taken together, the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have very likely been contributing to sea

level rise over 1993 to 2003. Thickening in central regions of Greenland has been more than offset by increased melting near the coast.

Article:

Earlier this year, Eric Rignot and Pannir Kanagaratnam published a study in Science that used satellite measurements to calculate ice loss around Greenland’s coasts. They also used models to determine how much ice was vanishing from surface melt, and how much was accumulating from greater snowfall. Adding it all up, they got a decade of deficits: 91 cubic kilometers of ice lost in 1996, rising to 224 cubic kilometers in 2005. That translates to a sea-level rise of 0.23 millimeters in 1996 and 0.57 millimeters in 2005.

But, as the web publication CO2 Science has pointed out, their model-based estimate of the ice gain in Greenland’s interior was implausibly small.

[Devonian]

But it isn't a matter of trust, I thought we were supposed to be discussing the science. My reluctance to refer to anything other than the science papers is to try and breach this impasse that keeps recurring. I have read the IPCC report but to be honest it doesn't give me the answer. I thought from reading your posts you knew a great deal about this and could perhaps explain what you meant by "cherry picking". Any report is only a moment in time when referred to in the terms you used but it doesn't really apply here. If that context is applied, then by definition all reports are invalid surely? What have they missed out/cherry picked in order to make their case?

Cherry picked? Selected juicy morsals. But, we don't agree do we about that - oh well...

As ever, various people post various things. I started today replying to a large chunk of an article from National review.

Wrt CB and the IPCC, I like, now, to refer to IPCC 2007 AR4. Here's a view from it. Fact is it's difficult to say what's happening, differing estimates come forward, drawing a conclusion is difficult.

"Assessment of the data and techniques suggests a mass balance for the Greenland Ice Sheet ranging between growth of 25 Gt yr–1 and shrinkage of 60 Gt yr–1 for 1961 to 2003, shrinkage of 50 to 100 Gt yr–1 for 1993 to 2003 and shrinkage at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005. Lack of agreement between techniques and the small number of estimates preclude assignment of statistically rigorous error bounds. Interannual variability is very large, driven mainly by variability in summer melting, but also by sudden glacier accelerations (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006). Consequently, the short time interval covered by instrumental data is of concern in separating fluctuations from trends."

It might very well be the case that trends from 1993-2003 differ from more recent trends. Indeed it would be surprising if that were not the case!

[jethro]

HP: I know you also have an interest in the ozone layer and I have found this; it discusses the link between warm ENSO events and ozone depletion, it would appear the two are connected and linked to warmer cycles with stratospheric warming and greater ice depletion.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

www.eas.gatech.edu/research/Dickinson/Dennis_Hartmann.ppt -

[jethro]

Cherry picked? Selected juicy morsals. But, we don't agree do we about that - oh well...

How, in Gods' name can you say we don't agree from anything I have posted about this subject? I can neither agree nor disagree without knowing the cherry picked or selected juicy morsels you refer to? I've already said it's not a subject I know inside out, I have spent the morning asking YOU to tell me what is missing/included/excluded, in order to make an informed opinion. You stated it was cherry picked, not me, ergo you are the one with greater knowledge, yet when you are asked to share that knowledge in order to perhaps persuade a sceptic that you are right on this point, you continuously decline to venture an opinion in your own words. How can you discount yet another post/opinion/question without personally validating it? If all we are going to do is continuouosly refer back to the IPCC as being the holy edict on climate change then there will never be any meaningful debate and we may as well bow out and close these threads. I and others venture opinions, pose questions, in our own words, run the risk of looking a complete fool in order to learn more and understand. You however, shoot people down in flames yet never venture a personal opinion anywhere. How is this? Why is this? If I were HP, right now I'd be thinking for gods' sake, I wish I'd never asked, won't bother again. Answering sceptic questions by stifling debate is a hollow victory, if indeed it can be classed as such.

It might very well be the case that trends from 1993-2003 differ from more recent trends. Indeed it would be surprising if that were not the case!

A ten year timespan in any climate study is meaningless, AGW or sceptic.

Edited June 26, 2007 by jethro

[HighPressure]

HP: I know you also have an interest in the ozone layer and I have found this; it discusses the link between warm ENSO events and ozone depletion, it would appear the two are connected and linked to warmer cycles with stratospheric warming and greater ice depletion.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

www.eas.gatech.edu/research/Dickinson/Dennis_Hartmann.ppt -

Thanks for your links Jethro, I am on the case and will be back

Ps: Could you do that Ozone link again as it don't work thx!

Edited June 26, 2007 by HighPressure

[Admiral_Bobski]

As ever, various people post various things. I started today replying to a large chunk of an article from National review.

Where is that reply?

CB

[jethro]

Thanks for your links Jethro, I am on the case and will be back

Ps: Could you do that Ozone link again as it don't work thx!

Sorry HP, I can't get the link to work either; if you cut and paste it into Google the article comes up. Hope this helps.

D

[Iceberg]

Blimey this thread is moving in 20 different directions at the same time.

As to Antarctica, ice gain and temperature.

Why does it matter that Antarctica is cooling slightly ?, if indeed it is, the number of sites on antarctica where temp is measured is minimal (certainly concerning it's size), and the instrumentation tends not to last very long (in the south pole winter) all these sites are non manned and fully automated.

I think we've been through this before and my belief is that lack of ozone encourages a colder stratospheric condition and hence increase the south polar vortex, which in turn keeps the cold in, the greater temp gradient with the warmer SST's will also encourage a more active SPV.

On to Greenland Grace Gravity measurements have indicated a larger than expected net loss of ice over Greenland.

Mr Micheals might not believe this, but thats his problem.

I wanted to look up the gas bubble contamination of C02 results but still haven't had chance.

Yes of course PDO, NAO AO etc, etc effect ice in the N.Hemp. But all these cycles have been in place over the last 20 years but the ice retreat has been pretty much one way.

For your Info the GM's do take these cycles into account and predict a slight growing in the ice coverage around 2015 or so. for some reason Sceptics seem to think that anybody that support AGW theory doesn't believe in natural cycles and this couldn't be further from the truth.

Anybody got a link to the Petr Chylek Peer Reviewed or publically released paper. ?.