Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Pseudoskeptics Are Not Skeptics

 

Genuine scientific skepticism is not just the unmoving rejection of evolution or climate change by fake skeptics, called pseudoskeptics.  The real thing avoids premature conclusions, recognizes uncertainty, motivates searches for good data and causes real skeptics to change their minds,  as put succinctly by John Maynard Keynes:

“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?â€

 

http://desmogblog.com/2014/04/18/pseudoskeptics-are-not-skeptics

[Devonian]

Hi Stef

Nope, I don't understand. Is your post coded? Edited April 18, 2014 by Devonian

[Nick L]

I wonder what the "AGW sceptic" explanation is for the Antarctic sea ice increases? Seeing as most already believe they have a better handle of the climate than the climate scientists!

 

The processes in the Southern Ocean are markedly different from those in the Arctic Ocean which is the primary reason for ice growth I believe, despite the fact the Southern Ocean has shown strong temperature increases - as well as the air temperature in that region. Here's one study on it, it's a bit of a beast so I'll paste the abstract:

 

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

 

 

Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from

1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and

the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea

ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an

increase of 0.20 1012m3 yr1 (1.0% yr1) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 1012m2 yr1 (0.6%

yr1) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 1012

m2 yr1 (0.2% yr1) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface

air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature

and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity,

and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced

thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward

ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux

decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in

the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the

Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period

1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004.

 

Essentially, it's quite an ironic feedback effect that the warming temperatures are leading to a slow down in the processes that would otherwise melt the ice.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Nick L

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-61#entry2958275

 

 

I provided last year a number of occasions when Antarctic recorded record low  temperatures were recorded .,and remember when i say GLOBAL sea ice records continue being broken,I love the way some GW supports are saying more  Antarctic sea ice due to hole in the ozone layer then record sea ice due to fresh water melt  ,then GW causes the Polar Vortex to sit over the USA most the winter months,   , Most of USA experienced a very cold winter with recorded ice levels across the great lakes,Amazing stuff this CO2 record warmth record cold !considering it"such a tiny amounts of CO2 in the Earth atmosphere.But one thing stands out more than anything there insistence on more Tornado activity , Tornado activity last season was at record low levels,Increased hurricanes should have happened last year they say due to increased sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico,the facts are last year Hurricane recorded activity was one of the most least stormy seasons ever recorded.

 

I'm only going to reply to this, as the "a tiny amounts of CO2" is too ludicrous to bother with and only reinforces my view you are just trolling, You obviously know your statement regarding the US not to be true so I can only speculate on your motives for stating such. Overall the US winter was the 33rd coldest since 1895, (excluding Alaska) and just one or two regions were very cold. Not most of the USA.

Edited April 19, 2014 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

An interesting piece by Tamino on trends.  Non-Linear Trendshttp://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/non-linear-trends/

Interesting piece.Glad to see that the 'linear trend is *not* representative of the climate' idea is starting to gain traction. Of course the climate is the background behaviour and not the noise. A nice snub inside there to those who continue to post warm records as if it actually *means* anything else apart from a higher level of a starting background. The converse is also, true, too. The lack of cool records doesn't mean anything apart from the higher background level to start with.Just seen Knocker's post - I mean global temperature and not local/continental effects - so this isn't a comment on your post Knocker! Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle

[Devonian]

The processes in the Southern Ocean are markedly different from those in the Arctic Ocean which is the primary reason for ice growth I believe, despite the fact the Southern Ocean has shown strong temperature increases - as well as the air temperature in that region. Here's one study on it, it's a bit of a beast so I'll paste the abstract:

 

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

 

 

Essentially, it's quite an ironic feedback effect that the warming temperatures are leading to a slow down in the processes that would otherwise melt the ice.

 

Yes absolutely, that's what I, we think, understand, the science is finding but what is the 'sceptic' answer?

 

Why is Antarctic ice increasing and Arctic decreasing according to a 'sceptic' here? Keith, Jonboy, Stew?

Edited April 19, 2014 by Devonian

[Nick L]

Yes absolutely, that's what I, we think, understand, the science is finding but what is the 'sceptic' answer?

 

Why is Antarctic ice increasing and Arctic decreasing according to a 'sceptic' here? Keith, Jonboy, Stew?

 

It will probably be your stock sceptic answer: Lot's of rhetoric, not a lot of logic.

 

We actually looked at the impact of ocean currents on the Antarctic ice growth/loss in our oceanography module. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean really are peculiar places! The physics of the processes can take a little while to get your head around though.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Nick L

[stewfox]

Yes absolutely, that's what I, we think, understand, the science is finding but what is the 'sceptic' answer?

 

Why is Antarctic ice increasing and Arctic decreasing according to a 'sceptic' here? Keith, Jonboy, Stew?

 

The report although 10 years old is interesting and is of course a theory. Average ice extent (Antarctica)has gone up by about 1 million since that report, but of course could be 'explained'  by the report. At the end of the day know one really knows.

Edited April 19, 2014 by stewfox

[Nick L]

The report although 10 years old is interesting and is of course a theory. Average ice extent (Antarctica)has gone up by about 1 million since that report, but of course could be 'explained'  by the report. At the end of the day know one really knows.

 

It may be 10 years old but the science is sound.

[Devonian]

The report although 10 years old is interesting and is of course a theory. Average ice extent (Antarctica)has gone up by about 1 million since that report, but of course could be 'explained'  by the report. At the end of the day know one really knows.

You know enough to dismiss a human influence as per the IPCC. Though how that can be done when you also say we don't know you can explain...

[knocker]

It will probably be your stock sceptic answer: Lot's of rhetoric, not a lot of logic.

 

We actually looked at the impact of ocean currents on the Antarctic ice growth/loss in our oceanography module. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean really are peculiar places! The physics of the processes can take a little while to get your head around though.

 

Very true. There is a very good recent book on the subject, Climate Change in the Polar regions, John Turner and Gareth J. Marshall, CUP.

[stewfox]

You know enough to dismiss a human influence as per the IPCC. Though how that can be done when you also say we don't know you can explain...

 

I don't dismiss human influence , that would be a bit daft. Its not for the skeptics to give answers as to why global sea ice is increasing. I'm more in the wait and see camp I just don't buy into the alarmism. 

[knocker]

I don't dismiss human influence , that would be a bit daft. Its not for the skeptics to give answers as to why global sea ice is increasing. I'm more in the wait and see camp I just don't buy into the alarmism. 

 

Well that's debatable. If one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase, I would have thought it only reasonable for an alternative explanation to be proffered. Otherwise we are back to blanket denial and no further forward.

 

A true skeptic would be looking for answers. That's why scientists are the true skeptics.

Edited April 19, 2014 by knocker

[Nick L]

Well that's debatable. If one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase, I would have thought it only reasonable for an alternative explanation to be proffered. Otherwise we are back to blanket denial and no further forward.

 

A true skeptic would be looking for answers. That's why scientists are the true skeptics.

 

Exactly. I have no problem with people challenging the science, as long as they can put some substance into their argument. Unfortunately, there are far too many on this forum who adopt this blinkered, blanket denial and it's impossible to debate. I don't like to see myself in one particular camp, as a scientist I change my views based on the evidence. If the rest of the world adopted this viewpoint on a whole range of issues I think we would live in a far better place!

[VillagePlank]

Well that's debatable. If one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase, I would have thought it only reasonable for an alternative explanation to be proffered. Otherwise we are back to blanket denial and no further forward..

A non-sequitor. That you do not accept that gnomes live at the end of garden, proferring an explanation for Zeus living there instead, is simply nonsense (it does not follow), not science, not reasonable, and certainly not rational. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What is required, of course, is to provide reasonable explanation of *why* one might think something is not true. Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle

[stewfox]

Well that's debatable. If one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase, I would have thought it only reasonable for an alternative explanation to be proffered. Otherwise we are back to blanket denial and no further forward.

 

A true skeptic would be looking for answers. That's why scientists are the true skeptics.

 

Natural variation

 

Clearly if the increases becomes even more significant 1 or 2 SD's then one could look at explanations as to why.

[VillagePlank]

Natural variationClearly if the increases becomes even more significant 1 or 2 SD's then one could look at explanations as to why.

... and thus a reasonable hypothesis has been established. Can anyone show that this hypothesis is inaccurate to the 95% certainty level? Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

A non-sequitor. That you do not accept that gnomes live at the end of garden, proferring an explanation for Zeus living there instead, is simply nonsense (it does not follow), not science, not reasonable, and certainly not rational. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What is required, of course, is to provide reasonable explanation of *why* one might think something is not true.

 

I would have thought that implicit in my post. If "one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase", it's axiomatic that you have a reason. Or it should be.

 

Interesting if it is natural variation that is causing loss from the ice sheets and gains in sea ice at the same time. A little pondering required.

[stewfox]

I would have thought that implicit in my post. If "one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase", it's axiomatic that you have a reason. Or it should be.

 

Interesting if it is natural variation that is causing loss from the ice sheets and gains in sea ice at the same time. A little pondering required.

 

A study published in Nature shows that a lot of the ice gain due to increased snowfall is countered by an acceleration of ice-flow to the ocean.

 

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/archive/2012/more-ice-loss-through-snowfall-on-Antarctica

 

 

So the gain in sea ice could be due to a decrease the salinity on the  ocean surface (although how this effect the sea some 500 miles from the shore where new ice is created in the winter I find a little harder to understand)

 

However this could all be part of 'natural variation'. 

 

Time will tell

[VillagePlank]

I would have thought that implicit in my post. If "one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase", it's axiomatic that you have a reason. Or it should be.

 

Interesting if it is natural variation that is causing loss from the ice sheets and gains in sea ice at the same time. A little pondering required.

It's not quite what you said ...

If one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase, I would have thought it only reasonable for an alternative explanation to be proffered.

That is to say you said that one should have alternate reasoning - ie an alternate theory that shows why something is not true. This is not science. Science understanding only exists until one experiment falsifies it. If it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't science. Period. You do not need an alternate explanation to falsify an experiment. I do not have to invent a flying car to drive a car off a cliff to find out it won't fly.

An interesting question: can one falsify the CO₂ hypothesis? If so, how?

Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Being Easter I thought I'd pay a visit to the asylum. Well by proxy as I left it up to Hotwhopper.

 

The Pseudo-Science Coalition, Bible Science and Conspiracy Theories

Is it because of the Christian holiday - Easter time, that's brought out all the religious beliefs at WUWT?

Today there's an article (archived here) about how all the science according to the IPCC is wrong, but science according to the Old Testament is right.  The article is by a Tom Harris who is from the International Climate Science Coalition.  That's an organisation related to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.  It's chief science adviser is Bob Carter.  Bob's a retired scientist who has taken up climate science denial to supplement his superannuation.  He's paid by the Heartland Institute and is also prominent at the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian right wing lobby group.

 

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

[knocker]

It's not quite what you said ...

If one is going to question the theories mooted to date for the increase, I would have thought it only reasonable for an alternative explanation to be proffered.

That is to say you said that one should have alternate reasoning - ie an alternate theory that shows why something is not true. This is not science. Science understanding only exists until one experiment falsifies it. If it isn't falsifiable, then it isn't science. Period. You do not need an alternate explanation to falsify an experiment. I do not have to invent a flying car to drive a car off a cliff to find out it won't fly.

An interesting question: can one falsify the CO₂ hypothesis? If so, how?

 

I'm well aware that you do not need an alternate explanation to falsify an experiment but as far as I'm aware the published theories have as yet not been falsified. That being the case if people dismiss the theories without reason I think it reasonable, not demand as this seems to have been translated, to ask for an alternative.

[stewfox]

Being Easter I thought I'd pay a visit to the asylum. Well by proxy as I left it up to Hotwhopper.

 

The Pseudo-Science Coalition, Bible Science and Conspiracy Theories

Is it because of the Christian holiday - Easter time, that's brought out all the religious beliefs at WUWT?

Today there's an article (archived here) about how all the science according to the IPCC is wrong, but science according to the Old Testament is right.  The article is by a Tom Harris who is from the International Climate Science Coalition.  That's an organisation related to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.  It's chief science adviser is Bob Carter.  Bob's a retired scientist who has taken up climate science denial to supplement his superannuation.  He's paid by the Heartland Institute and is also prominent at the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian right wing lobby group.

 

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

 

I like this

""The latest IPCC reports demonstrate that many are following a strategy taught in law school: “if the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the facts are not on your side, pound the table.â€

The way I heard it is more apropos to the current situation: “If the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If all else fails, attack the plaintiff.’""

Not sure why being part of a ""Australian right wing lobby group"  should be relevant ?

Sorry mods perhaps for the skeptic thread

Edited April 19, 2014 by stewfox

[VillagePlank]

I'm well aware that you do not need an alternate explanation to falsify an experiment but as far as I'm aware the published theories have as yet not been falsified. That being the case if people dismiss the theories without reason I think it reasonable, not demand as this seems to have been translated, to ask for an alternative.

If people dismiss a theory without good reason, then that's for them; it has no place in science. It still is not encumbent upon them to come up with an alternate theory. Continuing my analogy, if I assert my car could fly, despite your protestations that the physical evidence is completely against it, would you then insist I destroy the car by driving off a cliff destroying myself in the process to satisfy your apparent need for an alternate hypothesis? Apart from being a Type I and Type II scientific error, it is unethical, immoral, and faulty reasoning par excellence.(It doesn't take a genius to think car=Earth, me=humankind) Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

Continuing on... since there is a massive consensus (the majority of humankind throughout the ages) in the existence of a deity, and there is no alternate theory that explains what we currently do not understand (by definition), do you therefore believe in a deity? Serious question.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Sparkicle